Starting with 4 on the floor....

[Rich]

The problem I have with this is:

In 4-34-1, it clearly says that a player is one of the five team members who are legally on the floor at any given time.

By the definition, the kid running on the court wasn't a player, then, since he wasn't legally on the floor.

So the kid would have to be bench personnel or there is a hole in the rules.

If the kid is bench personnel, then the technical has to get addressed via 10-4-2 and there should've been an indirect technical foul on the HC.

Here's what happened: One of my partners was the C tableside and whistled the technical when the fifth player ran on the floor (without his hockey stick). He informed the table and then did inform the coach about the indirect technical -- but neglected to tell the coach about losing the box.

So I'm still not sure if we are right and I don't have time to dig through the casebook now. But it seems the consensus here is that it's just a player technical. Which, to me, would be equitable.

Too much business travel. Only 3 varsity boys games worked thus far this season.

--Rich

Edited to add: I just read case 10.3.3B. Player technical only. Right outcome for the wrong reasons. Oh well, again I learn I don't know everything

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Dec 11th, 2005 at 12:12 PM]