I am the first to agree that the rules book needs to be re-organized a
little. In fact, the book continues to be a work in progress. It's not as if
the committee gets together once a year to review it. They are constantly
addressing rules issues. But to prefer the IRS Code over the rules book?
Ouch!
 
As for Rule 4, Section 6, Paragraph e, my first reaction is that the two
sections are not tied together. (Note: "My" first reaction, which doesn't
mean the rule is incorrect). I believe the scenario of a player committing
an infraction after being designated to take a penalty shot, and the
scenario of a goaltender being put back into the net, although contained
under Paragraph e, should be listed as separate rules.
 
I hesitate to state I am certain that they are separate for two reasons: (1)
I don't know the history or rationale of the rule (but intend to find out),
and (2) The NHL, USA Hockey, IIHF and Canadian Hockey Association each have
the same format for the rule in their respective rules books.
 
With regard to awarding a goal when a stick is thrown while a player with
the puck is heading to an empty goal, the NCAA rules do not provide for an
"automatic" goal. It's true that the NHL, CHL and IIHF provide for a goal in
such circumstances; however, it's the position of the NCAA that a goal
shouldn't be "automatically awarded" if the puck never enters the goal.
People can certainly disagree with the position, and can make valid
arguments against the position, but for the most part, the NCAA, and
collegiate coaches, have not wanted to "assume" that a player will score
because there are certainly instances, and have been in the past, where a
player has botched a chance at an empty net. That is not to say that such a
change will never occur.
 
Steve Hagwell
NCAA Staff Liaison to the NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Rules Committee
 
> ----------
> From:         Bob Griebel
> Reply To:     [log in to unmask]
> Sent:         Sunday, October 25, 1998 7:24 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Fluke
>
>      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.
>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.