In article <[log in to unmask]>,
Chuck Henderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Shouldn't the real issue here be what level of discretion the officials
>have and exercise in making these calls?  The rule book seems to give them
>the option to call or not call a delay of game.  Does anyone know what
>instructions on-ice officials are given by the league?
>
>There was no need at all for the penalty to be called in this weekend's game.
<stuff deleted>
 
The real problem here is that _nothing_ should be thrown on the
ice. Period. That leaves no judgement calls. If the prevailing
attitude at Cornell was that nothing should be thrown, then no
penalty would have been assesed. Cornell used up their one
freebie throwing multiple objects on the ice. That's the
price they paid.
 
I've been to several RPI-Union hockey games at Union college.
If you don't know, Union fans have a recent tradition of littering
the ice with oranges after the first Union goal. Every year, they
search at the door. Every year, they make an announcment. But
every year, dozens of oranges litter the ice. Not only does it
delay the game, but it is potentially hazardous. What happens if
a player gets hit in the face? What happens if someone overthrows
the ice and a spectator gets one in the noggin?
 
At Union, they should make the announcement before the game that
a penalty would be assesed on the home team. That way if the
Union fans decide to let the oranges fly, their team is penalized.
And perhaps the rink security should make a little more effort
to eject and discipline those who throw the oranges. Now there
is no effort whatsoever.
 
If the fans know that there will be no penalty, then there
is absolutely nothing stopping them from throwing things.
Except respect for the players on both teams.
 
Ralph
[log in to unmask]