Know your NHL rule book!

[carpandean]

That rule is very fishy. Guys are thrown out all the time. It's hard to believe there are so few faceoff violations when an oftentimes inexperienced "center" steps in for the second faceoff. It's almost like the linesmen are protesting the rule by never calling it. Now watch -- it'll cost the Sabres a playoff series.

Unless I'm completely imagining things, the Sabres' opponent in one game last year got called for this. I remember RJ saying something "oh, and ____ gets tossed, too ... now, that should be a penalty ... and indeed it is! You don't see that one very often." That last part was probably Harry.

[Eleven]

Delay of game faceoff violation. I've seen it twice. I can't say I've ever seen inkman hit Ray Emery in the head with a blue and gold sex toy though.

 

I think Ink does that to Emery privately. It wouldn't come up in a game situation.

[Stoner]

Still waiting for an answer on the Vanek "goal"...

 

In the meantime, here's another one:

 

Six minutes left in the second period at HSBC Arena when a Jason Pominville slapshot smashes the glass behind the Ottawa net, Rhett Warrener-style. (At least I think it was Rhett who did that one time.)

 

Kerry Fraser and Stephane Auger huddle up and decide to tack the six minutes onto the third period. Fraser goes to tell Lindy Ruff, whose team is playing in its fourth game in six nights. Ruff says, "That's a jooooooooke. No way. We'll wait while they fix the glass."

 

Who wins out?

[darksabre]

Still waiting for an answer on the Vanek "goal"...

 

In the meantime, here's another one:

 

Six minutes left in the second period at HSBC Arena when a Jason Pominville slapshot smashes the glass behind the Ottawa net, Rhett Warrener-style. (At least I think it was Rhett who did that one time.)

 

Kerry Fraser and Stephane Auger huddle up and decide to tack the six minutes onto the third period. Fraser goes to tell Lindy Ruff, whose team is playing in its fourth game in six nights. Ruff says, "That's a jooooooooke. No way. We'll wait while they fix the glass."

 

Who wins out?

 

The refs. I feel like I've seen this done in a game recently. I don't remember where, but I've seen it. Something happened where it was going to delay the game like 20 minutes so the refs just said whatever, have an intermission.

[Eleven]

The refs. I feel like I've seen this done in a game recently. I don't remember where, but I've seen it. Something happened where it was going to delay the game like 20 minutes so the refs just said whatever, have an intermission.

 

Agreed. I've seen it, too. I just wonder what the limit is on minutes that can be tacked on to the following period.

[Kristian]

Did you really know that? Impressive.

 

"If, through misadventure or sickness, the Referees and Linesmen

appointed are prevented from appearing, the League will make every

attempt to find suitable replacement officials, otherwise, the Managers

or Coaches of the two Clubs shall agree on Referee(s) and

Linesman(men). If they are unable to agree, they shall appoint a

player from each side who shall act as Referee and Linesman; the

player of the home Club acting as Referee and the player of the

visiting Club as Linesman."

 

I can't even envision the misadventure that would have to occur for a home team player to serve as ref, but I'm sure I'm not alone in my willingness to pay an inordinate amount of money to see it happen.

 

I can't imagine it'd be a whole lot different than having Dave Jackson, a Montreal native, call Habs games in Montreal?

 

You know, like last year against Buffalo where he thought he deserved praise for disallowing a late Habs goal (as we all know Toronto has the call there, not the on-ice officials), and later call a weak penalty on Buffalo in OT, with the Habs scoring on the ensuing PP.

 

What was really funny is that there was an entire piece about him in the game recap on nhl.com mentioning the disallowed goal, and him being proud of "doing his job even if he was from Montreal". Magically that part of the game recap was gone 2 hours later.

 

But I degress... :-)

[MusicSim8]

I can't imagine it'd be a whole lot different than having Dave Jackson, a Montreal native, call Habs games in Montreal?

 

You know, like last year against Buffalo where he thought he deserved praise for disallowing a late Habs goal (as we all know Toronto has the call there, not the on-ice officials), and later call a weak penalty on Buffalo in OT, with the Habs scoring on the ensuing PP.

 

What was really funny is that there was an entire piece about him in the game recap on nhl.com mentioning the disallowed goal, and him being proud of "doing his job even if he was from Montreal". Magically that part of the game recap was gone 2 hours later.

 

But I degress... :-)

 

By the way, I do believe that this was the very game where two Montreal players got kicked out of the faceoff dot which led to a penalty against Montreal. Though with the way that game was going, I was surprised that they didn't give the Sabres a penalty for that. That was an awfully reffed game.

 

Here's the quote you were lookin' for too I believe... ""For all the times you miss something, I had a pretty good view of this one," Jackson said. "I was in my hometown and Montreal scored in overtime, but you're paid to do a job, so I did my job and disallowed the goal."" from ESPN.com

 

Actually Scratch my first part, it was a game against Montreal, the Sabres won it via the shootout with Lydman scoring the winner. But it was the March 29th game vs. Montreal last season (08-09) that had that strange call in the faceoff dot.

[wjag]

That rule is very fishy. Guys are thrown out all the time. It's hard to believe there are so few faceoff violations when an oftentimes inexperienced "center" steps in for the second faceoff. It's almost like the linesmen are protesting the rule by never calling it. Now watch -- it'll cost the Sabres a playoff series.

We saw it this year in a Sabres game already. I don't remember which team it was but the Sabres Center was Roy. Roy recognized it immediately and said something to the ref. The other team went to the penalty box.

[Eleven]

While we're on the NHL Rulebook, it looks like the league is keeping the trapezoids around for the near future: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=297885

[Stoner]

The refs. I feel like I've seen this done in a game recently. I don't remember where, but I've seen it. Something happened where it was going to delay the game like 20 minutes so the refs just said whatever, have an intermission.

 

Wrong! If there are under five minutes to go, the refs can tack on the time. Over five minutes to go, only the home team coach can request that it be done.

 

You wonder how many coaches know about this rule. It could come in handy.

[Stoner]

While we're on the NHL Rulebook, it looks like the league is keeping the trapezoids around for the near future: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=297885

 

Also, this, on head shots: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=505590

 

Pretty depressing piece. The dinosaurs live on.

 

The "head down" logic baffles me.

[Stoner]

As Thomas Vanek is starting his around the world move on a penalty shot (if he still had some life left in him -- Lindy sucked it all out, but I digress), inkman throws a blue and gold sex toy at Ray Emery, who's tending goal for the Flyers. The puck is approaching Emery when Bucky (hey, it's HIS nickname for it, not mine!) hits Emery on the coconut. The puck slips through the old wickets and into the net. Goal or no goal?

 

No goal!

 

"If, while the penalty shot is being taken, a spectator throws any

object onto the ice or, in the judgment of the Referee, interferes with

the player taking the shot or the goalkeeper defending the shot, he

shall permit the shot be taken again."

[plenzmd1]

We saw it this year in a Sabres game already. I don't remember which team it was but the Sabres Center was Roy. Roy recognized it immediately and said something to the ref. The other team went to the penalty box.

 

I was pretty sure that happened in a game this year as well..thought I was going crazy in my old age

[Stoner]

His team not shorthanded, a player skates toward the red line with the intention of firing the puck behind the opposition's net. As he goes to shoot it in, not yet having "gained the red line," the puck deflects off an opponent's stick and bobbles over the red line. Before it lands on the ice, the player bats it behind the opposition's goal line. A player of the opposing team touches it first.

 

Icing?

[inkman]

You'll find some interesting things when you google "Sabres sex toy". Mainly this:

 

Woman Injured After Sex Toy was Attached to Sabres Saw :o

 

and this:

[Drulloch]

His team not shorthanded, a player skates toward the red line with the intention of firing the puck behind the opposition's net. As he goes to shoot it in, not yet having "gained the red line," the puck deflects off an opponent's stick and bobbles over the red line. Before it lands on the ice, the player bats it behind the opposition's goal line. A player of the opposing team touches it first.

 

Icing?

 

"When a puck is shot by a team from their own half of the ice and is deflected several times before crossing the center red line, icing shall be nullified if at least one of these deflections was off an opposing player."

 

The 'several times' does make me pause but I'm still sticking with 'no icing.'

 

I can't find any relevance to the 'before it lands on the ice' part, I believe the center red line extends straight up 90 degrees perpendicular to the ice similar to the goal line in football.

 

?? ;-p

[Stoner]

"When a puck is shot by a team from their own half of the ice and is deflected several times before crossing the center red line, icing shall be nullified if at least one of these deflections was off an opposing player."

 

The 'several times' does make me pause but I'm still sticking with 'no icing.'

 

I can't find any relevance to the 'before it lands on the ice' part, I believe the center red line extends straight up 90 degrees perpendicular to the ice similar to the goal line in football.

 

?? ;-p

 

But I think after the first deflection off the opponent, the subsequent bat by the attacking player would not qualify as a deflection. The rule book says the red line is "gained" by puck contact with it. Is there anything in the rules about the red line extending above the ice?

 

This is why I think this thread is so interesting in light of the revisitation of No Goal. It's not possible for every scenario to be outlined in the rules. If the above icing situation occurs somewhere this March, would it be wrong for the league to issue a memo clarifying that it was correctly called icing, but next time, it's not icing (with the introduction of the verticality of the red line)?

[darksabre]

Agreed. I've seen it, too. I just wonder what the limit is on minutes that can be tacked on to the following period.

 

Well now we know :thumbsup:

 

 

Wrong! If there are under five minutes to go, the refs can tack on the time. Over five minutes to go, only the home team coach can request that it be done.

 

You wonder how many coaches know about this rule. It could come in handy.

 

So it was a trick question! Not fair! :lol:

 

I still wish I could remember where I saw this happen. I know it was within the last few years.

[MattPie]

Also, this, on head shots: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=505590

 

Pretty depressing piece. The dinosaurs live on.

 

The "head down" logic baffles me.

 

I also love that the guy saying Kevlar is like hard plastic got voted up a bunch of times. Kevlar, in every application I've seen, is about as hard as denim. It's the hard plastic that makes the shoulder pads dangerous.

[Stoner]

Well now we know :thumbsup:

 

 

 

 

So it was a trick question! Not fair! :lol:

 

I still wish I could remember where I saw this happen. I know it was within the last few years.

 

Actually we don't know. The rules don't spell out the maximum amount of time that can be tacked on. But I'm not sure how much time reasonably can be added on to another period.

[Stoner]

The Sabres lead the Oilers 3-2 tonight late in the third, and Edmonton pulls its goalie. With the net empty and the extra attacker on, there's a wild scramble around the Oiler net. With the puck in the crease, an Oiler falls on it. Penalty shot?

[nobody]

The Sabres lead the Oilers 3-2 tonight late in the third, and Edmonton pulls its goalie. With the net empty and the extra attacker on, there's a wild scramble around the Oiler net. With the puck in the crease, an Oiler falls on it. Penalty shot?

 

I think the Sabres would be awarded a goal since it is an empty net.

[Stoner]

I think the Sabres would be awarded a goal since it is an empty net.

 

Correct.

 

Alex Ovechkin is awarded a penalty shot, and as he crosses the blue line, Ryan snaps under the pressure. He whips off his mask and yells, "Bring it on you talentless hack!" Ovechkin is laughing so hard he fans on his shot, which Miller easily stops. The refs huddle and decide:

 

1. The result stands -- no goal

 

2. Ovechkin gets a re-do

 

3. The result stands -- no goal -- but Miller gets a penalty

 

4. Ovechkin is awarded a goal

[Eleven]

Correct.

 

Alex Ovechkin is awarded a penalty shot, and as he crosses the blue line, Ryan snaps under the pressure. He whips off his mask and yells, "Bring it on you talentless hack!" Ovechkin is laughing so hard he fans on his shot, which Miller easily stops. The refs huddle and decide:

 

1. The result stands -- no goal

 

2. Ovechkin gets a re-do

 

3. The result stands -- no goal -- but Miller gets a penalty

 

4. Ovechkin is awarded a goal

 

 

The correct answer is 3, if I had to guess (improper equipment--helmets are mandatory). What probably would happen is 4.

[Stoner]

The correct answer is 3, if I had to guess (improper equipment--helmets are mandatory). What probably would happen is 4.

 

Why would 4 happen if 3 is correct? :unsure:

 

The rules say 4.

 

"If the goalkeeper deliberately removes his

helmet and/or face mask during the course of a penalty shot or

shootout attempt, the Referee shall award a goal to the non-offending

team."