From the perspective of a HS official in Massachusetts, I'd have to disagree
that taking the route of "intent to injure" is understandable or
appropriate. (I attended the game, and also have seen the replay of the
collision several times -- basically concur that the hit was not malicious).
This a grave accusation -- in HS sports in Mass., it calls for the
suspension of that player for one calendar year from all athletics. While I
realize this is not the case in college sports, any official has to
appreciate that this phrase carries serious legal ramifications and should
never be applied in a cavalier manner. IMHO, this was an unfortunate
overreaction by the officials that may end up having significant
consequences.

-----Original Message-----
From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Matt Bigley
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 9:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Eaves / Exeter collision


For what it is worth, Fox Sports just showed the collision that resulted in
the injury to Exeter.  As a certified level 4 referee who has done amatuer
national championship level games, the hit appeared clean.  I saw nothing
that was malicious or an intent to injure.  The injury resulted because
Exeter has no chinstrap on his mask and it came off before his head hit the
ice.

I suspect that the penalty on Eaves was meant to protect him and control the
game.  Not necessarily the route I would have taken, but one that is
certainly understandable.