>
>  As you can see from my "beautiful" rendition of Kelley Rink
 
	beautiful rendition ommited, but you get the picture. :-)
 
>  This means that in the final
>  minute of play, if the visiting team wanted to pull the goaltender he would
>  have to skate almost 1/2 the length of the ice to get to the bench.  On the
>  other hand, if BC wanted to pull the goalie he would have to skate less than
>  1/3 the length of the ice.
 
	The major advantage that BC gets out of the layout of the benches
	seems to me to have more to do with the placement of the penaltybox.
	After a shorthanded situation the BC player swings out of the box,
	onto the bench, while his replacement steps onto the ice in the
	defending zone from the other end of the bench.  The visiting team's
	player would have to skate the width of the ice.  If, per chance,
	BC has possession of the puck at the time the penalty expires they
	have a man wide open behind the visitors defensemen.  Clear advantage
	for the home team throughout the ENTIRE game as opposed to maybe the
	final minute or so.
 
>  disadvantage goes to BC.  Why they spent over $30 million on such a beautiful
>  facility and screwed up the placement of the team benches I'll never know.
 
	I'm surprised this is not against the rules of rink specifications.
	This used to be a major complaint in the NHL until several years
	ago when the league standardized such things.
 
 
-bill
 
--
Bill Beaulac
System Specialist
Convex TAC   x4069 	           "No matter where you go...there you are"
[log in to unmask]
1-800-952-0379