Dave Hatfield writes:
>When I first heard about this "switch" last year, I didn't think much of
>it.  Now, after being there for a couple games, I have to wonder.  What
>rule, HE or otherwise, allows a visiting team to make this request?  Could
>BC refuse to switch, or in the spirit of fair play, are they (un)willingly
>obliging the other team?
 
The rule in question is an NC$$ rule which I can't quote right now
since I don't have the book on hand. :-)  However, it basically states
that if one team has an inherent advantage over the other in a
particular rink, the opposing coach can request that the teams switch
sides halfway through the third.
 
Important points:
 
* I believe the referee is the arbiter in determining whether the
request should be upheld and that the other team has no say in the
matter.
* The referee will not, as far as I know, try to implement this rule
on his own.  It is up to the coach of the team that is supposedly
being disadvantaged to make the request to the referee under this rule.
* They cannot play until the first whistle after 10:00 because the
rule states the teams must switch at the halfway point.  If they
waited for a whistle, the third period would be over 20:00 long.
* Structural disadvantages are accepted reasons.  Things like a
nasty visiting crowd are not.  I don't believe the rule states exactly
what is accepted, but this is from my understanding of how the rule
has been applied in the past.
 
For people who aren't sure what the big deal is all about, the problem
is that the home and visiting benches are exactly opposite each other
at BC, and they are both entirely in one half of the ice.  BC has an
inherent advantage for 40 minutes (without a switch) including the
end of the game because their bench is entirely in their defensive
half of the ice.  There are many obvious reasons why this is a huge
advantage to the team that enjoys it.
 
The ironic thing is that opposing coaches also employed "the switch"
in BC's old rink, the McHugh Forum...I never set foot inside it, but
my understanding is that the lighting was particularly bad down one
end as opposed to the other.  I thought it was funny that BC had a new
rink built that resulted in another advantage to them. :-)  It was
also built, I believe, after the NC$$ began to strongly recommend the
design where both benches are on one side and the penalty boxes are on
the other.  BC also has an advantage in that the penalty boxes are
both on the same side of the ice as the BC bench - whether this was
intentional or not, I do not know, but anything is possible.
 
Helga talked about Jack Parker's use of the switch...the following is
all from memory.  I recall that Northeastern also made the switch in
the first season of the Forum, 1988-89, but I don't believe this
lasted long.  Maine, however, did it every time for several years and
may still do it.  And Doug Woog did it for all of the three Minnesota-BC
NC$$ tourney games in 1989-90.  I don't think Merrimack coach Ron
Anderson has ever made the switch from what I recall, and it seems
that by now, at least half of the coaches do not do it.
 
Myself, I would always do it if I was an opposing coach...the result
is that for the last 10 minutes, your bench is in your end, which
could be key if it is a close game and you need to get that sixth
skater on.  Or if you're killing a penalty late and need to switch
units, or if players get tired and you need a quick change without
getting caught...you can see why it makes such a difference.  To
be honest, I don't understand why some coaches *don't* do it.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93