My understanding that this is a "delayed" call.  The ref should put his hand
in the air, and wave the call if the non-offending team gets control, or
blow the whistle if the next person to touch the puck in a player on the
offending team or the goalie.  But if your and Ed Moller's descriptions are
correct, either I misunderstand the rule too, or the ref blew the call,
because incidental contact doesn't constitute "control."
 
Clay
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Love [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 10:42 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Calls in UVM at UMass game ....
>
[. . .]
 
>   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.