*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