Two years ago BU was cited for violating this protocol by being second on
the ice for the start of the game in a game versus BC at Walter Brown Arena.
The next time they played at Conte Forum, BC was penalized for being the
second team on the ice.
 
Last night to start the game at Harvard, BU was the first team on the ice,
actually preceding the officials.  The Crimson were third, yet no penalty
was called.
 
Jac Parker deservedly was ejected from Friday night's game at UNH.  Anytime
you come in physical contact with the officials you are gone.  The last time
I saw a coach ejected from a game was 4-5 years ago at Walter Brown Arena.
Wouldja believe it was the Wildcats' Dick Umile.  You could clearly read his
lips at the ref as he walked across the ice towards the BU exit, "You suck."
 
I can think of many reasons why BU would not accept a powerplay.  Giving the
Terriers a man advantage the last few years spoils their momentum.  ;-)
 
The goal by Ficek should have been disallowed.  We were screaming at Jim
Villandry for not blowing the whistle.  Shipulski's stick was clearly as
high as an elephant's eye while he was standing in the slot.  Villandry was
in the faceoff circle and was right on top of the play.  I did not see any
BU player touch the puck, but I don't think that should make a difference.
Whenever a player that close to the goaltender highsticks the puck, I have
always seen the ref blow the whistle immediately.  That call cost BU the
game.
 
 
Edward N. Moller
Controller
Mount Ida College
Newton Centre, MA  02459-3323
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Tel (617) 928-4515
Fax (617) 928-4746
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The College Hockey Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Jim Love
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 10:42 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Calls in UVM at UMass game ....
>
>
> Good morning -
>
>   Some interesting events in this game:
>
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Sean Keller wrote:
> > The second period started with both teams receiving matching minors for
> > "protocol violations," which I can only guess to mean that neither team
> > was in place for a face-off when the intermission clock ran
> down to 00:00.
>
>   I've seen this called to ONE team when they were (intentionally) late at
> returning to the ice following the intermission break (in protest of what
> was regarded by them as a horrendous call just before the prior period
> ended), but such a dual penalty is a new one on me.  How was it
> that NEITHER
> team could manage to get its centerman in place for the face-off
> in a timely
> fashion ??   Were the coaches riding the ref in the opening period ??  Was
> this a take-back-the-game call by the ref to make it clear that further
> ref-baiting by BOTH coaches would not be tolerated ??
>
> > Catamount coach Mike Gilligan was ejected toward the end of the period,
> > although from the far side of the ice it was hard to see what provoked
> > this call.
>
>   Yikes - two coach ejections in less than a week !!  Having witnessed
> Jackie Parker's antics first-hand in Durham this past weekend, there's no
> doubt in my mind that his ejection was warranted (grabbing/spinning around
> the ref is a no-no), but what did Gilligan do to precipitate HIS
> heave-ho ??
> In discussing Parker's ejection on Friday, a number of we UNH
> fans couldn't
> remember the last time a hockey coach had been ejected from a
> game, in con-
> trast to the more common spectacle of hoop coaches being shown the door.
> Does the NC$$ rule-book specifically note "ejectionable"
> infractions, or is
> this strictly a judgement call by the referee ??
>
> > In the last minute of the game, with a scramble around the UMass goal, a
> > UMass defenseman intentionally dislodged the net.  UVM was given the
> > choice of a power play or a penalty shot, and they scored on the sub-
> > sequent penalty shot.
>
>   I'm admittedly no expert on the arcania (sp ??) of the rulebook, but I
> hadn't realized that this infraction was coupled to a CHOICE of outcomes.
> Are penalty shots always offered as a choice to the appropriate
> team/coach,
> or are there instances where a penalty shot is AUTOMATICALLY awarded ??
> And given the choice, why would a coach choose to accept a power-play ??
> My understanding is that the odds of successfully completing a PS are ca.
> 50-50, whereas a good PP scores only on roughly 30% of its opportunities,
> and there's always the danger of surrendering a SHG too.  If I'm
> the coach,
> and the ref offers my team a PS, I think I'd be foolish to decline ....
>
>   But speaking of rules, I learned my "interpretation" of the
> high-sticking
> rule was incorrect all these years .... UNH's first goal vs. BU on Friday
> night was scored when Shipulski batted down a more-than-shoulder-high puck
> behind the net that caromed off a BU defenseman's skate right to Ficek who
> swatted it home past DiPietro.  I'd always believed that NC$$ rules spec-
> ified that once a puck was struck by a high-stick the play was dead, irre-
> spective of who touched the puck next.  This always made sense to me w/r
> to safety issues, i.e., as a way to discourage players from making wild
> swings at head-high pucks.  I guess not .... But what if Shipulski's swat-
> ted puck had gone directly into the net - would the goal have counted ??
> Does it matter if it strikes the goalkeeper first ??  I guess I'd better
> bone up on the high-sticking section of the rule-book before I take in
> another game :-)
>
>   Cheers from Maryland - Jim
>
> 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.