Joe Davison wrote:
 
> There is more to the story, of course. Seems like Cornell was going to
> challenge four more players sticks.To me, it appears as though the UVM
> coaches point of view is that Cornell couldnt win the game without
> resorting to the rulebook.
 
Better than not being able to win without contravening the rulebook.
 
> Granted, a rule is a rule. They should always be followed.
>
> Gilligan was quoted on his weekly appearence on Hockey Talk, a weekly
> local cable show about UVM hockey as stating that Cole used common sense
> in putting an end to the march of the measurements.
 
If this is the case, then if I were Cornell, I would have played the
game under some sort of protest.  There is a cost to Schafer's team if
he is wrong.  If he is right, than the rule should be followed.  I
believe you said so yourself two paragraphs above (unless, of course,
you were simply being sarcastic).  Quite frankly, after two sticks have
been successfully challenged, any Vermont player caught with an illegal
stick should get an additional two minutes for being stupid.  Cole's
decision to not enforce the rule bothers me.  Essentially, he has said,
"They were cheating, but I'm not going to find out if they're still
cheating."  In this case, Vermont seemingly felt no deterent effect from
being caught.  In the real world, recidivists face stiffer penalties.
In this case, they got lighter.
 
> As far as an unwritten rule about not questioning sticks. Gilligan did
> state that there was a gentleman's agreement not to challenge sticks.
> Whether or not that is the case is obviously between the coaches who view
> themselves as gentleman.
 
I always thought that part of being a gentleman was playing by the
rules.
 
> Bottom line, UVM did have at least one player using a stick that was not
> in compliance. The penalty was called. A second player was called for
> using a stick that was not able to be measured as it was smashed prior to
> confiscation. In the end. with or with out the penalties, the game was
> decided where it should be. On the ice
 
I've always hated this phrase, or whatever it's counterpart in other
sports may be.  Deep down, what it means is that in a close game,
breaking the rules is okay and the officials shouldn't do anything to
stop it.  The game should be decided on the ice WITHIN THE RULES.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.