Dan Glumac writes:
>This morning the Minneapolis Star Tribune ran an article about Maine and
>Shawn Walsh.  It mentioned such antics as:  a game (opponent not listed) in
>which he had the other team penalized because their goalie's pads were not
>the correct size, and a game against Boston College in which the BC jerseys
>had a designer logo which was too large; BC had to forfeit the game.  Can
>anybody out there elaborate on this?
 
    The logo incident happened on 2/17/90 during BC's 3-1 win.  There was no
    forfeit, though Walsh fought for it.  Here's my description from the
    archives:
 
+ The win was BC's 8th straight in Hockey East and broke Maine's 10 game
+ winning streak.  However, BC may have broken an NCAA rule by playing the
+ first period with illegal manufacturers' logos on their pants, larger
+ than the 1-inch as is stated by the rule.  Walsh brought this to the
+ attention of referee Rich Fowkes early in the game, but the only result
+ was a conference with commissioner Stu Haskell after the first period in
+ which Haskell told Fowkes to make sure neither team had illegal logos.
+ But Walsh wasn't satisfied, claiming that a memo Haskell had sent out
+ on the subject a while ago had forfeiture as the punishment.  From the
+ Boston Globe: "'I'm a detail guy and I like to play by the rules,' he
+ said.  'I don't like it when one team is treated special.  If they follow
+ through on the memo, then this will be a forfeit.  We'll see if the league
+ has any guts.'  [BC coach Len] Ceglarski, standing just outside a BC
+ locker room littered with CCM logos, said, 'If he thinks he won by forfeit,
+ that's up to him.  I'll let the commissioner take care of that.'"
 
    In this game, BC ripped off their logos after the first period, but Walsh
    still wanted the forfeit.  I know there was a memo sent to all teams in
    89-90 bringing the logo rule to their attention, but I also believe the
    memo did not state what punishment would be handed down, if any.  The
    commissioner decided to let the result of the game stand.
 
    I vaguely recall the goalie pads incident.  Maybe someone else knows the
    details.
 
    One indisputable fact that bears on all this is that Shawn Walsh knows the
    rule book as well as just about anyone in the game, and he does try
    whatever he can to get his team an advantage.  I don't think I can argue
    with that.  I do think some of the things he does bring negative attention
    upon himself, his team and the conference, but I can't argue his loyalty
    to his players.  And that's really his #1 priority.
 
    I also wonder why the Star Tribune chose to run this article within a few
    days of Minnesota's loss at Maine.  It looks like sour grapes on the part
    of the paper.  An article like this should have been run prior to the
    series if it was going to be run at all - and its author should have
    checked out the facts, too.  (This wasn't Sid, was it?)
 
 
    - mike