I'm not an NHL devotee, and I don't like the 4-on-4 OT on general
principles, but here's a question:  I keep hearing about how the 4-on-4
opens up the game, allows for more creativity, boosts offense, etc. all of
which seems to cure a lot of hockey's (or at least the NHL's) various ills.
 If that's the case, and 4-on-4 is so terrific during the extra five
minutes, then why don't they spread this benefit around and play 4-on-4 for
the first 60?  Why reserve all the excitement for the OT?

I'm undecided about the two-ref two-linesman officiating system.  The
two-ref one-linesman system used some years ago in college hockey was a
failure, largely (at least in the ECAC) due to wild inconsistencies that
happened between the two refs.  This was especially true when, as often was
the case, one of the refs was a newcomer and the other was established.
The senior ref made the vast majority of the calls, even when the junior
one was much closer and had a much better view of the play.  Pairing the
refs up in this manner was probably seen as a good way to help the new guy
learn more quickly, but in terms of how the game was called, it was usually
worse than the old one-ref two-linesman system.
--
Bill Fenwick                                                 DJF   5/27/94
Cornell '86 and '95                                          JCF   12/2/97
LET'S GO RED!!

"According to most studies, people's number one fear is public speaking.
 Number two is death.  Death is number two?  So at a funeral, most people
 would rather be in the casket than doing the eulogy."
-- Jerry Seinfeld