Ted wrote, in part..
> ... thus the fallicy of "if you touch the puck" you get an assist.
 
No fallacy, that's the way it is called. :-(
 
Today's Bangor Daily News has an article by Larry Mahoney (that many of
you know as a nationally respected sports and college hockey writer).
In it he describes a UML player that was involved with a couple of
goals but recorded only one assist.  That player made the check that
turned the puck over, but he wasn't awarded the 2nd assist (because he
didn't touch the puck).
 
Talk to you local sports information director (SID) .. he'll laugh at
you if you suggest someone might get an assist without touching the
puck (well, SIDs are pleasant folks, they wouldn't really laugh at
you).
 
I've had people tell me (offline) that without restricting assists to
those players that touch the puck, it would be too difficult to
determine assists. (!)
 
But this "explanation" goes with the game, IMHO.  The interference
rule, for example, is quite clear, yet you'll see clearly illegal
interference nearly every minute of every game.  It could be
eliminated, but college hockey has decided it's OK and leads to a
better game.  No wonder Walsh, Woog and others get into trouble ...
they teach techniques that get the job done, but don't get penalized ..
the rules don't matter.
 
Hockey-L needs a little more discussion ... maybe this will get it
going :-)
 
cheers,
 
Wayne T. Smith                 mailto:[log in to unmask]
Systems Group -- CAPS          University of Maine System
Co-owner of the College Hockey mailing lists
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.