>There is more to the story, of course. Seems like Cornell was going to
>challenge four more players sticks.
 
Wow, so that would mean that Cornell had the potential to go 8 for 8 on
illegal stick calls.
 
>To me, it appears as though the UVM coaches point of view is that Cornell
>>couldnt win the game without resorting to the rulebook.
 
That's rather interesting.  It seems to me that UVM put a game that was,
admittedly, theirs to win in jeopardy by flaunting the rules.
 
>Gilligan was quoted on his weekly appearence on Hockey Talk, a weekly
>local cable show about UVM hockey as stating that Cole used common sense
>in putting an end to the march of the measurements.
 
If Cole did put an end to the "march of measurements" he would not be doing
his job correctly.  The reputation of Mr. Cole that I've always heard is
that he does his job quite correctly, and the HE people often say, very
well.  I doubt that Cole put a stop to the measurements.  This and, in
reflection, the first statement up top seem to be hearsay.
 
>Bottom line, UVM did have at least one player using a stick that was not
>in compliance. The penalty was called. A second player was called for
>using a stick that was not able to be measured as it was smashed prior to
>confiscation.
 
Which, I must say, seems to be rather "unsportsmanlike".
 
>In the end. with or with out the penalties, the game was decided where it
>>should be. On the ice.
 
I agree wholeheartedly... at least I could find something...
 
Scott Southard
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.