My understanding that this is a "delayed" call. The ref should put his hand in the air, and wave the call if the non-offending team gets control, or blow the whistle if the next person to touch the puck in a player on the offending team or the goalie. But if your and Ed Moller's descriptions are correct, either I misunderstand the rule too, or the ref blew the call, because incidental contact doesn't constitute "control." Clay > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Love [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 10:42 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Calls in UVM at UMass game .... > [. . .] > But speaking of rules, I learned my "interpretation" of the > high-sticking > rule was incorrect all these years .... UNH's first goal vs. BU on Friday > night was scored when Shipulski batted down a more-than-shoulder-high puck > behind the net that caromed off a BU defenseman's skate right to Ficek who > swatted it home past DiPietro. I'd always believed that NC$$ rules spec- > ified that once a puck was struck by a high-stick the play was dead, irre- > spective of who touched the puck next. This always made sense to me w/r > to safety issues, i.e., as a way to discourage players from making wild > swings at head-high pucks. I guess not .... But what if Shipulski's swat- > ted puck had gone directly into the net - would the goal have counted ?? > Does it matter if it strikes the goalkeeper first ?? I guess I'd better > bone up on the high-sticking section of the rule-book before I take in > another game :-) > > Cheers from Maryland - Jim > > HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to > [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List. HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.