So as not to mislead, I should say I find more merit in John's and
Randy's logic than I find in the rulebook sections I've posted today.  I just
can't find the wording that explicitly calls for their common-sense
interpretation.  I find the Internal Revenue Code nice and logical, but this
glossy new rulebook is something else.
 
     I'm leary about the paragraph explicitly directing the goalkeeper to
return to the ice for the penalty shot being paired with a paragraph
explaining what happens if the designated shooter received a penalty on the
same play.  I don't read that as allowing the goalie to return to defend on
the penalty shot ONLY when the shooting team receives a penalty on the same
play.  However, someone more familiar with this little book could perform a
service by reviewing Rule 4, Section 6 e.
 
     It would come as no surprise to learn that Congress and the NCAA don't
sound alike.
 
Bob
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.