Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:29:16 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The old mouthguard rule (Rule 3-4(c)) stated that mouthguards are mandatory,
and that any violation be assessed a 10 min misconduct. The old rule is
more severe than the new one, which allows a single warning to a team before
assessing a 10 minute misconduct on the next and subsequent violations. The
new rule is given more "teeth" by allowing the opposing team to challenge a
player's compliance with the new rule. Challenging a mouthguard now uses
the same procedure as challenging a stick. Allowing challenges will force
the referee to be strict about calling mouthguard violations, or risk being
forced to call it when a mouthguard is challenged. Most referees will
prefer to make the call on their own and not have the players force the
issue.
I can't wait for the season to start. Perhaps we can generate more
interesting dialogue.
p.s. I feel Wisconsin may be a bit underrated.
Jay, Miranda, and Norah Kleven
***********************************
Write Soon!
**********************************
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|