This actually happened this year vs. RPI.
44:00 Cornell minor A (RPI PP chance 4x5)
45:49 RPI minor A (4x4)
46:00 Cornell minor A ends (Cornell PP chance 5x4)
46:48 Cornell minor B (4x4)
47:21 RPI minor B (Cornell PP chance 4x3)
47:49 RPI minor A ends (4x4)
48:48 Cornell minor B ends (??? 5x4)
Now, in that time span, on two penalties for RPI, Cornell had 3 distinct man-up opportunities. Does that count as 2 or 3 PP chances?
It's 3 pp's:
Time C R pp
44:00 4 5 RPI pp 1
45:49 4 4 even
46:00 5 4 Cor pp 1
46:48 4 4 even
47:21 4 3 Cor pp 2
47:49 4 4 even
48:48 5 4 Cor pp 3
A pp must be entirely contiguous. Simple example:
1:00 Hvd major
2:00 Cor minor
4:00 Cor minor ends
6:00 Hvd major ends
would count as 2 Cornell pps (beginning at 1:00 and 4:00).
Nope, I'm wrong. See below.
Hah! Then I'm doing it right and collegehockeystats is doing it wrong. Muahahahaha :-D
Thanks!
I have a question. This came up during a Portland game last year. Seattle was given a delayed penalty when they screwed up a line change and had 7 (i.e., 2 too many) skaters on the ice. Portland pulled the goalie but with so many Seattle players on the ice they broke up the play pretty quickly.
Question: since apparently there is no greater penalty for 2 extra skaters than for 1, why couldn't you just jump the boards with the whole team the minute you were called for too many men? (And why hasn't Jack Parker tried it? ;-)
Greg,
You can assert whatever the hell you want, but it's TWO power play opportunities. It may be three distinct periods of time in which the team plays with a manpower advantage, but it's counted as two power play opportunities.
See the NCAA ice hockey statistics manual at http://www.ncaa.org/library/statistical/ice_hockey_stats_manual/2002/2002_ice_hockey_stats_man.pdf
and read Section 8, Article 5. (I realize the manual contains its share of idiocy, but the interpretation given in this section makes sense, and it's the one I've followed for something like the last dozen years.)
Arthur
Yep, my bad. The rule is that "the number of power play opportunities should equal the maximum number of power-play goals that could be scored," which is different (and better than) "every distinct shorthanded period gets its own powerplay."
So, reading that article and the one before on major penalties, it sounds like Greg's major penalty example also goes down as 0-for-1, even though the number of goals that could have been scored on the major is ill-defined. (And also that Toronto went 2-for-3 on their pivotal Game Six power play, not 2-for-4 as I originally thought.)
> it sounds like Greg's major penalty example also goes down as 0-for-1
Yep, I think that's true. The way I read the rule:
1:00 Hvd major
2:00 Cor minor
4:00 Cor minor ends
6:00 Hvd major ends
results in a single powerplay lasting from 1:00-2:00 and 4:00-6:00. The maximum number of possible goals on *that* powerplay is 1. If Cornell were to score at say 1:30, then they would be 1x2, with the second powerplay lasting from 1:30-2:00 and 4:00-6:00.
BTW, there are two "Article 4"s under Section 8. You would think somebody would have proofread the rulebook. ;-)
Greg Berge wrote:
QuoteQuestion: since apparently there is no greater penalty for 2 extra skaters than for 1, why couldn't you just jump the boards with the whole team the minute you were called for too many men? (And why hasn't Jack Parker tried it? ;-)
Can you get a bench minor for unsportsmanlike? I'd imagine if that were possible, it'd be called here.