OK - I give up ... it's really tough to argue with the below logic.
 
AW
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The College Hockey Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Randy May
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 9:29 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: overtime in Ice Breaker
>
>
> <<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.
>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.