Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 1 Jan 1997 22:55:55 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 96-12-31 06:23:53 EST, John writes:
> Perhaps it was just an attempt to get the thing over with quickly. I'm
> going to assume that the first OT was played without resurfacing. If the
> game had ended within the first 5 minutes then the OT would only have
> added 5-10 minutes to the game, and not delayed the next game (if this
> was the first game). Once you flood the ice, you're adding 15 minutes to
> the game time, and definitely delaying the second game.
>
He's right- they have a 5 min OT period without resurfacing the ice to keep
the game moving. The three(5?) minutes in between periods is basically just
a chance for people to rehydrate(especially the goalies). They can't play
much longer than 5 minutes(I believe HE talked about having a 10 min OT
period during the time they tried the shootouts) because the ice gets really
bad. The ice tends to deteriorate at the end of a game anyway(depending on
where you are)- 5 min is about all it can take without resurfacing.
Sometimes even that is a lot. It also keeps the momentum going for both
teams and helps prevent cramping(not to mention giving statisticians a break
from running down into the locker room).
Rob Grover
Umaine 1996
Go Bears!!!!!
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|