I am not sure the WCHA can find enough competent officials heck they don't 
have enough for one competent official per game. Look at the mess they had 
with Schmidt last season and the two blown calls. That is a perfect example 
of the problems the WCHA has. Add to that they had numerous officials also 
warned about their conduct on on ice. To top it off Greg Shepherd blew the 
ND goal by making the wrong g call in the NCAA championship game. The league 
officials in the WCHA are a disgrace. Until Shepherd and McCloud are gone 
the league will continue to have these problems.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd Nielson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: NCAA rules committee


> Speaking as someone who follows ECAC hockey closest (and therefore can't 
> say
> much about the other conferences), we have a hard enough time finding 
> enough
> quality, consistent referees with the current system.  Where are competent
> second referee's going to come from?
>
> -Todd
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joe LaCour" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: NCAA rules committee
>
>
>> 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/
>> >>
>