Tony Biscardi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The situation in questions occurred with apx 7-8 seconds left in over-
> time. BU had a good break out and crossed the red line with a 2 on 1.
> ...          Cal Ingraham jumped off the bench in front of the play and
> broke up the BU puck-carrier.The player who was supposedly "coming off"
> had not even reached the blue line when Cal was breaking up the play.
> In my biased opinion as a BU fan, I felt this was intentional and
> thus should have resulted in a penalty shot (intentional too many
> men in OT or 2 minutes left in regulation) for BU.
> In an unbiased view, it is the refs call and could have been difficult
> to determine whether or not it was intentional or not.  Cal could
> have been viewed as just being over-anxious.  I can see the refs just
> calling the 2 minute minor like they did.
 
As a biased BU fan with a legalistic turn of mind, I'd like to ask our
hockey-l "rules lawyers", or even better refs on the list, what sort of
guidelines are there for calling a situation like this.
From an uninformed attempt at logical analysis, it seems to me that the
whole rationale with both penalty shots and 2-min calls is something like
"is this penalty so risky that I wouldn't normally want to make that
trade?" Obviously hockey games are full of dumb penalties where that
logical analysis isn't part of it, but I'd bet neither Parker or Walsh
has ever blown a game by allowing a boner he could have prevented, e.g.
making damned sure that a player doesn't leave the bench early in a
key situation like that (unless it was intentional.) OK, if it was
intentional, the logical decision would say, "sure I'd trade a 2-min.
penalty with 5 seconds left to break up a 2-1 rush" but a penalty shot?
that's another matter - I doubt the coach makes that trade. It seems
that by giving them benefit of the doubt on "intention" you're really
just giving a free shot to break up that rush.
 
Robert Whitaker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Walsh's answer was: "We didn't realize we had five guys out there
> ... it must have been overlooked in the heat of the moment."
> Walsh also said that ultimately, it is the officials'
> responsibility to cite penalties in such instances.
> Jack Parker said "Shame on us for not seeing it..."
> He refused to comment on wether or not he thought the extra man was
> intentional.
 
This sounds like two champion old foxes holding their tongues
and waiting for the rematch.
 
> ...                                                             If this
> was intentional, and I suspect it was, it was strategic move designed
> to get both a physical edge on BU (at the end of the game) and a
> psychological edge by trying to get BU rattled before tonight's game.
> No wonder Joe Carr called it "a brilliant move."
 
From everything that I've ever seen or heard about either Parker or
BU hockey in general, I'd call this not "brilliant" but really stupid.
As Exhibit A to support this:
 
Mike Machnik <[log in to unmask]> posted the
Hockey East Update (02/21/94) which contained:
 
>  02/20/94 Maine               1 at Boston University   5 HE
 
Never pull a Terrier's tail! Boy, they were really "rattled".
    Dave Carroll BU '73
    [log in to unmask]     (or if path problems ...
    [log in to unmask]