Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 8 Nov 1994 11:30:00 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
*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
|
|
|