Penalties in Vermont game

OK. Collegehockeystats and I seem to be at odds counting power plays in that mess of penalties in the Vermont game. Does this look right?



11:14 UVM Penalty: Tom Collingham (Holding)
12:12 COR Penalty: Ryan Vesce (Obstruction Interference)
12:46 UVM Penalty: Phil Youngclaus (Hitting From Behind)
13:01 COR Goal: Matt Moulson GWG PPG 4x3 (Charlie Cook, Michael Knoepfli)
13:49 COR Penalty: Ben Wallace (Hitting From Behind)



Post Edited (02-04-04 12:02)

Looks right to me. Cornell 1 for 2, Vermont 0 for 2. What does CHS get?

I got Vermont 0/6, chs got 0/5 in the game. The other penalties were straightforward, so this was the only place I figured could cause problems. *shrug* Not the first (or second or third or fourth) time they've been wrong.

You have the initial UVM penalty ending on the ppg. Not correct. The penalty that causes the advantage ends -- the second one.

There are two rules as it applies to this situation

From the NCAA rulebook:

[q]A.R. 5: A1 receives a minor penalty at 1:00; B1 receives a minor penalty at 1:30, and A2 receives a minor penalty at 1:40. Team B scores a goal at 1:50. Who comes out for Team A?

RULING: A2 comes onto the ice (see 4-2-c) since B1’s penalty “evened” the situation and A2 “caused” the short-handed situation that existed when Team B scored.[/q]

From the Ice Hockey Statisticians Manual:

[q]Article 5. Interrupted power plays should use the following scenario:
(1) 1:00—Team White receives minor, 5-on-4.
(2) 1:15—Team Blue receives minor, 4-on-4.
(3) 1:30—Team White receives minor, 4-on-3.
Team White never is in a power-play situation. Since two is the most goals Team Blue could score with a player advantage, two has to be the number of power-play opportunities. This is despite the fact that if no goals are scored, Team Blue will appear in an advantaged situation three times. Remember that the number of power-play opportunities should be equal to the maximum number of power-play goals that could be scored.[/q]

Hence, the first rule claims that had Vermont scored on the 4v3, it was the 2nd Cornell penalty that should've been let out of the box. And since they never had the original 5v4, they cannot count it as a power play opportunity. Thus the most goals they could've scored on the PP (even though it was interrupted) was 1 goal. Thus they only get the one PP opportunity.

What is confusing here is that the first UVM penalty was the one that ended on the Cornell goal and not the 2nd one, which is what the rule book says should've been let out. And if that had been the case, Vermont would've had a 5v3 and thus would have been 0-2 on the PP. But I digress, there is definitely a SNAFU in there somewhere, I just don't know whether it was on the statisticians part or the refs part for letting the wrong person out.

Greg,

True, but then in that case Cornell should've been down 2 men at one point, correct? Then Vermont still should've been 0-2 on the PP?

That graphic was my interpretation of what happened. Not necessarily what actually happened. You and Greg appear to be right (and I can't ever seem to find what I'm looking for in the rule book). And I suppose this time chs.com was right. *grumble*

If the first two penalties were coincidental, I could obviously see the second UVM penalty being released, but since none were coincidental, it would seem more logical to release the earliest UVM penalty. Oh well. Guess not.

11:14 UVM Penalty
11:14 - 12:11 COR pp 5x4
12:12 COR Penalty. Cornell 0x1 on pp.
12:12 - 12:45 4x4.
12:46 UVM Penalty
12:46 - 13:00 COR pp 4x3
13:01 COR goal. 12:46 UVM returns to ice. Cornell 1x1 on pp! See below.*
13:02 - 13:13 4x4
13:14 UVM 11:14 returns to ice.
13:14 - 13:48 UVM pp 5x4
13:49 COR Penalty
13:49 - 14:11 UVM pp 5x3
14:12 COR 12:12 returns to ice. Vermont 0x1 on pp.
14:12 - 15:48 UVM back to 5x4
15:49 COR 13:49 returhs to ice. Vermont 0x2 on pp.


> the number of power-play opportunities should be equal to the maximum number of power-play goals that could be scored.

*The max number of ppg Cornell could have scored is 1. If they had scored before the 12:12 even-up call, then the 12:46 penalty would have given them a second pp chance beginning at 14:46, but prior to that Cornell got the 14:12 penalty. They thus would never have had the second advantage had they scored on the first one. Hence they could have scored a ppg either during 11:14-12:11 or 12:46-14:11, but not during both intervals.



Post Edited (02-04-04 14:56)

Things like PP Opps. on College Hockey Stats are created by an algorithm based upon the penalties entered, not by hand. I've never seen anyone or anything that's 100 percent perfect. If you think you've seen an error on their site, you should tell them, so they can correct it. They would probably welcome that.

Considering they were a bunch of raging assholes when I was looking for some help setting up my algorithm, I'll choose not to tell them, thank you very much.

Thanks for the kind words Cowbell Guy.

As I politely explained to you in your previous correspondence our algorithm would be of no benefit to you in your history project because the rules of how penalties are released and how power-plays are counted have both changed significantly over the years. I can see where you would find us a bunch of raging a**holes as a result of us not giving you something that would be useless to you.

As for the Vermont game, this is a common situation. No minor penalty can ever cause more than one PP chance. A minor can sometimes be broken up into two "segments" of advantage but it's still only one opportunity, because only one goal could ever be scored against a minor.

There was an error made in the Vermont game as to which penalty released when Cornell scored the first goal - it should have been the second penalty (which was the one that caused the shorthanded situation) but instead the first was released. As a result, Vermont never had a PP chance against the Cornell penalty.

Laura Stange is an extremely astute SID and alerted us to this problem immediately. While our (proprietary) algorithm did originally compute Vermont as 0x6 Laura knew that was incorrect because the wrong player had been released. I assure you Cowbell Guy that if there is a problem in the future Laura will be sure to notify us, so hopefully you can spend your time worrying about other things.

Thank you all for following our site.

Timothy J. Danehy
collegehockeystats.com

[q]*The max number of ppg Cornell could have scored is 1. If they had scored before the 12:12 even-up call, then the 12:46 penalty would have given them a second pp chance beginning at 14:46, but prior to that Cornell got the 14:12 penalty. They thus would never have had the second advantage had they scored on the first one. Hence they could have scored a ppg either during 11:14-12:11 or 12:46-14:11, but not during both intervals.[/q]

Cornell was definitely 1x2. The first penalty was nullified by their own minor (0x1), and the second one resulted in a goal (1x2). There is no such thing as a 1x0 PP. The 2 advantages were cause by 2 different penalties, hence they went 1x2.



Post Edited (02-05-04 16:33)

HAHAHAHAHA

He sure told you.