A short (one minute) time-out in the middle of all the playoff hype.
 
In reference to an earlier question regarding the placement of the penalty
box I would first offer the '96 Ice Hockey Rule verbage and then my
(h)opinion on the subject.
 
The 1996 NCAA rule book shows a preferred layout which places the players
benches on one side of the ice and the penalty boxes on the other.  The next
page shows an alternative layout with the home players box adjacent to the
home penalty box, while the away players bench and penalty box are across ice
from each other.  HOW DOES THAT WORK?.   Hopefully this answers the question
posed late last week.
 
Now here is my big question.  If the NCAA has a 'preferred' layout, wouldn't
you think that EVERY NEW NCAA arena would follow the 'preferred' layout.
 (Feel free to replace the word 'preferred' with 'fair' if you would like)
:-).  Well I thought so too, but I was wrong.
 
After a visit to the NEW Taffy Abel Arena, home of Laker Hockey, I was
initially very surprised to see that the Alternative layout was used in this
new arena.  But as the game went on, I quickly realized why a new arena would
choose the alternate layout rather than go with the fair one (oops... I mean
the 'preferred' one).
 
The advantage a team gains by having their penalty box and team bench next to
each other is truly substantial.  The most obvious example of this advantage
appears when a coincidental penalty expires.  The away team wastes 3 to 4
seconds skating a player across the ice in order to replace them and get that
player in the play while the home team (in this case the Lakers), have the
player they want in the play on the ice and participating .25 seconds before
the penalty even expires.  Now many of you may be rolling your eyes at this
last comment, but my hockey companion and I were shocked when during the
count down of the last seconds of a penalty, the whistle blew, with one
second left in the penalty and the Lakers had already -virtually- replaced
the man in the penalty box (two legs over the bench, one on the ice, only a
couple of yards from the puck) while there was still one second left in the
penalty.  He would have been completely in the play had the whistle not
blown, while the penalized player was still in the box... or about to come
out.
 
You might now say that this was an isolated event, but no, it wasn't.  We
watched after each penalty expired, and with each expiration, the same thing
occurred.  If you figure a net gain of 4 seconds per penalty, and assume an
equal number of penalties were called on each team (amazing how often that
works out isn't it?),  of 15 or so, that adds up to a full minute of power
play.
 
So once again, it's not surprising why a new arena would choose the
'alternate' layout.
 
What I would like to see is an NCAA mandate (and believe me I hate the word
mandate as much as anyone), requiring any new NCAA arena follow the preferred
format unless some extenuating circumstance exists making it impractical.
 
Well, that's my 2c on the topic... Reply time will be granted to those
holding an opposing point of view.
 
 
    We now return you to our regularly scheduled play off hype.
 
                                                      -Jerry.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.