my facebook is making me angry with all the people condemning the "bandwagoners". I want as many people as possible to enjoy hockey, and the perfect time to start experiencing and to get hooked on it is during the playoffs, but now they can't because they will be labelled as "bandwagoners".
And the people saying this were never talking about the Flyers until like 2 weeks ago anyway
I'm posting this here (in addition to a thread in the Penguins board) for posterity, and in case any one wants to use it to educate the (minority) of Penguins fans who steadfastly insist the icing call was correctly NOT made, and, mostly, because it took me like 10 minutes to write it up and I figured someone should read it--and somehow suspect it won't be welcome there and, perhaps, purged for factuality.
Originally Posted by Dinfire
That was actually called correctly. The icing was waived off because Dupuis could have played the puck if he wasn't contacted by a defender. It's rule 81.5 I believe in the rule book. Coburn just gave up on the play.
I hate to do this, but there seems to be some confusion on the rule, which is, as you suggested, covered in Section 81.
"81.1 Icing – For the purpose of this rule, the center red line will divide the ice into halves. Should any player of a team, equal or superior in numerical strength (power-play) to the opposing team, shoot, bat or deflect the puck from his own half of the ice beyond the goal line of the opposing team, play shall be stopped.
For the purpose of this rule, the point of last contact with the puck by the team in possession shall be used to determine whether icing has occurred or not. As such, the team in possession must “gain the line” in order for the icing to be nullified. “Gaining the line” shall mean that the puck (not the player’s skate) must make contact with the center red line in order to nullify a potential icing.
For the purpose of interpretation of the rule, “icing the puck” is completed the instant the puck is touched first by a defending player (other than the goalkeeper) after it has crossed the goal line and if in the action of so touching the puck, it is knocked or deflected into the net, it is no goal.
Any contact between opposing players while pursuing the puck on an icing must be for the sole purpose of playing the puck and not for eliminating the opponent from playing the puck. Unnecessary or dangerous contact could result in penalties being assessed to the offending player.
The puck striking or deflecting off an official does not automatically nullify a potential icing."
To negate icing:
"81.5 No Icing – When the puck is shot and rebounds from the body or stick of an opponent in his own half of the ice so as to cross the goal line of the player shooting, it shall not be considered “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.
If a player of the side shooting the puck down the ice who is on-side and eligible to play the puck does so before it is touched by an opposing player, the play shall continue and it shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
If the puck shall go beyond the goal line in the opposite half of the ice directly from either of the players while facing-off, it shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
If, in the opinion of the Linesman, any player (other than the goalkeeper) of the opposing team is able to play the puck before it passes his goal line, but has not done so, play shall continue and the icing violation shall not be called. This includes the situation whereby the opposing team, while in the process of making player substitutions during the play, are able to play the puck, but choose not to do so to avoid being called for too many men on the ice. Icing should not be called.
The Linesman shall have discretion to wave off apparent icing infractions on attempted passes if those passes are deemed receivable (attainable). In order for the Linesman to wash out the icing for this reason, the receiving player’s stick must be on the attacking side of the center red line and he must be eligible to receive the pass (e.g. he cannot be in an off-side position and cannot be involved in a player change that would result in a too many men on the ice penalty if he were to play the puck).
If the puck touches any part of a player of the opposing side, including his skates or his stick, or if it touches any part of the opposing team’s goalkeeper, including his skates or his stick, at any time before or after crossing the goal line, it shall not be considered icing.
If a goalkeeper takes any action to dislodge the puck from the back of the net, icing shall not be called.
What your alluding to is covered in the penultimate paragraph of 81.1--but that only allows for calling an interference penalty, not canceling the icing.
I think we can all agree that the first several paragraphs of the second section don't apply. All that is in question is whether the Flyers played the puck (which he clearly didn't), whether Dupuis was the intended recipient, or whether Dupuis touched the puck. On the latter two points: Dupuis was on his own side of the redline, basically at his own blue line. If he touched the puck, it is still icing, and if it missed him, the "intended pass" exception doesn't apply because he hadn't reached the redline.
TSN's judgement notwithstanding, Orpik admitted that the officials missed the icing call.
@SheridanScribe: #Pens Orpik said Briere clearly offside on 1st goal but "they missed an icing on our third goal, too."
Whether or not the rule is always so strictly enforced, I don't think its much of a stretch to say that the call was wrong.
Well, technically his interest could be at peak levels due to the post.
^This guy knows what I was thinking
Anyway I have returned from The Abyss that is the main board entertained and apparently learned a new word thanks to Amateur Hour. It actually doesn't bother me I would rather be informed on the correct word then continue being ignorant to the difference.
I can't believe how much attention one blown call is getting. People are acting like refs get everything right all the time. It's not like it was the game tying goal or game winner. The Pens had 3 power plays before we saw our first, and blew a 3 goal lead only to lose in overtime. Talk about a scapegoat for a terrible meltdown.
If people are talking more about a bad call than the meltdown itself, then whoever is driving that story is doing it right. Taking the focus off the fact that they collapsed.