Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 10 Mar 1992 11:20:59 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Mark writes:
>game's turning point occurred. A Plattsburgh player (sorry, I
>didn't get the names) on a breakaway was intentionally hauled
>down by the Mercyhurst defenseman to save a goal. The Cardinals
>were awarded a penalty shot from this, which they converted to go
>ahead 3-2. In addition, the Mercyhurst defensemen got 5 minutes
>in the penalty box, presumably for intentional hooking. During
>that time, Plattsburgh managed 2 power play goals to put the game
>out of reach. My question is, didn't Mercyhurst get penalized
>twice in this situation, i.e., by the Plattsburgh penalty shot
>and the subsequent power play? That's how I saw it, anyway.
If the referee determines that the penalty committed was serious enough
to warrant a major penalty - but the conditions for a penalty shot are met -
then he must both award the shot and hand out the major regardless of
whether or not a goal is scored on the shot. If just a minor is called,
then accepting the shot means the minor is not assessed.
>"victory lap" became more and more of a struggle. Oh, and by the
>way, everyone that I spoke to (mostly locals and Elmira College
>fans) thought that the game should have been played in
>Plattsburgh, not in Elmira. For what its worth.
Everyone I talked to in this area feels the same way. A thought that crossed
my mind, was why does this occur in the ECAC III but not in the ECAC I?
- mike
|
|
|