A quick way to end cheap hits.

[wjag]

There's no good view, that I know of, that shows that. Drury's head snaps sharply to the right, so I have to assume his jaw was hit.

Umberger was not in possession of the puck when he was hit.

 

"Plenty of time" had not gone by before Neil hit Drury. It was timed at .44 seconds or something, although I figured it was a full second.

 

We can have a great debate here, but I think we need to establish some baseline facts.

If this game had been played in Madison Square Garden, we would have seen it from all angles. I was watching the Rangers play the other day. They had a bunch of cameras there and they show you the play from every angle. But Buffalo's coverage is really camera limited.

[Wraith]

By rule, Umberger WAS in possession of the puck. (Unfortunately, so technically was Drury even though the puck was moving back up ice by the time he got clocked.)

 

What is the rule for possession? Is possession really only lost when the puck is touched by someone else? I've seen this implied a few times lately. If that's the case, that is assinine.

[X. Benedict]

What is the rule for possession? Is possession really only lost when the puck is touched by someone else? I've seen this implied a few times lately. If that's the case, that is assinine.

The continuous possession rule is pretty silly.

[Stoner]

By rule, Umberger WAS in possession of the puck. (Unfortunately, so technically was Drury even though the puck was moving back up ice by the time he got clocked.)

 

Careful now. Your skate is perilously close to being in the crease of another No Goal debate. :)

 

 

 

What is the rule for possession? Is possession really only lost when the puck is touched by someone else? I've seen this implied a few times lately. If that's the case, that is assinine.

 

nhl.com, download rule book.

[Wraith]

Careful now. Your skate is perilously close to being in the crease of another No Goal debate. :)

nhl.com, download rule book.

 

I now remember why I gave up on getting anything meaningful out of the NHL rulebook around '99. It's complete bullsh%t.

 

Posession is defined as:

 

"The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession." - Taken from 56.1 Interference, pg. 161, NHL Rulebook, 2006-2007.

 

Hmm, so those interference penalties on Lydman Saturday night were not against the rules, if you go by the letter of the law. On both plays, it is clear that nobody else had touched the puck to gain possession. I also like how the rulebook fails to define immediately, of course. If we go by the strict definition of immediate, which is an infintely small unit of time, then almost all check "finishes" are illegal.

 

In addition, according to the rulebook, a player on the penalty kill who ices a puck may be hit at any time up until a player other than the goaltender on the power play touches the puck. By this definition, people can be hit 10 seconds after the puck has left their stick. Unless of course, said penalty killer is held:

 

"54.1 Holding - Any action by a player or goalkeeper that retards the progress of an opposing player whether or not he is in possession of the puck." - pg. 160, NHL Rulebook, 2006-2007.

 

Of course, this rule is worded so vaguely that almost every check is a hold, following the letter of the law. So it looks like Lydman should've been called for holding. Interesting, why didn't the refs call that? Hmm, looks like Drury and Kaberle were held. That's a two minute minor right there. They may also have been charged.

 

"43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

 

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violenty check an opponent in any manner. A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice." - Pg. 93, NHL Rulebook, 2007-2007

 

The rule says nothing about possession or timing at all. Both Drury and Kaberle were probably charged, as a distance was traveled. Both Janssen and Neil should have received Game Misconduct Penalties as both charges resulted in injures to the head or face. Of course, distance traveled is not defined, so we can let the referees make that up as they go. How far is too far? How violent is too violent? Neil sure traveled a long way to make contact with Drury and the collision sure was violent.

 

It sure makes the debate about whether the hits were legal or not look silly. The rules are so vaguely worded that we shouldn't even bother.

[deluca67]

Neil didn't go for Drury's head. His elbows were down, and his shoulder caught Drury's jaw, just like Campbell's upper arm or shoulder caught Umberger's. The only difference between the hits is that Neil's hit was a hair later and came from the side. Do you want to make hits from the side illegal?

 

Watch the video. Neil aims the point of the shoulder right at Drury's head and then he follows through with his right arm. The intent was to clearly make contact with Drury's head.