John Edwards writes:
>I don't think they could have dreamt up a more confusing rule if they
>tried.
 
It is actually very easy to understand (then again, I think the HE
shootout situation is easy to understand).  The rule change reads:
 
(Rule 4-2-e, emphasis theirs)
"e. When ONE minor penalty is assessed to ONE player of EACH team at
the same stoppage of play, these penalties will be served without
substitution provided there are no other penalties in effect and
visible on the clock. ..."
 
That is the only time that coincidental minors result in the penalties
going on the board and no substitution is permitted.  In *all* other
cases, the players are replaced on the ice and substitution is allowed.
 
>To me, the question should be simple. Either you substitute for coincidental
>minors or you don't. This sort of half-measure is just confusing and silly.
>Personally, I would not substitute for coincidental minors, but the
>decision should be made one way or the other.
 
Perhaps, but the problem was that there seemed to be a split between
coaches who wanted to keep the status quo and coaches who wanted
coincidentals to go on the board.  The compromise was to allow them to
go on the board in only the above described situation.  Hey, compromise
is what makes the world go round. :-)
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93
     <<<<< Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors (WCCM 800 AM) >>>>>