Speaking of linesmen and face offs, what is it that gets a player booted from the face off? I know encroachment by teammates can do it. It seems very arbitrary, but there must be some guidelines. There's always a little jousting. Sometimes a guy gets booted, sometimes not.
Quote:
76.3 Procedure – As soon as the line change procedure has been completed by the Referee and he lowers his hand to indicate no further changes, the Linesman conducting the face-off shall blow his whistle. This will signal to both teams that they have no more than five (5) seconds to line up for the ensuing face-off. At the end of the five (5) seconds (or sooner if both centers are ready), the Linesman will conduct a proper face-off. If, however: (i) One or both centers are not positioned for the face-off, (ii) One or both centers refrain from placing their stick on the ice, (iii) Any player has encroached into the face-off circle, (iv) Any player makes physical contact with an opponent, or (v) Any player who lines up for the face-off in an off-side position,
the Linesman shall have the offending center(s) replaced immediately prior to dropping the puck.
A few weeks back when the Blackhawks played the Rangers, Chicago took two penalties and was allowed to decide whether they wanted a 2 minute 5 on 3 or a 4 minute 5 on 4. I'd never seen anything like it but I thought I heard it mentioned somewhere it was a rule. Anyone know which rule?
I don't know what the situation was with Chicago, but this happened to the Kings a while back. The reason they got the choice was because both (separate) penalties were called on the same player (Mike Richards). Normally when a team takes two separate penalties it's a 5 on 3, but since it was the same player it meant an un-penalized player would have had to sit. I don't know the official rule for it, but it makes sense that the team would be allowed to choose.
I don't know what the situation was with Chicago, but this happened to the Kings a while back. The reason they got the choice was because both (separate) penalties were called on the same player (Mike Richards). Normally when a team takes two separate penalties it's a 5 on 3, but since it was the same player it meant an un-penalized player would have had to sit. I don't know the official rule for it, but it makes sense that the team would be allowed to choose.
John Scott (Chi) and Mike Rupp (NYR) took coincidental roughing penalties. Scott also took a boarding penalty, and Andrew Shaw (Chi) took a holding penalty, all at the same time.
Table 17 of Rule 19, Example 7 covers this scenario, and the Hawks elected to play one man short for 4 minutes.
I don't really know if this is the kind of question that anyone can really answer, but I've always wondered how coaches decide who sits for bench minors and goalie penalties and if it's a bit of a slap in the face for players if they're the one chosen. Sort of a "you're the one I least want on the ice..." lol.
I don't really know if this is the kind of question that anyone can really answer, but I've always wondered how coaches decide who sits for bench minors and goalie penalties and if it's a bit of a slap in the face for players if they're the one chosen. Sort of a "you're the one I least want on the ice..." lol.
Or, "you're not a penalty killer, so I may as well put you in the box for a possible breakaway opportunity when the penalty ends".
?
I don't really know if this is the kind of question that anyone can really answer, but I've always wondered how coaches decide who sits for bench minors and goalie penalties and if it's a bit of a slap in the face for players if they're the one chosen. Sort of a "you're the one I least want on the ice..." lol.
The coach often wants a fast guy who can score on a breakaway for when the penalty is over.
I don't really know if this is the kind of question that anyone can really answer, but I've always wondered how coaches decide who sits for bench minors and goalie penalties and if it's a bit of a slap in the face for players if they're the one chosen. Sort of a "you're the one I least want on the ice..." lol.
Ovechkin serves many of the Caps bench minors. He never kills penalties. This is normal, and either it's someone who doesn't play on the pk, or a player who gets 4 minutes of ice time per night.
Or, "you're not a penalty killer, so I may as well put you in the box for a possible breakaway opportunity when the penalty ends".
?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonSwanson
The coach often wants a fast guy who can score on a breakaway for when the penalty is over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcoraces
Ovechkin serves many of the Caps bench minors. He never kills penalties. This is normal, and either it's someone who doesn't play on the pk, or a player who gets 4 minutes of ice time per night.
That makes much, much more sense and I feel silly for not thinking that way. Thanks.
I've always wondered if a referee can elect not to follow through on assessing a penalty if the other team "comes clean" and tells the referee that no penalty occurred.
For example, if the puck hits a player on Team A, but the referee thought it was a high stick and gives a player on Team B the according penalty, but the player hit by the puck tells the referee that it was actually the puck that did the damage, can the referee change his mind based on this new evidence?
Team A and Team B are starting a game. Team A cleanly wins the faceoff, and the puck is brought back into Team A's defensive zone. A member of team A attempts to pass the puck behind the goal but instead puts it in his own net without a member of the opposing team ever touching the puck.
Team A and Team B are starting a game. Team A cleanly wins the faceoff, and the puck is brought back into Team A's defensive zone. A member of team A attempts to pass the puck behind the goal but instead puts it in his own net without a member of the opposing team ever touching the puck.
Who gets credit for the goal?
It would have to go to the centreman. Even if the face-off was won cleanly, the argument could be made that the losing centre did get some piece of the puck at some point. Regardless, he was the last one to participate in a play on the puck.
Team A and Team B are starting a game. Team A cleanly wins the faceoff, and the puck is brought back into Team A's defensive zone. A member of team A attempts to pass the puck behind the goal but instead puts it in his own net without a member of the opposing team ever touching the puck.
Who gets credit for the goal?
P.S. props to the OP. Nice to have a thread on the main board that's not an argument about the officials or a potential shanaban.
Difference between a shot on goal and a scoring chance, I've always wondered.
And I'm sure that several times a game scoring chances are not shots on goal. (e.g. a 2-on-1 where the 2 fail to get a shot - so no shot, but it is a scoring chance)
my question: the goalie is way out of position and an opposing player shoots at an empty net. Defenseman makes the save, so the shot counts as a SOG, but does the goalie get credit for a save?
If the game ends in a shutout, and goalie gets credit for making 35 saves (there were 35 shots), but what if his teammates clearly made 3 of the saves?
It would have to go to the centreman. Even if the face-off was won cleanly, the argument could be made that the losing centre did get some piece of the puck at some point. Regardless, he was the last one to participate in a play on the puck.
Play is reviewed in Toronto, it is determined that the opposing centre did not make contact with the puck.
Your move.
(You're probably right, but I didn't know if there was a definitive rule for this rare instance.)
Team A and Team B are starting a game. Team A cleanly wins the faceoff, and the puck is brought back into Team A's defensive zone. A member of team A attempts to pass the puck behind the goal but instead puts it in his own net without a member of the opposing team ever touching the puck.
Who gets credit for the goal?
When we were kids, me and my brother would play "no-goalie games" on NHL '94. The odd time one of us would win a faceoff right into our own net, and the game would credit the opposing centre with the goal. That's all the evidence I need to support that it would go to the opposing centre
Team A and Team B are starting a game. Team A cleanly wins the faceoff, and the puck is brought back into Team A's defensive zone. A member of team A attempts to pass the puck behind the goal but instead puts it in his own net without a member of the opposing team ever touching the puck.
This is a crazy theoretical that will never in a million years happen, BUT......
I have always wondered what would happen if off the opening faceoff, one team wins the draw clean, the other center doesn't even come close to touching the puck. The puck goes back to the defence, who for some reason skate back, and somehow before the other team has had a single chance to touch the puck, the defencemen scores on his own team.
Play is reviewed in Toronto, it is determined that the opposing centre did not make contact with the puck.
Your move.
(You're probably right, but I didn't know if there was a definitive rule for this rare instance.)
Nothing in the book. But in the past there used to be a rule that stated that the player closest to the puck at the time it enters the net gets credit for the goal. That is no longer in there though....so I don't really know. I'd love to see it happen though just to answer the scenario.
