HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Rink
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Rink For the not so ready for prime-time players, coaches, referees, and the people that have to live with them. Discuss experiences in local leagues, coaching tips, equipment, and training.

USA Hockey goes with NHL Standard of Play

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2006, 01:00 PM
  #26
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
check it again...it isn't about preventing them from gaining possession. Its about preventing PLAY(ie stick handling or passing) if they do not have possession and you stick check with a lift it will likely be called. THEY MUST HAVE POSSESSION. Your timing on the stick lift against a player receiving the puck MUST be near perfect. The puck must be there and viewed as with-in the ability to reach/posses.


one example is the defensive player at the front of his creasewho is lifting the stick of an offensive player while the puck is not with in reach of that offensive player...such as in the corner or at the boards.
Are you writing these rules as you go along? The seminar I just went to never covered things in nearly the depth you seem to be going to. Again, possesion is not required, you are adding something that is just not there.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2006, 07:36 PM
  #27
MikeD
Registered User
 
MikeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,066
vCash: 500
its your time in the box...do as you wish. Only those players who can not develop their skill will resort to the illegal tactics to "gain a competitive edge" and those who do will be penalized under the new interpretations.

MikeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2006, 08:53 PM
  #28
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
its your time in the box...do as you wish. Only those players who can not develop their skill will resort to the illegal tactics to "gain a competitive edge" and those who do will be penalized under the new interpretations.
No, actually, I'll be the one calling the penalties, not serving them. That subject was covered in depth in the clinic, but it's obvious you are more qualified than I am to make that call, so carry on.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2006, 09:47 PM
  #29
technophile
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to technophile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino 14 View Post
No, what you said was Which is wrong. A player going for the puck is fair game, he does not have possession and it's not an infraction.
Look at what Nbr-17 quoted and linked. (Yes, I know those are Canadian rules and not USAH.) It specifically mentions possession as a requirement. Our league officials have told us the same thing, and I've heard the same thing from other refs in other leagues (in other parts of the US).

Playing the stick of a player who does not have possession is a penalty; your league may be ignoring the USAH standard, but that doesn't make you right.

I don't even like that rule, but that's the way we've been told we have to play, and I hate taking penalties.

technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2006, 02:43 AM
  #30
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by technophile View Post
it's possible to be confused about what call was made and why, and refs should explain that -- in all age groups.
We can't be explaining every call to the players and/or coaches. Especially in minor and adult rec hockey, where you only have so much ice time available for the game.

In my games, if it is a running-time game with no floods, I'll gladly have a friendly chat with the coaches after the game. If it's a full game, I'll have a quick word as we're preparing to start the next period after the flood. (I do it after the flood so the coaches have the intermission to cool off.) ...And when I do talk to the coaches, they should keep in mind that it will be an explanation (IE: one-way conversation from me to them), not a discussion.

BCCHL inactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2006, 06:48 AM
  #31
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by technophile View Post
Look at what Nbr-17 quoted and linked. (Yes, I know those are Canadian rules and not USAH.) It specifically mentions possession as a requirement. Our league officials have told us the same thing, and I've heard the same thing from other refs in other leagues (in other parts of the US).

Playing the stick of a player who does not have possession is a penalty; your league may be ignoring the USAH standard, but that doesn't make you right.

I don't even like that rule, but that's the way we've been told we have to play, and I hate taking penalties.
One last time, I'm a USAH ref, I've been through the clininc for this year, asked all the questions regarding this and other rules that will be enforced more this year, and that is not the information conveyed to us, either in class, or in the USAH video. If you watch the video linked earlier, you will see for yourself how lifting the stick will be handled. There is no rule change this year that changes lifting the stick. Regardless of what you have been told, it is clearly spelled out in the video how USAH will handle a stick lift.

In case anyone wonders why refs don't feel compelled to explain penalties, this is why. Even with the information spelled out, there is always someone who was told different and it leads to arguements.

Suffice it to say, I will be calling the penalties per the video and clinic, regardless of what some may have heard.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2006, 01:25 PM
  #32
technophile
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to technophile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino 14 View Post
Regardless of what you have been told, it is clearly spelled out in the video how USAH will handle a stick lift.
Give me a minute:second mark to look at that directly says that lifting the stick is OK, with no reference to playing the puck or puck possession.

Obviously there aren't any changes regarding whether lifting the stick away from the play is a penalty; it's always been a penalty. The changes this year are not rule changes, they're enforcement changes.

Quote:
In case anyone wonders why refs don't feel compelled to explain penalties, this is why. Even with the information spelled out, there is always someone who was told different and it leads to arguements.
I love how you assume that just because I'm willing to argue about this off-ice, that I'd similarly argue with a ref in the middle of a game. I wouldn't, although I might ask politely for clarification afterwards if I got a chance. But thanks for reinforcing the "arrogant ref" stereotype!

Quote:
Suffice it to say, I will be calling the penalties per the video and clinic, regardless of what some may have heard.
Nor would I expect you to do any differently. I'm trying to understand what the actual rules are, both in my league and in USAH in general, and I'm getting conflicting information. Should I believe you because you're some guy on the Internet who keeps saying "I'm a ref and I'm right"?

technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2006, 02:00 PM
  #33
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by technophile View Post
Obviously there aren't any changes regarding whether lifting the stick away from the play is a penalty; it's always been a penalty.
Perhaps you could point us to that rule?


Quote:
I love how you assume that just because I'm willing to argue about this off-ice, that I'd similarly argue with a ref in the middle of a game. I wouldn't, although I might ask politely for clarification afterwards if I got a chance. But thanks for reinforcing the "arrogant ref" stereotype!
Yet we are all supposed to believe you won't argue a point anywhere but off-ice?


Quote:
I'm trying to understand what the actual rules are, both in my league and in USAH in general, and I'm getting conflicting information. Should I believe you because you're some guy on the Internet who keeps saying "I'm a ref and I'm right"?
You seem more concerned with trying to prove you're not wrong than you are with finding out what the rules are. Go back and watch the video again, the rule will become very clear and you'll find out what it is you seek.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2006, 07:48 PM
  #34
MikeD
Registered User
 
MikeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,066
vCash: 500
Well, after looking at the USA Hockey "ask the ref" column it seems your not agreed with by USA hockey. An early lift of a stick as I described above WILL be a 2 minute penalty. I would link it but i am sure being the all knowing ref you can find it yourself...Even in the video demonstrating of what is acceptable, the puck is there. Had the player lifted the stick a half second earlier it would have been an illegal tactic. Yet another Ref that seems to let his own personal bias affect the way hes going to call a game. what a shame......

Its unfortunate that you show very little professionalism in your reply to these people just trying to get a grip on hte new interpretations and enforcement. Instead you resort to personal attack on a member who disagrees with your "loose" interpretation. In any case our kids will be coached in skill over goon squad crap.


Last edited by MikeD: 09-14-2006 at 07:54 PM.
MikeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2006, 06:43 AM
  #35
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
Well, after looking at the USA Hockey "ask the ref" column it seems your not agreed with by USA hockey. An early lift of a stick as I described above WILL be a 2 minute penalty. I would link it but i am sure being the all knowing ref you can find it yourself...Even in the video demonstrating of what is acceptable, the puck is there. Had the player lifted the stick a half second earlier it would have been an illegal tactic. Yet another Ref that seems to let his own personal bias affect the way hes going to call a game. what a shame......

Its unfortunate that you show very little professionalism in your reply to these people just trying to get a grip on hte new interpretations and enforcement. Instead you resort to personal attack on a member who disagrees with your "loose" interpretation. In any case our kids will be coached in skill over goon squad crap.
I find it funny how all these fan's of the game have all this proof of what they say, yet no one seems to want to show it. Why not add a link if you truly found one? I checked back through to give you the benefit of the doubt, yet did not see it. I do my best to follow the rules and enforce them as we are taught, yet not one person on here has shown me anything that is contrary to what I have already posted from the video and clinic.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2006, 11:38 AM
  #36
MikeD
Registered User
 
MikeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,066
vCash: 500
http://www.scaha.com/2006announcemen...ment200607.pdf

you yourself have failed to show any proof of your interpretation. In the video, it is clear that the puck is there. IT in no way shows it being legal to lift a players stick where the puck is not present.

as we have all read and reviewed...your interpretation of an allowed stick lift to prevent possession of a puck is not in line with the first statement. It is deemed an illegal use of the stick and shall receive the appropriate minor for interference. If you do less than, you are allowing your own personal bias to corrupt the new enforcement standards. I strongly suggest you return to your Head Refing official and get specific clarification including what would be found in the updated/current situations manual


Last edited by MikeD: 09-15-2006 at 11:48 AM.
MikeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2006, 11:43 AM
  #37
technophile
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to technophile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino 14 View Post
Perhaps you could point us to that rule?
ISTR asking for a minute:second mark that supports your point. Are you having trouble finding it?

Quote:
Yet we are all supposed to believe you won't argue a point anywhere but off-ice?
I could care less if you believe me; nonetheless it's the truth. On-ice my job is not to argue with the refs; it's to play defense, and being in the box doesn't accomplish that. Off ice, I try to understand the rules, and I'm perfectly willing to argue with anyone. In part I'm trying to make sure that someone doesn't see your posts (which may or may not be right), think "okay, lifting the stick is always legal", and then get 2 minutes for it in their next game, especially since enforcement doesn't seem consistent on this point.

Quote:
You seem more concerned with trying to prove you're not wrong than you are with finding out what the rules are. Go back and watch the video again, the rule will become very clear and you'll find out what it is you seek.
I've watched it twice, and can't find anything that indicates that an early stick lift is acceptable. Again, if you have a minute:second mark, I'd love to see it. The PDF MikeD linked to says, directly:
Quote:
The use of the stick will be limited to only playing the puck.
I don't know how that can be interpreted to say, "except for lifting the puck, which is totally cool."

I tried to view the Ask A Ref question that MikeD referenced, but it's giving me errors whenever I try to follow a link on the usahockey site. If I can get into it later I'll post back.


Last edited by technophile: 09-15-2006 at 11:53 AM.
technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2006, 12:07 PM
  #38
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by technophile View Post
ISTR asking for a minute:second mark that supports your point. Are you having trouble finding it?
Go back to post #21 where I give the time in the video. Again, it's at about 5:20. That's where the ruling is discussed. You will also see that the wording in that post came from the video, not me.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2006, 02:55 PM
  #39
technophile
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to technophile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino 14 View Post
Go back to post #21 where I give the time in the video. Again, it's at about 5:20. That's where the ruling is discussed. You will also see that the wording in that post came from the video, not me.
Okay, the text does say "The following are allowed", followed by a bullet point that says "Lifting an opponent's stick"--which the voiceover clarifies to include "to gain possession of the puck, or prevent the opponent from playing the puck".

So--at least according to this video--lifting the stick is allowed, when the opponent has possession, or is about to gain possession. You still can't lift the stick away from the play, though, which used to be a fairly common play right in front of the net (well before any shots or passes).

That could be reconciled with the enforcement brochure saying "The use of the stick will be limited to only playing the puck", although honestly you could enforce that either way; it's not very clearly written, and it doesn't expand much on what I originally thought was legal (when they have possession).

So in general, lifting the stick is illegal; it's only when the opponent has the puck, or is about to play it, that it becomes legal. Still some gray area there for individual ref interpretation, but that's normal.

technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2006, 08:20 PM
  #40
MikeD
Registered User
 
MikeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,066
vCash: 500
I have not said that a stick check/lift is illegal...I dont see where anyone else has said it was totally illegal. Just that it must be with in the legal frame work established in the situations manual.

I disagree that there is any grey area. USA and above have made it painfully clear what the intention is in these enforcement and interpretations. As a goalie, the "stick infractions" place a HUGE restriction on my Defense. They must show a much higher level of skill in defending a pass to the front of the net. They cant simply stand there lifting/interfering legally as it has been in the past. Now they must develop skills to anticipate and time the stick check. Again, falling in line with the skills and speed being primary.

As much as I dislike to say it, I have to agree that it will be better for the game. It will be a difficult adjustment to those who have been coached/played for several years but for those coming up at the youngest levels it will mean more skills and a better game. We all know that a well timed stick check to lift an opponents stick has a much better success rate than being early. Both offense and Defensive stick work skills will have to be improved making it a more exciting game for the spectators.

MikeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2006, 08:17 PM
  #41
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,899
vCash: 500
Just called my first game under the news rules in a Midget game and it had to be one of the best midget games ive had. Both teams pretty much were very adjusted already with the new rules (there was still about 12 penalties though), but the game was so much better. Its all about speed and skill now. Good move by USA hockey.

FLYLine24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2006, 09:32 PM
  #42
Ratfinklives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
I have not said that a stick check/lift is illegal...I dont see where anyone else has said it was totally illegal. Just that it must be with in the legal frame work established in the situations manual.

I disagree that there is any grey area. USA and above have made it painfully clear what the intention is in these enforcement and interpretations. As a goalie, the "stick infractions" place a HUGE restriction on my Defense. They must show a much higher level of skill in defending a pass to the front of the net. They cant simply stand there lifting/interfering legally as it has been in the past. Now they must develop skills to anticipate and time the stick check. Again, falling in line with the skills and speed being primary.

As much as I dislike to say it, I have to agree that it will be better for the game. It will be a difficult adjustment to those who have been coached/played for several years but for those coming up at the youngest levels it will mean more skills and a better game. We all know that a well timed stick check to lift an opponents stick has a much better success rate than being early. Both offense and Defensive stick work skills will have to be improved making it a more exciting game for the spectators.
Lifting the stick is legal as long as it's only for about a second or two regardless of puck possesion.

At least thats what we were told at the Atlantic District Reffing seminar this afternoon. So that should end this discussin.

Ratfinklives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2006, 09:42 PM
  #43
MikeD
Registered User
 
MikeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,066
vCash: 500
In a game today I personally saw 6 penalties assessed for interference when a player lifted the stick of another not in possession of the puck and away from the play. In one case contact was for about 3-4 seconds. In the others it was just a fraction of a second. After the game the reffing crew explained that this type of stick infraction is to be enforced STRICTLY. Away from the play it is considered an illegal stick usage, an intimidation tactic and interference. what possible reason can a player have for lifting a stick of another away from the play? only one...to gain a competitive edge not based on skill or positioning...ie an illegal tactic. a second or two...how about 3 and do Refs now do a thousand count or keep a stop watch? that is the most rediculous thing i have heard on the subject to date.

when will reffing bodies stop putting their own bias into the interpretations and go with the USA governing bodies intentions? its only harmful to the game when this happens. These diluted interpretations are simply the result of old time players keeping their paradigms. LET IT GO and let the game improve. Enforcement MUST be held to hte higher standard. there is no reasonable excuse for these dilutions.


Last edited by MikeD: 09-23-2006 at 09:50 PM.
MikeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 12:35 PM
  #44
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
These diluted interpretations are simply the result of old time players keeping their paradigms. LET IT GO and let the game improve. Enforcement MUST be held to hte higher standard. there is no reasonable excuse for these dilutions.
Not trying to bust your chops, but what dilutions are you refering to? I got confused trying to sort out where the issue is.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 02:46 PM
  #45
MikeD
Registered User
 
MikeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,066
vCash: 500
The interpretation given/instructed about a stick lift being legal away from the play with a time frame of said lift being the basis for determination of a penalty assessment. Would this stick usage being allowed not also be an interference that prevents the opponent from movement? It is all contrary to the intentions of the basis for the new standards of enforcement on stick usage.

Standard one: The use of the stick will be limited to only playing the puck
Standard two: The stick will not be allowed in any way to impede the players progress.

Instead, this new standard is diluted by adding an exception based on a measure of limited time that progress is interfered with? Why would this time frame, if acceptable, not be allowed for other stick usage such as a hook? How about when the stick is placed between the legs of a skater not in the play? Why not a second or two of allowance in that case? There is no such exception written specifically into the rules nor in the updated situations manual. Who has established this time frame? Certainly NOT USA hockey. IF that were the case, all refs would be passing this information on as well as Coaches would have received this very important qualifier to begin instruction with-in the rules established. It takes a puck shot from the blue line at 65 MPH just under 1 second to enter the net. That means a player standing at the front of the net would be allowed to lift a defenders stick and HOLD it. 2 seconds is a VERY long time. now, 1 or 2 seconds? who calls it at ONE and whos going to allow TWO seconds? What situation determines how long a stick lift can be held? seems like this is setting the stage for a wide area of interpretation.

Just using the face off as an example...lets say a winger engages his opponent with a stick lift of just 2 seconds at the drop of a puck. This can lift the stick of the opponent to above the waist. There is no attempt to play the puck. Would this not be use of the stick to gain an unfair advantage NOT based on skill or body position? Wouldn't this impede the players progress to the play? Clearly falling into the category that the supposed new interpretations are to eliminate?

Example two: Two players are away from the play and traveling toward the goal line in respective lines. Player one engages in a stick lift, placing his stick front of the opponent. He then holds that lift for 1.5 seconds. Is that not locking on? Is this still legal? Is it not an impedance?


Last edited by MikeD: 09-24-2006 at 03:08 PM.
MikeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 08:09 PM
  #46
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
Just using the face off as an example...lets say a winger engages his opponent with a stick lift of just 2 seconds at the drop of a puck. This can lift the stick of the opponent to above the waist. There is no attempt to play the puck. Would this not be use of the stick to gain an unfair advantage NOT based on skill or body position? Wouldn't this impede the players progress to the play? Clearly falling into the category that the supposed new interpretations are to eliminate?
The key in this example is "no attempt to play the puck". That automatically becomes interference, the stick lift is secondary to the interference.

Quote:
Example two: Two players are away from the play and traveling toward the goal line in respective lines. Player one engages in a stick lift, placing his stick front of the opponent. He then holds that lift for 1.5 seconds. Is that not locking on? Is this still legal? Is it not an impedance?
If the defending player does not slow the progress of the attacking player with the stick lift, there should be no penalty. A stick lift by itself is not illegal and seldom do you see a stick lift that lasts any length of time.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2006, 08:58 PM
  #47
MikeD
Registered User
 
MikeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,066
vCash: 500
exactly, and any stick lift away from the play would be considered an interference as explained by our league officials. If the puck is not present there can be no attempt to play the puck and hence then ANY stick lift away from the play is an interference NOT a legal check regardless of the length of time. Can you not see that the two are not reconcilable?

So a hook is legal if it doesn't slow a player? nope...
a stick placed between a players legs that only requires the player to jump over but doesn't slow him is legal...nope.

again, these are biased interpretations with stipulations that do not adhere to the standards outlined in the directives. grasping at straws. I find the responses most helpful since it will demonstrate to USA, on their read of a provided link to this post, the need to further define this to ALL officials. If there isn't consistency in these calls then the initiative USA has implemented is doomed to fail.


Last edited by MikeD: 09-24-2006 at 09:06 PM.
MikeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2006, 07:06 AM
  #48
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
exactly, and any stick lift away from the play would be considered an interference as explained by our league officials. If the puck is not present there can be no attempt to play the puck and hence then ANY stick lift away from the play is an interference NOT a legal check regardless of the length of time. Can you not see that the two are not reconcilable?

So a hook is legal if it doesn't slow a player? nope...
a stick placed between a players legs that only requires the player to jump over but doesn't slow him is legal...nope.

again, these are biased interpretations with stipulations that do not adhere to the standards outlined in the directives. grasping at straws. I find the responses most helpful since it will demonstrate to USA, on their read of a provided link to this post, the need to further define this to ALL officials. If there isn't consistency in these calls then the initiative USA has implemented is doomed to fail.
Do you want a bat to finish beating that horse? You can come up with almost any situation where you can present a biased viewpoint. Bottom line, there will always be calls that are questionable, all refs human and every one of them brings to the game a certain bias. If you are truly that concerned with the way the calls are made, go get your certification and see just how easy it is to never fail. You seem to have an uncanny grasp of that is right, it should not present any issues for you.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2006, 06:15 PM
  #49
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,899
vCash: 500
Any stick lift away from the play is interference. Its quite simple. No exceptions. Lifting the stick is preventing the player to do something even if its right off a draw.

Its black and white. No grey area. Its up to the players to adapt to these rules or they can cry their way to the box all night.


Any obviously there is going to be inconsistent calls between officials....they aren't machines.

FLYLine24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2006, 07:08 AM
  #50
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine88 View Post
Any stick lift away from the play is interference. Its quite simple. No exceptions. Lifting the stick is preventing the player to do something even if its right off a draw.

Its black and white. No grey area. Its up to the players to adapt to these rules or they can cry their way to the box all night.


Any obviously there is going to be inconsistent calls between officials....they aren't machines.
That is wrong. This is from the USA Hockey site:

Lifting an Opponent Stick and Stick Presses

The use of the stick to lift an opponent’s stick and gain possession of the puck, or prevent them from gaining
possession of the puck, is considered a good defensive play that should not be penalized. Lifting a non-puck carrier’s
stick in a manner that does not impede their progress is also allowable under the rules. In addition, the use of the stick
to check an opponent’s stick, or press the opponent’s stick to the ice or boards, is a good defensive play as long as it is
done on the lower portion of the stick shaft and the intended purpose is to dislodge the puck or prevent the opponent
from playing the puck.

Here's the link:
http://usahockey.com/usa_hockey/offi...sop_interpret/


Last edited by Gino 14: 09-29-2006 at 07:10 AM. Reason: Added link
Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.