Enough has probably been said by now about delay of game penalties called
on fans, but I'm nevertheless going to respond to some of the comments that
my posting generated.  I should make clear, as I chose not to do in my
earlier note, that I am completely against things being thrown on the ice
except for hat-trick hats and maybe a few other innocuous traditions.  I've
been going to Cornell games since 1957 when Lynah was built and have some
perspective on the history of this kind of fan participation.  I have never
in all this time seen any humor or cleverness in fish or chickens on the
ice, traditions notwithstanding.  But what I'm also against is the
indiscriminate application of the delay of game penalty to deal with fan
behavior without sufficient regard to circumstances and consequences.  My
seat mate for the Harvard game was a friend from my department and a Harvard
graduate in the same class as I was at Cornell.  Neither of us I think is
overly indulgent of fan misbehavior, but we both found it hard to summon
much outrage at a single student's actions but hard not to condemn the logic
behind the penalty call at that game by those who should be expected to
think a little more clearly.
 
I'll start by making some responses to Bill Fenwick's note, where his quoting
is from my original.
 
>>Shouldn't the real issue here be what level of discretion the officials
>>have and exercise in making these calls?  The rule book seems to give them
>>the option to call or not call a delay of game.  Does anyone know what
>>instructions on-ice officials are given by the league?
 
[Bill's quote from the rule book deleted.]
 
>So it's a judgment call, like a lot of other penalties in hockey.  If the
>refs are properly trained, and I think most of them are, we can pretty well
>accept their judgment.  As far as official guidelines in this situation, I
>don't know what the refs are told by the league, but I strongly suspect it's
>along the lines of, "We're sick of seeing stuff thrown on the ice by fans.
>If it happens, crack down on it."
 
I also suspect the league has issued instructions of this sort.
 
>>There was no need at all for the penalty to be called in this weekend's
game.
>>After the warning at the start of the game, the solitary object thrown
during
>>the warmup before the second period had no effect on the game and caused no
>>delay.  It was an essentially gratuitous call made simply for reasons of
ego
>>or rigidity by Gallagher or Melanson, or because of poor league guidelines.
 
>No, the call was made in accordance with the rule above.  The warning was
>read (two or three times!), somebody disregarded it, and the call was made.
>Pretty cut and dried, actually.  The fact that it happened during the inter-
>mission and didn't really "delay the game" is immaterial.  "Delay of game"
>is kind of a catchall penalty in this situation.  For example, Notes 1 and 2
>under rule 6-25 deal with the calling of a delay-of-game penalty if the
>bands play while the game is in progress and if fans use artificial noise-
>makers like air horns.  These things don't delay the game either, but that's
>what the penalty is called.  Maybe it should be called "interference by
>fans" or something.
 
I'm well aware that this penalty can be called for a variety of things.
But as with any penalty there is discretion as to whether it's called or
not.  I don't think the fact that the warning was read more than once
(consecutive readings before the game started, not at different times for
different incidents) has anything to do with this.  Let's stipulate that
fans were duly warned.  What's not cut and dried to me is whether the
action of a single fan, especially at a time like intermission, is a proper
justification for the penalty.  I want a little more thought and discretion
by the officials (and league policy).  My concern is that a call not be
made unless really necessary and that all consequences be taken into
account.
 
>Again, the warning was read, and somebody ignored it.  I don't see where
>Gallagher and Melanson had much of a choice, other than to call it; the
>announcement specifically said that a bench minor would be assessed against
>Cornell if the fans threw more objects on the ice -- well, there's an
>object.  If the refs don't follow through, what kind of a message does that
>send? (not only to the fans, but to the teams on the ice as well)  "Look,
>stop throwing things on the ice, we really, really mean it."  How many
>chances should the fans be given before the penalty is called?  The warning
>seemed pretty clear to me.
 
Of course the warning was clear.  The question is when the warning should
be issued and how much flexibility the officials have in following up on
it.  I agree that they can't look like the threat is empty.  But some
thought should be given to a wording that doesn't bind them to calling a
penalty for a single object by a solitary fan.  Admittedly, such a wording
might take some care to devise, although I'm not so sure the current
wording saying "objects" might not provide for ignoring a solitary object.
Plus, there is always an implicit warning to players that, say,
interference will be called, but we all know that refs make judgments about
whether to make calls or not.  I don't think I would object so much to the
call if there had been a second barrage of fish, especially one not during
an intermission.  Likewise, I don't think discretely ignoring the single
fish (one that few fans even saw) thrown during intermission would really
have caused any loss of respect for the refs' authority.  It's a matter of
proportion and common sense, characteristics of good officiating.  We all
know that not all penalties that refs see are called.
 
 
>This, by the way, is the third straight year the call has been made for
>something thrown during the intermission.  If nothing else, the message
>should have sunk in by now that the intermissions are considered part of the
>game (at least, when the officials are on the ice), and that the call WILL
>be made.
 
You remember this and so do I and probably most others in attendance, just
as the warning was clear to most.  But there will always be someone who is
not paying attention, not thinking, or doesn't care.  Should the outcome of
the game and even seasonal rankings for possibly several teams be altered
simply because such a person comes to the game?
 
>>Even the initial warning was made more for old time's sake than any major
>>need to prevent further trouble.
 
>No, the initial warning was made because a good number of fish were thrown
>out of the stands during the pre-game warmups and introductions.  It was the
>officials' discretion, and I think they made the right choice.  Besides,
>Coach McCutcheon requested that the warning be repeated (fat lot of good it
>did).
 
My point is that there was comparatively little thrown, no more disruption
(probably less) than the newspapers thrown at the start every game, and the
penalty was called because it was the Harvard game which _used_ to be more
out of control.  McCutcheon, once the initial warning was made, of course
has an interest in trying to impress on everyone not to violate it, but I
don't think this means he wanted to increase its salience in the minds of
the refs.
 
>>                                  The Harvard game at Lynah has been well
>>under control for years.  This penalty should be reserved for situations
that
>>truly warrant it:  repeated violations of warnings or large quantities of
>>debris on the ice after the initial warning.
 
>A major part of the reason the Harvard game has been so well-controlled is
>this rule; nobody wants to give the Crimson a free power play, even though
>it's happened almost every year since the rule was put into place.
 
I agree that these penalties have something to do with the current mild
state of affairs, along with searches at the gate for several years that
are no longer thought necessary and the fact that Cornell hasn't been as
competitive as of late.  My complaint is that the officials are becoming
more trigger happy with this call as the provocation has been decreasing.
 
>And if it's OK to "support" your team and/or let the opposition know they're
>not welcome by throwing things on the ice at home, remember that it can
>happen to your guys on the road as well.  Twelve years ago, at the end of a
>Cornell-Harvard game at Harvard, somebody threw a full can of beer that
>caught Big Red goaltender Darren Eliot in the neck.  Is this the kind of
>thing you want to see happening at a college hockey game?  Not me, thanks.
 
I'm certainly not saying it's okay.  It's not.  I remember the Eliot
incident well, but isn't this kind of thing a matter for security, not a
penalty as part of the game.  What would you do in that case?  Have the
penalty carry over to the next year?  Deduct a goal from the fan's team?
Well, maybe I shouldn't ask the latter for fear that too many readers will
say yes.
 
>>          The league should think through the reasons for imposing the
delay
>>of game penalty and what is gained and lost.
 
>It's not a league rule, it's an NC$$ rule.  And what's been gained, by and
>large, is a safer environment in which to play college hockey.  Yeah, the
>call went against my team Friday night, but that still sounds pretty good to
>me.
 
I know it's an NCAA rule, but as we both speculate above, there may well be
league guidelines for when it is invoked.  There should be some better
method to control crowd behavior than penalties that affect the outcome of
the game and have an impact on league standings and playoff prospects for
other teams.  At minimum, the delay of game penalty should be called only
under more extreme provocation.
 
>I realize this looks a lot like a flame, and that is not my intent by any
>>means.  But IMHO, shifting the blame to the officials for this situation is
>the wrong thing to do.  Some fan took it upon him/herself to disregard the
>warning (and history -- as I said before, this happens every damn year), and
>Harvard got a goal as the result of the power play caused by this fan's
>action.  As far as I'm concerned, the refs did what they had to do.
 
No flame felt.  I was intending to provoke a little controversy here and
got the responses I expected.
 
Rita-Ann Monde says
 
>No!!!! the issue is when will the fans respect the game of hockey and think
>about the safety of the players [and even other fans].  The warning was
>clearly given, any 2 year could understand it.
 
>>It's unrealistic to expect to
>>control every person in a crowd of 4000 (in hockey or in life more broadly)
>>and inappropriate to penalize others for the action of one or a small
number
>>of fans.
 
>Is it unrealistic to expect a college student [or any 17 yr old and older
>*person* for that matter] to take responsibility for their actions?
 
It's not unrealistic to want this and, for most students, to expect it.
But there will always be someone who doesn't take such responsibility..
 
>                                                                      Is
>it fair that one person not involved in the actually playing of the game to
>have such an effect on the outcome of the game?
 
You make my point precisely.  It's not fair for one person not involved in
playing to have such an effect, and the rules and their interpretation
should not allow this to happen.
 
>>The league should think through the reasons for imposing the delay
>>of game penalty and what is gained and lost.  Who is hurt by it?  Friday,
it
>>was the Cornell team, all Cornell fans, and other ECAC teams competing with
>>Harvard for a top spot in the league standings and an NCAA bid.
 
Ralph Slate writes
 
>The real problem here is that _nothing_ should be thrown on the
>ice. Period.
 
and Paulette Dwen replies
 
>I disagree.  I love the tradition of tossing hats on the ice after a hat
>trick, and I don't think that should stop.  Since that usually doesn't even
>prompt a warning by the officials, I always wondered if that would give
>Cornell a penalty during the Harvard game, but alas, we've never had the
>opportunity to find out.
 
I seem to remember just such a penalty being called in a game at Lynah some
years back, but not with Harvard as the opponent.  And wasn't there
discussion on the list a couple of years ago about such penalties being
called somewhere in the midwest?
 
--
Chuck Henderson  <[log in to unmask]>