Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:31:23 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
My idea on the following as Forwarded from HOCKEY-L:
Who will Shawn nominate to watch the opponents and find the player who
isn't using a mouthpiece in the third period in a crucial game?
One more weapon in the quiver....
>Sender: The College Hockey Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Jay Robert Kleven <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Mouthguards (last time for me)
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>The old mouthguard rule (Rule 3-4(c)) stated that mouthguards are mandatory,
>and that any violation be assessed a 10 min misconduct. The old rule is
>more severe than the new one, which allows a single warning to a team before
>assessing a 10 minute misconduct on the next and subsequent violations. The
>new rule is given more "teeth" by allowing the opposing team to challenge a
>player's compliance with the new rule. Challenging a mouthguard now uses
>the same procedure as challenging a stick. Allowing challenges will force
>the referee to be strict about calling mouthguard violations, or risk being
>forced to call it when a mouthguard is challenged. Most referees will
>prefer to make the call on their own and not have the players force the
>issue.
>
>I can't wait for the season to start. Perhaps we can generate more
>interesting dialogue.
>
>p.s. I feel Wisconsin may be a bit underrated.
>Jay, Miranda, and Norah Kleven
>
>***********************************
>Write Soon!
>**********************************
>
>HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
>[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
>
Dan Doucette
UMaine 78 MPA 80
*** Isn't it fitting someone named Garth Snow is playing for ***
*** a team in Canada ??? ***
Title IX for Women's Hockey Discussion -
When will someone sue for a Women's HOCKEY-L ?
|
|
|