*Message:
From: SCERO at OLEC
Date: 11/8/94 11:22AM
To: INTERNET:[log in to unmask] at OCF_INFORM
Subject: Re[2]: Coincidental Minors Question
Contents:
 
>Scott Biggar said:
>I am kind of confused over a situation that came up this weekend during the
>championship game of the RIT tourney between RIT and Fredonia.  As seen on
>Hockey-L and other places, one of the rules changes this season dealt with
>coincidental minors.  It was my understanding that the compromise rule was that
>the first set of coincidental minors of a game would result on each team losing
>a skater, ie 4 on 4.  But that every set of coincidental minors after that
>would not result in the loss of a skater, ie each team would remain at 5 on 5,
>etc.
 
>Arthur replied...
 
>This is simple. Your understanding of the rule is incorrect.
>
>Substitution is allowed in all cases of coincidental minor penalties, with
>ONE exception: when ONE minor penalty is called against ONE player of each
>team in a situation where neither team is shorthanded due to penalties.
 
 
This is correct, I thought a little detail might make it easier to see...
 
        at 2:00 A player on Team A & Team B gets minor penalties
 
     Both teams skate short 1 man (4 X 4)
 
        at 2:30 A player on Team A & Team B get minor penalties
 
     On ice strength remains 4 X 4 as teams were already short a player at the
     time of the penalty.
 
        all above penalties have expired by 4:30.
        at 5:30 A player on Team A & Team B get minor penalties
 
     Both teams skate short 1 man again as no other coincidental minor penalties
     are in affect at this time.
 
 
 
Hope this helps.
 
Rick
[log in to unmask]
 
 
----------
Arthur C. Mintz          [log in to unmask]          (607) 255-1487
Senior Project Leader
Cornell Information Technologies / Information Resources
 
"Luck is the residue of design." - Branch Rickey
 
INTERNET:[log in to unmask] "Arthur C. Mintz" 09:50 EST 08-Nov-94 for SCERO 09:52
EST 08-Nov-94 Message 3443-10139