That sounds like an NCAA discussion. Some team is being rewarded for a penalty by being able to ice it. I can agree with them completely if it was 5 on 5 skaters, but given that you have reduced the number of skaters by 20% (5 to 4) would it be made up and surpassed by the ability to ice the puck (which was a knee jerk rule to begin with way back when). To take the point of the discussion as if things were equal and then say there was a "REWARD" is pathetic ignorance only the NCAA could conjure up.

Nathan Hampton
________________________________________
From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Lewin [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NCAA rules committee

If I remember correctly, the main point of the discussion was that the team
that committed the penalty was actually being somewhat rewarded by having
the option of icing the puck without restriction.


On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Joe Makowiec <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> At 6-6-2008 06:03 PM, Mark Lewin wrote:
>
>> There had been talk about prohibiting a penalized team from freely icing
>> the puck but nothing in the CHN report addresses that issue so I guess it
>> wasn't discussed.
>>
>
> If memory serves, this was a WHA rule.  Or maybe you had to get it past the
> blue line before you could ice it if you were on a man-down.
>
> Joe
> --
> Joe Makowiec can be reached at:
> http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
> http://makowiec.org/
>