In 1948, there was no rule that stated the goalie had to play in the crease or anywhere near it. Now the Rangers may have been making a mockery of the game, and the referee might not have been appreciative of a potential bench-clearing brawl between the offended Aces and the NHL bottom-feeder Rangers. But the official was risking career0suicide by inventing a rule or punishing the Rangers for experimenting with the game.
I've often wondered if a team should practice a 6-on-3 and pull the goalie with a two-man advantage, especially in the second period. The odds of scoring a goal with two big bodies in front and four on the perimeter must be nearly 100% with just three defenders and a goalie.
--- In email@example.com, "misterearle" <MisterEarle@...> wrote:
> From a CP story about a Rangers-Quebec Aces exhibition in 1948, won by Rangers 10-2:
> "Despite the protests of Aces and the referee, Goalie Chuck Rayner of New York played up the ice for the last 10 minutes of playand was officially credited with an assist on one Ranger goal."
> And my question is, how could the Rangers, or any team for that matter, do something "despite the protests of the referee"? If they were violating the rulebook could he not simply assess penalties? And if not, why "protest" at all?