In a message dated 10/13/98 7:17:21 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
<<> That's my point...why have 20 minute OT's when it's just a measly regular
> season game?
<<OK Randy, I'm trying to be calm here now ... lest I have Greg attack me as a
demon from hell. It is frustrating however.>>
My goodness...have a beer! I have been attacked a heck of alot more than what
Greg did to you (in the past) and I retained my holy innocence ;-)
<<It might be a regular season game, but it's still an NCAA sanctioned
in-season tournament, and they need a winner for advancement. Thus, the
rules state, 20-minute overtimes are necessary, and winner or loser counts.>>
And the rules are VERY contradictory
> The way I see it, conferences/tourneys have some gray area in
> which to work with. I am convinced of this as of now. No one is going to
> dispute/take away any losses victories at the Icebreaker even if the
> tourney DEMANDED (no proof) that an :05 precede a :20 minute OT. What
> would the NCAA do if they played an :05, and then a :20, and one team
> scored more than 15:00 into the 20:00 OT?
> That would be interesting.
<<I don't understand what you are trying to say.>>
I can tell.
<<Tournament games that need a winner are played to conclusion. Period. You
don't get a tie if the game is tied after 5 minutes.>>
I know. It didn't end in a tie at the Icebreaker either...that's my point.
<<To recap, the rules state that in a tournament setting where you need a
winner for advancement, overtimes are played in 20-minute blocks and you
have a winner and loser. Even if the tournament didn't follow the rule and
played a 5-minute, then a 20 by mistake, you still would count it as a win
and a loss.>>
EXACTLY!!! And it makes a heck of alot more sense that way!!!
<<This is according to the NCAA manual.>>
According to the manual/rulebook, mouthpieces are required. 'Nuff said.
<< And all I'm saying, and others have
tried to say, is that what the opinion of individual people or conferences
are don't matter.>>
If that were true we wouldn't be voting November 5th.
<<I am not trying to disrespect anyone's opinions on what they think is the
"right" way to do something.>>
You couldn't disrespect a bum like me if you tried...it's impossible.
<<We're only saying ... here's the rule, it's in black and white, and that's
it. This is where the frustration comes in. It's in the rule book, plain as
day. Why fight it? I might disagree with the rule too, but it's not the
issue.>>
Mouth-piece.
<<No one is saying the tournament organizers acted maliciously -- but it is
unsettling that even those that are supposed to know the rules inside and
out get it wrong.>>
I find that quite appealing. The next time I forget to set my VCR for the
right time, I'll feel better.
<<And, no Greg, I don't claim to be an authority on the rule book. I leave
that to people like Mike Machnik. I'm just dumb enough to fight his fight.
AW>>
Who in the heck is fighting? Lighten up, Francis.
Randy May
http://members.aol.com/al20secord/choose.html
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
