Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:50:38 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Parter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> - I am not sure about the head contact rule. Making it an automatic
> major might have the opposite effect of what is desired -- in some
> cases nothing will be called in situations where a minor could have
> been called in the past. we shall see...
2 for roughing might be an option - if the supervisor isn't watching....
> - penalized teams can't ice the puck. I don't like this change, and I
> don't like the stated reason:
>
> "In keeping with the committees philosophy to encourage skill and
> create scoring chances, this change will enhance power-play
> opportunities, Karr said. After lengthy discussion, the committee
> concluded that the previous rule inappropriately provided relief for
> a team that committed an infraction.
>
> I like encouraging skill. I don't see that college hockey needs to
> "create scoring chances" (isn't that the player's responsibility?).
> This is a huge bonus to teams on the power play.
I don't like this rule much, either. There seems to have been an
impulse to really screw over short-handed teams this year. Were power
plays really that bad?
I think that putting the faceoff in the offending team's zone is
sufficient additional penalty.
John
--
John Edwards
"You can insure against the weather, but you can't insure against
incompetence, can you?" - Phil Tufnell
|
|
|