This play really shows how much the NHL Officiating body is out to glorify players rather than protect the sanctity of the game, and for that matter, their safety.
What is Callahan had gotten a concussion from his head getting slammed on the ice?
If the NHL wanted to make an example of dirty hits to the head and slewfooting it should be Crosby sucker punching Boris Valabik a few years ago, for which he was not disciplined at all.
And hes still at it, as we can see.
What a ****ing load of ****.
Avery faced the goaltender doing jumping jacks or whatever for a total of 21 seconds.
Pronger's arm raise took less than a second before it was back on his stick. It was one motion up then down.
Worst call I've seen in a LONG time.
If Pronger did something for an extended amount of time, I could see a penalty. If Pronger did something while not focusing on the play and instead facing the goaltender, I could see a penalty. If the goal was scored when Pronger was screening Kipper, MAYBE I could see a penalty, but the goal was in no way related to Pronger.
That said, for that to be a penalty and the sheer fact that it was only called as a reactionary call because we scored the goal blows my mind.
Kipper should not worry about slashing people if he wants to win the game for his team in OT. That's all this boils down to.
Avery faced the goaltender doing jumping jacks or whatever for a total of 21 seconds.
Pronger's arm raise took less than a second before it was back on his stick. It was one motion up then down.
Worst call I've seen in a LONG time.
If Pronger did something for an extended amount of time, I could see a penalty. If Pronger did something while not focusing on the play and instead facing the goaltender, I could see a penalty. If the goal was scored when Pronger was screening Kipper, MAYBE I could see a penalty, but the goal was in no way related to Pronger.
That said, for that to be a penalty and the sheer fact that it was only called as a reactionary call because we scored the goal blows my mind.
Kipper should not worry about slashing people if he wants to win the game for his team in OT. That's all this boils down to.
The fact the ref missed the slash is a problem.
As far as the call goes, it's even more pitiful when you see all the goals allowed nightly in which the goalies are interfered with, or for which there is a call on a guy being pushed into the goalie by a Dman, as happened to the Leafs last night.
The league really needs to change the rules on replays to include a review of goalie interference calls as part of goal reviews only.
If it's apparent that the goalie was just diving, a penalty can be called. If the guy got pushed in, the goal counts.
I really don't care that much about the call on Pronger, as long as they call every single similar incident - I'm not holding my breath. Either it's a new standard or the ref f'd up.
"The spirit and intent of the USC rule is to keep an acceptable hockey decorum in the game, in this case when a player is screening," Terry Gregson, the NHL's director of officiating, told me Saturday. "This type of act is outside the normal boundaries and needs to be controlled for the good of the game."
This is the crux of the discussion. How does Prongers action actually violate the "acceptable decorum in the game". What this would mean is they knew exactly what Prongers intent was, which means they need to be inside his head at the time of the action. The Avery "rule" is to deter players from those types of actions where he is physically interacting with the goalie and acting in an unsportsmanlike manner. Pronger got slashed on the achilles several times, maybe Pronger was just pointing to the ref to get his attention? Basically a mickey mouse administration running this league, it is bordering on corrupt.
"The spirit and intent of the USC rule is to keep an acceptable hockey decorum in the game, in this case when a player is screening," Terry Gregson, the NHL's director of officiating, told me Saturday. "This type of act is outside the normal boundaries and needs to be controlled for the good of the game."
This is the crux of the discussion. How does Prongers action actually violate the "acceptable decorum in the game". What this would mean is they knew exactly what Prongers intent was, which means they need to be inside his head at the time of the action. The Avery "rule" is to deter players from those types of actions where he is physically interacting with the goalie and acting in an unsportsmanlike manner. Pronger got slashed on the achilles several times, maybe Pronger was just pointing to the ref to get his attention? Basically a mickey mouse administration running this league, it is bordering on corrupt.
Pronger was ABSOLUTELY sticking his hand there to block Kipper's vision... He looked back to see where Kipper was, and then stuck his hand up at eye level.
If that's how they want the rule enforced, then that's how they want the rule enforced. They claimed that there was some information passed out that suggested that this was how they intended the officials to call it... now, if you want to complain that the ref was late on the call, that's fine. It's also fair to hold the league to continuing to call that play the same way.
However, lets not act like Pronger wasn't trying to block Kipper's vision, because he absolutely was.
Pronger was ABSOLUTELY sticking his hand there to block Kipper's vision... He looked back to see where Kipper was, and then stuck his hand up at eye level.
If that's how they want the rule enforced, then that's how they want the rule enforced. They claimed that there was some information passed out that suggested that this was how they intended the officials to call it... now, if you want to complain that the ref was late on the call, that's fine. It's also fair to hold the league to continuing to call that play the same way.
However, lets not act like Pronger wasn't trying to block Kipper's vision, because he absolutely was.
He can use his entire body to block Kippers vision, but a hand is USC? That makes very little sense.... Gotta play within the rules, though...... Even the stupid ones.
He can use his entire body to block Kippers vision, but a hand is USC? That makes very little sense.... Gotta play within the rules, though...... Even the stupid ones.
I agree that this application of the "Avery rule" is dumb. If a guy wants to take his hand off his stick to make himself bigger in front of the goalie, who cares? If he's doing that, he's not going to be all that good at deflecting a puck that's coming in.
No ****. But if the league says you're not allowed to do X, then you're not allowed to do X. So, the ruling is fine as long as they're consistent in this application of it.
Do I think it's dumb? Yes... but Pronger was clearly holding up his hand to block Kipper's vision, I don't really think that's debatable. He definitely looked over his shoulder, and THEN put his hand up.
The writer of this article...I assume it's Lebrun if it's ESPN?...completely missed the point of the Pronger incident.
Lebrun is also a Habs fan, so you know where his alegiance lies. I read that article. He claims it was the correct call. Pronger "violated the spirit of the rule" was i beleive how he worded it. Another words it was a judgement call.
His responce to the first "rant" :
First of all, it was indeed the right call last Friday afternoon; kudos to young referee Ghislain Hebert for getting it right. Pronger clearly waived his glove in front of Miikka Kiprusoff's face. That's an unsportsmanlike conduct (USC) penalty. It does not matter that Pronger wasn't facing Kiprusoff. The spirit of the rule is the glove being in the face--Pierre Lebrun
I mean really? LOL. Waived his arm? in his face? I wanted to email the guy right after reading that line.
But then he wasnt done.
"The spirit and intent of the USC rule is to keep an acceptable hockey decorum in the game, in this case when a player is screening," Terry Gregson, the NHL's director of officiating, told me Saturday. "This type of act is outside the normal boundaries and needs to be controlled for the good of the game."
As for the league somehow calling the game tighter when the Flyers are involved? I've always said fans see the game with tainted glasses, in this case black and orange.--Pierre Lebrun
Sorry Lebrun we are just hockey fans who see this as a made up rule called wrongly. Maybe if you take off your blue and red glasses you would see that.
There is no problem with the Pronger call... as long as they call it that way from here on out. Was it goofy, and (if there wasn't an informational note sent to the teams as claimed) odd that it suddenly got called that way? Yep.
Pronger was ABSOLUTELY sticking his hand there to block Kipper's vision... He looked back to see where Kipper was, and then stuck his hand up at eye level.
If that's how they want the rule enforced, then that's how they want the rule enforced. They claimed that there was some information passed out that suggested that this was how they intended the officials to call it... now, if you want to complain that the ref was late on the call, that's fine. It's also fair to hold the league to continuing to call that play the same way.
However, lets not act like Pronger wasn't trying to block Kipper's vision, because he absolutely was.
But the intent of the rule is not to determine whether the players intent was to obstruct or distract the goalie legally. The intent was to keep guys like Avery from acting like a friggin' fool.
It was blown on many different levels, most noticeably by the way the call was made and a goalie interference called prior to the goal. The first sign of any infraction was when the ref blew off the goal call after the puck went in the net. What does this say to me? That the ref had no intent to enforce any intrepretation of the "rule" and that he only addressed this once the puck went in the net. What is next, no player can screen the net?
And what about the slash to the back of Prongers leg which prompted him to put his arm out because he was losing his balance....?? If they are going to enforce this stupid interpretation then they should start looking at how the goalies use their sticks....! Have you even been hit at where the achilles and calf muscle meet with a goalie stick? It hurts like a b*tch.
But the intent of the rule is not to determine whether the players intent was to obstruct or distract the goalie legally. The intent was to keep guys like Avery from acting like a friggin' fool.
It was blown on many different levels, most noticeably by the way the call was made and a goalie interference called prior to the goal. The first sign of any infraction was when the ref blew off the goal call after the puck went in the net. What does this say to me? That the ref had no intent to enforce any intrepretation of the "rule" and that he only addressed this once the puck went in the net. What is next, no player can screen the net?
And what about the slash to the back of Prongers leg which prompted him to put his arm out because he was losing his balance....?? If they are going to enforce this stupid interpretation then they should start looking at how the goalies use their sticks....! Have you even been hit at where the achilles and calf muscle meet with a goalie stick? It hurts like a b*tch.
The first problem is that the "Avery rule" isn't actually a "rule" -- as folks have noted, it isn't in the rulebook. It was a clarification attached to the USC rule, which the refs have a great deal of discretion with. Pronger was not called for "goalie interference," he was called for "unsportsmanlike conduct".
And, sure, the call was late... but that happens a lot. If a goal hadn't been scored right then and there, he doesn't call it. However, **** happened and he called it. Guys call trips, hooks, interference all the time only when they see a scoring chance developing off of the play.
Did he miss a slash... sure, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the Pronger call was reasonable/right. They also let goalies get away with that **** all the time.
I think we can all agree that Pronger knew what he was doing, and was decidedly NOT directing traffic.
Here's the problem, though. From now on, if a referee misinterprets "directing traffic" as "screening with a glove," we're going to see a penalty. Precedents* are a b-word.
*I think I had a thing or two to say about precedents after Downie's 25 game suspension. And now, if you assault a fan, it'll only get you 6 games, so take those precedents for what they're worth.
The first problem is that the "Avery rule" isn't actually a "rule" -- as folks have noted, it isn't in the rulebook. It was a clarification attached to the USC rule, which the refs have a great deal of discretion with. Pronger was not called for "goalie interference," he was called for "unsportsmanlike conduct".
And, sure, the call was late... but that happens a lot. If a goal hadn't been scored right then and there, he doesn't call it. However, **** happened and he called it. Guys call trips, hooks, interference all the time only when they see a scoring chance developing off of the play.
Did he miss a slash... sure, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the Pronger call was reasonable/right. They also let goalies get away with that **** all the time.
I used the quotes to signify the disrepency of the interpretation. When I see a penalty called the ref sees the infraction, raises his arm and blows the whistle if the team who is responsible still has possession of the puck. This is the ticky-tacky type stuff that makes the NHL irrelevant as each season goes by. Crosby slew-foot, no comment, Pronger puts his arm out and a ref makes a call that has been made twice in how many years..? It was one of those calls which the ref never should have made, especially as you point out that it should be called from here on out, which is BS because you and I both know this will never get called again.
I think we can all agree that Pronger knew what he was doing, and was decidedly NOT directing traffic.
Here's the problem, though. From now on, if a referee misinterprets "directing traffic" as "screening with a glove," we're going to see a penalty. Precedents* are a b-word.
I can almost guarantee that certian players and certian teams will be able to get away with it. I still have a problem with it because the puck going in had nothing to do with whatever Pronger was doing with his arm/hand.
Put Pronger in a Penguins sweater and its 2 points for the Pens. Guaranteed.
of course like with any blown call, our wonderfull hockey journalists at TSN, ESPN ect ect will never, ever disagree with any officials call
No ****. But if the league says you're not allowed to do X, then you're not allowed to do X. So, the ruling is fine as long as they're consistent in this application of it.
Do I think it's dumb? Yes... but Pronger was clearly holding up his hand to block Kipper's vision, I don't really think that's debatable. He definitely looked over his shoulder, and THEN put his hand up.
But he didn't do X...
And yes, it is debatable. So Pronger looking over his shoulder is concrete evidence? What if he was looking over his shoulder to see who was coming back-door? He could have been looking for a number of things, so yes, it's debatable. Are you not allowed to raise your hands and arms while in front of the goalie? Or do you only get penalized for this if you take a quick glance around?
He put his hand up for all of .7 seconds. Cry about it.
And yes, it is debatable. So Pronger looking over his shoulder is concrete evidence? What if he was looking over his shoulder to see who was coming back-door? He could have been looking for a number of things, so yes, it's debatable. Are you not allowed to raise your hands and arms while in front of the goalie? Or do you only get penalized for this if you take a quick glance around?
Not if you're doing so to intentionally block the goalies vision apparently.
Quote:
He put his hand up for all of .7 seconds. Cry about it.
Ah, you're the one crying about it. Not me.
The ref made the call, they said it's the right call... so be it. They just need to consistently call it that way.
In all seriousness... the Pronger call is far from the most irritating officiating decision we have seen go against us this year. That honor goes to the HORRENDOUS boarding call against O'Donnell at the end of the first game against the Caps.
In all seriousness... the Pronger call is far from the most irritating officiating decision we have seen go against us this year. That honor goes to the HORRENDOUS boarding call against O'Donnell at the end of the first game against the Caps.
Yeah and they tied the game to force OT and win in the shootout
I thought they scored shortly into OT. IIRC Carter got a double minor for a high stick (with blood) then moments later they flagged OD for one of the weakest boarding calls I have seen in a while.
I agree with Jester, if they're going to interpret the Sean Avery penalty that way, then I expect it to be called against all teams.
