One of the times I saw this used this year was near the end of the game
and my thoughts were that any additional penalties would simply expire
when the game was over. In one case (as I remember), we received a
penalty, the opposing team called for the stick check which gave them
another man advantage and then they pulled the goalie for a three man
advantage - all of this with less than 2 minutes left. Fortunately, we
survived, but even if we had forced a stoppage of play, called for a stick
check and lost, it wouldn't changed the number of players we had on ice
because we were already down to 3 and the game would be over before the
first penalties expired.
 
Both coaches involved were former NHL players, so I think something must
be wrong with my rationale, but I'm not sure what.
 
Lowell King
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:20:09 -0600  Eeyore <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Lowell King wrote:
>
> This discussion brings up an interesting point. Where Shawn Walsh
(Maine)
> called for double 'stick inspection' (hadn't ever heard of two being
> called at the same time before) what if the opposing team then called
for
> stick inspection on Maine. Since they were already down two players, it
> wouldn't seem to make much difference whether they won or lost -- the
> number of active players would remain the same. Doesn't that create an
> interesting situation or does some rule prevent the recipient of the
> original rule from also initiating the same call?
>
> Lowell King
 
There is a cost.  If the challenge is wrong, a guy goes to the box.  His
penalty kicks in when at least one of the others is over.  Thus, if they
are scored upon on the 5-3, the other team still has a two-man
advantage.
 
At least this is the way that I would assume it works.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
-----------------End of Original Message-----------------
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.