Could it have been matching double-minors?  Matching minors does lead to 4 on 4, but if its double minors, then it stays 5 on 5.  I think the intent must be to limit the amount of time teams play a man down.  Personally, not only do I not like that, I would like to see them go back to 3 on 3 hockey if a second matching minor shows up.  Guess I'm just an old fogey.

Tom Rowe                            UWSP dept of Psych
=============================
Home of Division III National Champion Pointers
89, 90, 91 & 93 and National Runners-up 92 & 98
===================================


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Lewin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: another rules question
>
>
> As long as we're talking rules, I've got a question also.
> This situation happened at a recent RPI game. There was an
> altercation at the end of a play and the referee called
> matching minors. He sent the two players off the ice and play
> continued with 5 players on each time (plus the goalies).
>
> I thought the rule was that matching minors at 5 on 5 results
> in a 4 on 4. If one of teams was down a man and there were
> matching minors, they would stay 5 on 4 or if the teams are
> already 4 on 4, matching minors would leave them 4 on 4.
>
> Later on in the same game, there were matching minors and the
> teams played 4 on 4.
>
> We went through this last year (and probably the year before)
> but apparently I still don't get it.
>