Don't blame the NCAA here, Nathan.  The good folks over at USA Hockey had 
this one up for discussion at last year's rules meeting.  It's based on a 
pilot program from the Mass Select (Tier I) league.  Fortunately, it was not 
approved.

Joe LaCour

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hampton, Nathan E." <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: NCAA rules committee


> That sounds like an NCAA discussion. Some team is being rewarded for a 
> penalty by being able to ice it. I can agree with them completely if it 
> was 5 on 5 skaters, but given that you have reduced the number of skaters 
> by 20% (5 to 4) would it be made up and surpassed by the ability to ice 
> the puck (which was a knee jerk rule to begin with way back when). To take 
> the point of the discussion as if things were equal and then say there was 
> a "REWARD" is pathetic ignorance only the NCAA could conjure up.
>
> Nathan Hampton
> ________________________________________
> From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List 
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Lewin [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NCAA rules committee
>
> If I remember correctly, the main point of the discussion was that the 
> team
> that committed the penalty was actually being somewhat rewarded by having
> the option of icing the puck without restriction.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Joe Makowiec <[log in to unmask]> 
> wrote:
>
>> At 6-6-2008 06:03 PM, Mark Lewin wrote:
>>
>>> There had been talk about prohibiting a penalized team from freely icing
>>> the puck but nothing in the CHN report addresses that issue so I guess 
>>> it
>>> wasn't discussed.
>>>
>>
>> If memory serves, this was a WHA rule.  Or maybe you had to get it past 
>> the
>> blue line before you could ice it if you were on a man-down.
>>
>> Joe
>> --
>> Joe Makowiec can be reached at:
>> http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
>> http://makowiec.org/
>>