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.