The Cheel Center at Clarkson also a pretty new building has this
alternative layout.
 
On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Gerald Williams wrote:
 
> 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.
>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.