>>>>> "Terry" == Terry Paul Kasdan <[log in to unmask]> writes: Terry> On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Mark Lewin wrote: >> Also, what is the rule regarding coincidental minors? Sometimes the >> teams go 4 on 4, other times they stay 5 on 5. There must be some >> rule behind it but it sure escapes me. Terry> [...] However (for example) if a player is Terry> caught tripping and the referee's arm goes up for a delayed Terry> whistle, and in the meantime another player is caught holding, Terry> then these would not be coincidental. The two penalties are Terry> the result of separate instances, and as a result the teams Terry> will skate 4 on 4. Actually, those penalties are also deemed to be coincidental. Anytime a penalty is assessed to a player from each team at the same stoppage in play, the penalties are coincidental. The confusion is in how the NC$$ is handling coincidental penalties. If exactly 2 penalties are assessed (one to each team) and no other players are currently serving penalties, the teams will skate 4-on-4. If this is not the case, then any coincidental penalties will not result in a loss of on-ice manpower. For example, in the UM/CC game there was a situation where a UM player and a CC player each received double minor penalties. Because more than 2 penalties were assessed, the teams skated 5-on-5. If the players had received only 1 penalty each, the teams would have skated 4-on-4. Confusing? Yes. The rule was basically a compromise between those that wanted to do away with the coincidental penalty rule and those that wanted to keep it. I'm just glad that USA Hockey didn't adopt a similar rule so I didn't have to be constantly explaining things to clue-less coaches. ;-) [Not to mention irate parents.] I'd also like to add my congratulations to Michigan and thank Colorado College for a great championship game! Peter Kester [log in to unmask] HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.