Know your NHL rule book!

[Stoner]

So, what's everyone's take on the Kaleta penalty last night. The immediate reaction by RJ and HN and RR was that it was a no-brainer call. In the postgame show, KS, predictably, seemed to want to cast doubt on it. That carries little weight with me (no more than reading Buffalo Bills "lead journalist" Chris Brown). But when RM disagreed with it, maybe it deserves a second look.

 

What's a "puck battle"?

[shrader]

So, what's everyone's take on the Kaleta penalty last night. The immediate reaction by RJ and HN and RR was that it was a no-brainer call. In the postgame show, KS, predictably, seemed to want to cast doubt on it. That carries little weight with me (no more than reading Buffalo Bills "lead journalist" Chris Brown). But when RM disagreed with it, maybe it deserves a second look.

 

What's a "puck battle"?

 

I forget who the Panther was, but it looked like he dropped his shoulder looking to initiate contact. Still a dumb move by Kaleta though.

[Stoner]

What about Brad May's "no goal" in Detroit? Whistle went long after the puck crossed the line but was negated by the ref's "intent" to the blow the whistle before that. Did he miss his mouth?

 

Almost as strange was the league's convoluted statement on the call. (And come to think of it, why does a controversial call in Detroit deserve such a response by the league?)

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=506731

 

No Goalers will love this line: Murphy said the League's Hockey Operations group will "internalize and see if we can come up with a better solution or a better answer. If there is one we'll find one."

[shrader]

What about Brad May's "no goal" in Detroit? Whistle went long after the puck crossed the line but was negated by the ref's "intent" to the blow the whistle before that. Did he miss his mouth?

 

Almost as strange was the league's convoluted statement on the call. (And come to think of it, why does a controversial call in Detroit deserve such a response by the league?)

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=506731

 

No Goalers will love this line: Murphy said the League's Hockey Operations group will "internalize and see if we can come up with a better solution or a better answer. If there is one we'll find one."

 

I was wondering how long it would take for this one to be mentioned somewhere. That was one awful call. I understand the purpose of the "once the ref decides to blow the whistle, it's dead" rule, but this decision clearly violates that one. The original shot beat the goalie clean. If you're going to keep that rule in place, you need to let the refs themselves run the replay review.

[Stoner]

I was wondering how long it would take for this one to be mentioned somewhere. That was one awful call. I understand the purpose of the "once the ref decides to blow the whistle, it's dead" rule, but this decision clearly violates that one. The original shot beat the goalie clean. If you're going to keep that rule in place, you need to let the refs themselves run the replay review.

 

This league would never invest the significant amount of money to have all those monitors put at ice level. I mean, this is the league that still tries to fit that giant headset through the little round hole in the glass. So funny. Too bad technology has not evolved since 1979. And, honestly, I have to wonder about the brain power among the referee base to pull off the "ice side" review.

 

Is the league really telling us that the puck could make its way cleanly through the five-hole and get stuck in the back of the net while the referee, on a poor angle, not seeing the puck go in and thinking it was under the goalie, could blow his whistle, three seconds after the puck went in and... THE GOAL WOULDN'T COUNT!? And tell us there would be no role for replay there? It's an exaggerated version of May's goal, but still that's basically what happened in Detroit.

[shrader]

This league would never invest the significant amount of money to have all those monitors put at ice level. I mean, this is the league that still tries to fit that giant headset through the little round hole in the glass. So funny. Too bad technology has not evolved since 1979. And, honestly, I have to wonder about the brain power among the referee base to pull off the "ice side" review.

 

They do reviews in college right there on the ice. The ref sits in the scorers box and watches on a monitor. Some guy upstairs can easily send any of the camera feeds to that monitor.

[Stoner]

They do reviews in college right there on the ice. The ref sits in the scorers box and watches on a monitor. Some guy upstairs can easily send any of the camera feeds to that monitor.

 

Interesting.

[Stoner]

Tim Kennedy is skating from right to left behind the Washington net and appears to want to try a wraparound. Kennedy throws on the brakes and cuts quickly the other way, toward the right post. The goalie has bit and it totally out of the play, outside the left post. As Kennedy is starting to shoot the puck, the Cap defenseman trips over his goalie's legs on the far side of the play and wipes out the net. Kennedy's shot crosses the goal line, but the cage is long gone.

 

What's the call?

[Drulloch]

Tim Kennedy is skating from right to left behind the Washington net and appears to want to try a wraparound. Kennedy throws on the brakes and cuts quickly the other way, toward the right post. The goalie has bit and it totally out of the play, outside the left post. As Kennedy is starting to shoot the puck, the Cap defenseman trips over his goalie's legs on the far side of the play and wipes out the net. Kennedy's shot crosses the goal line, but the cage is long gone.

 

What's the call?

 

I say GOAL!

 

"A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when an attacking player, in the act of shooting the puck into the goal is prevented from scoring as a result of a defending player or goalkeeper displacing the goal post- either deliberately or accidentally."

 

That is, of course, assuming that Kennedy's puck crossed the goal line inbetween the posts' typical location (before being moved).

[Stoner]

I say GOAL!

 

"A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when an attacking player, in the act of shooting the puck into the goal is prevented from scoring as a result of a defending player or goalkeeper displacing the goal post- either deliberately or accidentally."

 

That is, of course, assuming that Kennedy's puck crossed the goal line inbetween the posts' typical location (before being moved).

 

Correct!

 

I don't think that quote is from the NHL rule book, but that's the gist of it.

 

"63.6 Awarded Goal - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either

deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck

crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts,

the Referee may award a goal.

 

In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have

been displaced by the actions a defending player, the puck must have

been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal

prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that

the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of

the goal posts.

 

When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the

defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra

attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team,

the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team."

 

In my example, the goalie didn't really need to be out of the play. I take it that the puck doesn't have to cross the goal line while on the ice, but if the net is out of position, how does the ref determine that an elevated shot wouldn't have hit the crossbar?

[carpandean]

Is the league really telling us that the puck could make its way cleanly through the five-hole and get stuck in the back of the net while the referee, on a poor angle, not seeing the puck go in and thinking it was under the goalie, could blow his whistle, three seconds after the puck went in and... THE GOAL WOULDN'T COUNT!? And tell us there would be no role for replay there? It's an exaggerated version of May's goal, but still that's basically what happened in Detroit.

The problem wasn't technology. The rules require that the referee call up to the replay crew if he feels that he may have made the wrong call. He didn't realize that the puck had crossed the line as early as it did and felt that he had ruled the play dead in his head before it crossed, so there was nothing to review. Replay was not allowed to call down to him to say that it had crossed long before that. Basically, he didn't realize that there was something reviewable and they couldn't tell him. If you remember that Buffalo goal recently that they allowed and everyone was surprised by, I believe that was a case where the ref decided that he better check, despite believing that he had determined that the play was dead before it went in. Therefore, the replay crew was able to tell him that it wasn't Kaleta coming in late who put it in, but that Goose had put it in a couple of seconds before that. Had he not gone upstairs, they could not have told him.

[Stoner]

The problem wasn't technology. The rules require that the referee call up to the replay crew if he feels that he may have made the wrong call. He didn't realize that the puck had crossed the line as early as it did and felt that he had ruled the play dead in his head before it crossed, so there was nothing to review. Replay was not allowed to call down to him to say that it had crossed long before that. Basically, he didn't realize that there was something reviewable and they couldn't tell him. If you remember that Buffalo goal recently that they allowed and everyone was surprised by, I believe that was a case where the ref decided that he better check, despite believing that he had determined that the play was dead before it went in. Therefore, the replay crew was able to tell him that it wasn't Kaleta coming in late who put it in, but that Goose had put it in a couple of seconds before that. Had he not gone upstairs, they could not have told him.

 

Toronto did call and talk to the ref.

 

Either side can initiate a review.

 

Edit: I don't see the distinction between the calls.

 

Note that the NHL has a "catch-all" category for video review:

 

(viii) The video review process shall be permitted to assist the referees in

determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they

are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that

enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the

net from underneath the net frame, etc.

 

No one would have complained if that May goal had counted. The league needs to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Good God, can you imagine... can you imagine. Shiver me timbers.

[carpandean]

Toronto did call and talk to the ref.

 

Either side can initiate a review.

 

Edit: I don't see the distinction between the calls.

I just re-watched it and you are right, they did. I didn't think that it had gone to Toronto and Bettman said what I had stated: they can't call the ref, he has to call them. That was the distinction between the plays that I was thinking of and, well, it wasn't a distinction, so I don't know what happened.

 

Maybe when Toronto called it went like this:

"Can we help?"

"Nope."

"You sure?"

"Yup."

"Yup you need help or yup you're sure?"

"I'm sure"

"Because we'd be really, REALLY happy to help."

"Nah, I'm good."

"OK ... it's your funeral ..."

"What was that?"

"Oh, uh ... nothing. Have a good game."

 

Whereas the Sabres game went like this:

"Can we help?"

"Sure."

"Phew ... yeah, that was in way before you blew the whistle."

"Really?"

"Yeah, first guy put it in."

"Wow, that was a close one."

"Tell me about it. Have a good game."

[Stoner]

I just re-watched it and you are right, they did. I didn't think that it had gone to Toronto and Bettman said what I had stated: they can't call the ref, he has to call them. That was the distinction between the plays that I was thinking of and, well, it wasn't a distinction, so I don't know what happened.

 

Maybe Toronto called it went like this:

"Can we help?"

"Nope."

"You sure?"

"Yup."

"Yup you need help or yup you're sure?"

"I'm sure"

"Because we'd be really, REALLY happy to help."

"Nah, I'm good."

"OK ... it's your funeral ..."

"What was that?"

"Oh, uh ... nothing. Have a good game."

 

Whereas the Sabres game went like this:

"Can we help?"

"Sure."

"Phew ... yeah, that was in way before you blew the whistle."

"Really?"

"Yeah, first guy put it in."

"Wow, that was a close one."

"Tell me about it. Have a good game."

 

:worthy:

[Stoner]

The Goose bears down on a draw to Miller's left. Man, does he bear down. He pulls it back directly into the mesh. (Yeah, a pretty neat trick, but just for the sake of argument, let's believe that it happens.) Penalty for delay of game?

[Eleven]

The Goose bears down on a draw to Miller's left. Man, does he bear down. He pulls it back directly into the mesh. (Yeah, a pretty neat trick, but just for the sake of argument, let's believe that it happens.) Penalty for delay of game?

 

Which mesh? Assuming you mean the stuff above the glass, my guess (I'm still playing by the rules and not looking it up before I answer) is no, off of a faceoff.

 

How 'bout this: The Goose bears down on a draw to Miller's left. Man, does he bear down. He pulls it back directly into the mesh. Unfortunately, it's the mesh behind Miller, and the puck is in the net. Who gets credit for the goal?

[Stoner]

Which mesh? Assuming you mean the stuff above the glass, my guess (I'm still playing by the rules and not looking it up before I answer) is no, off of a faceoff.

 

How 'bout this: The Goose bears down on a draw to Miller's left. Man, does he bear down. He pulls it back directly into the mesh. Unfortunately, it's the mesh behind Miller, and the puck is in the net. Who gets credit for the goal?

 

Smarta*s. :) Correct. No penalty.

 

You'd think the opposing centerman would get credit.

 

The Sabres are on the power play and in possession in the attacking zone when Philly takes another penalty. To gain a whistle and preserve time on a two-man advantage, Tim Connolly wrists the puck into the crowd. Penalty?

[Eleven]

Smarta*s. :) Correct. No penalty.

 

You'd think the opposing centerman would get credit.

 

The Sabres are on the power play and in possession in the attacking zone when Philly takes another penalty. To gain a whistle and preserve time on a two-man advantage, Tim Connolly wrists the puck into the crowd. Penalty?

 

Discretionary, but if the ref knows the intent that you described, yes.

[Stoner]

Discretionary, but if the ref knows the intent that you described, yes.

 

You're good. Scary good.

 

Oh, God, now I'm having a flashback of Kasparaitis.

[SwampD]

You're good. Scary good.

 

Oh, God, now I'm having a flashback of Kasparaitis.

C'mon. The ref knew that he didn't mean to close his hand on the puck (penalty 1) and double pump it, then throw it over the boards (penalty 2). Why didn't you?

[Stoner]

C'mon. The ref knew that he didn't mean to close his hand on the puck (penalty 1) and double pump it, then throw it over the boards (penalty 2). Why didn't you?

 

He got a very good tongue-lashing. He was punished. We should all be so lucky. :)

 

Actually, according to the rules, you can "catch" a puck out of the air, but you must immediately drop it or place it on the ice. If you skate with it, that's a penalty for closing your hand on the puck. So there was probably only penalty 2.

 

The rule book is very interesting -- and maddening -- to read. I recommend it heartily.

[SwampD]

He got a very good tongue-lashing. He was punished. We should all be so lucky. :)

 

Actually, according to the rules, you can "catch" a puck out of the air, but you must immediately drop it or place it on the ice. If you skate with it, that's a penalty for closing your hand on the puck. So there was probably only penalty 2.

 

The rule book is very interesting -- and maddening -- to read. I recommend it heartily.

I thought you couldn't close your hand on the puck. I know you can't double pump it without closing your hand around it.

 

 

That play really left a mark on me,..more than "no goal", more than "six hole", more than any other bad call the Sabres ever got. It really pointed out to me the completely discretionary (arbitrary?) way in which penalties are called. To me a penalty is a penalty, and that was a penalty.

[Stoner]

I thought you couldn't close your hand on the puck. I know you can't double pump it without closing your hand around it.

 

 

That play really left a mark on me,..more than "no goal", more than "six hole", more than any other bad call the Sabres ever got. It really pointed out to me the completely discretionary (arbitrary?) way in which penalties are called. To me a penalty is a penalty, and that was a penalty.

 

This is why the rules are maddening, and why we end up with discretionary calls. The rules are poorly written, so they have to be interpreted. They've been interpreted by so many generations of officials now that the rules actually exist only in the minds of those officials. And each ref seems to have his own interpretation. Look at penalty shots. Maybe it's like the strike zone in baseball. I've never understood why it's not standard across all umps.

 

Anyway, "closing your hand on the puck" is only the name of the penalty. The term does not appear elsewhere in the rules. You can "catch" the puck, and presumably close your hand on it, but if you skate with it, closed hand or open, or don't drop it or place it on the ice immediately, it's a penalty. You can't "hold" the puck in the crease. Or "pick up" the puck off the ice. What if you scoop it? What if you catch the puck in the crease?

 

:)

 

Edit: Perhaps to put it more succinctly, you can catch the puck out of the air and close your hand on it, but it's not a penalty for closing your hand on the puck unless you skate with it or don't immediately drop it to the ice or place it on the ice. Yeah that's better. :)

[Stoner]

A couple of interesting rule applications came into play versus the Flyers.

 

1. Philly had a goal disallowed when Toni Lydman drove Richards (?) into and over Miller. Vogl, in his game blog, said it was called off because of a quick whistle. I don't think that's right.

 

2. When Rivet was badly hurt behind the net late in the game, the puck was on the stick of a Flyer for a point-blank shot. The whistle blew almost simultaneously with the shot. Would a goal in that situation have counted?

[Stoner]

Thomas Vanek was called for interference tonight (home vs. Rangers) for playing the puck while he was on the bench. I think. I missed the replay, but I thought someone said he was sitting on the boards. If so, should it have been a penalty?

 

Here's the text:

 

A minor penalty shall be imposed on any identifiable player on the

players’ bench or penalty bench who, by means of his stick or his

body, interferes with the movements of the puck or any opponent on

the ice during the progress of the play. In addition, should a player

about to come onto the ice, play the puck while one or both skates are

still on the players’ or penalty bench, a minor penalty for interference

shall be assessed.

 

How is the bench defined? I wouldn't think the boards in front of the bench would count as the bench. As long as both skates were off the floor of the bench, how could it be interference?