PCM

Good question. I don't know. I assumed it was something different from prospects camp.

From Pantagraph.com: Blaming wrong people for penalizing athletes

There's some interesting news about Chicago's situation and Jonathan Toews in this story from the Chicago Tribune. It sounds as if we'll be hearing about his future at UND sooner rather than later.

Thanks for your insight. Very interesting.

The last I heard, it had not even been peer reviewed.

From the People's Weekly World: American Indian mascots harm students

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

For all practical purposes, you could be right. However, I suspect that the NCAA committee approaches rulemaking not from the perspective of how a particular rule change will be implemented by the WCHA, but by what it hopes to accomplish for the good of the game when a change is made. I was theorizing on the rule committee's possible rationale for making the change. Whether Bruce, Greg and company decide that the WCHA will apply the rule differently is another matter entirely.

I paid a lot more attention to Abbie Carmichael, my favorite L&O attorney, than Jack.

Your post seemed to imply that. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying. Me too.

Watching all those "Law and Order" reruns is finally paying off!

The defendent has the right to a speedy trial if he/she wants it. There's nothing that says a speedy trial is required. Because the outcome of this case could carry the death penalty, a speedy trial is obviously not in Rodriguez's best interest. And if he's found guilty, dragging out the appeals process as long as possible is a given.

What if, as a result of the rule against icing the puck on the power play, teams began scoring with the man advantage 5-10 percent more than they do now? Would it make taking penalties so costly that coaches would place greater emphasis on avoiding them? If there were fewer penalties called because fewer penalties were being committed, teams would spend more time skating 5-on-5. Would it be better for college hockey if fewer games were decided by the referees and special teams? I wonder if this isn't the rule committee's main objective.

Who defended him? Some of us are defending his right to a fair trial. Big difference.

And Greg Shepherd agreed. Unfortunately, it was Derek, not Greg who was on the ice at the time. If you used an extremely literal interpretation of the rule (which apparently Derek did), technically the goal could be allowed. However, as Greg explained to us in the press box the next night, the rule was never intended to give players on the attacking team carte blanche to stand in the crease. If that had been the intent, the crease would have been completely eliminated, and it wasn't. It needed to be clarified for the Derek Shepherds of the world.

Here's additional news from the NCAA regarding other decisions made by its ice hockey rules committee.

There's an article on USCHO about decisions made by the NCAA Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules Committee during its June annual meeting. I think this is a good rule change. I noticed while watching the Stanley Cup playoffs that there were many fewer icing calls than there are in college. I'd also like to see the NCAA adopt the NHL rule of not allowing a line change after icing the puck. That rule, as well as not allowing a short-handed team to ice the puck, are being considered as experimental rules. I applaud the committee for this decision:

Which I think will become obvious as the trial proceeds.

Because there's a difference between justice being served and how we serve justice. I understand people being frustrated with how slowly this case has come to trial because of all the legal maneuvering, but that's how the system works. Just because you and others might want instant gratification doesn't mean that we throw the system out the window and act on our base emotions. Vigilantism. What a great criminal justice system. Ask yourself this: If someone accused you of raping and murdering their daughter, how would you feel when justice from the end of a shotgun came calling and you knew you were innocent?

Nah. I think it's from using my head to punish the dehumidifier.

I'm old. I forget.

Whew! That's a load off my mind. Good luck, Jordan. I underestimated what you could do for the Sioux. I won't make the same mistake about how you'll do in the pros. You've proven that hard work, dedication and determination can take you far.

You can say it. I don't think your statement applies in this instance, but you can say it. It's called due process, and if you were on trial for you life, you'd want your attorneys to do all they could do to defend you, too, especially if you knew you were innocent. That's not to say that I think Rodriguez is innocent because I don't. However, our criminal justice system operates under the presumption of innocence. He has a right to the best defense his attorneys can provide. No, he wasn't. Do you think everyone with a Hispanic name is an illegal from Mexico? There are many Americans citizens who commit crimes against other American citizens, which is what happened in this case. Speak for yourself. If you stay out of his jail cell, you're probably safe. Huh? Where do you come up with this stuff? If it were true, I would see something wrong with it. The prosecution will do all it can to make certain that Dru's killer gets the justice he deserves. The U.S. government has great resources and some powerful weapons in its arsenal. Based on what I've read, the case against Rodriguez looks quite strong. If he gets life, he'll be lucky.

Part VIII of the illinois.scout.com series "Through the trifocals" has been posted.

Boy, Diggler, you sure know how to put an end to a spirited discussion.