>As far as an unwritten rule about not questioning sticks. Gilligan did
>state that there was a gentleman's agreement not to challenge sticks.
>Whether or not that is the case is obviously between the coaches who >view
themselves as gentleman.
 
What is a "gentleman's agreement"?  I get the impression that the only
thing an agreement of this sort does is serve as insurance against getting
caught violating rules.  Isn't easier to cheat if you know there's an
agreement that nobody will call you on it?
 
And coaches who choose not to enter into such an agreement are no less
"gentlemen" for it.  It would really be ungentlemanly to "violate" the
agreement while allowing your team to use illegal sticks.  Maybe someone
should call Schaefer on it and challenge a Cornell stick.
 
I think the UVM staff needs to get off it.  UVM did something wrong and
they got caught.  Learn something from it and move on.  It almost seems
like they're pissed because they were intentionally breaking the rule
because the oppossing coach isn't supposed to call them on it.
 
Is it just me or is the UVM staff being a bit too petty considering they
won the game?
 
Dominick Schirripa
Cornell '98
LET'S GO RED!!!!!!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.