For those wondering, the referees at the Winter Classic were correct for awarding a penalty shot with 20 seconds to go under rule 63.5, which reads in part:
Quote:
No defending player, except the goalkeeper, will be permitted to fall on the puck, hold the puck, pick up the puck, or gather the puck into the body or hands when the puck is within the goal crease. For infringement of this rule, play shall immediately be stopped and a penalty shot shall be ordered against the offending team, but no other penalty shall be given. The rule shall be interpreted so that a penalty shot will be awarded only when the puck is in the crease at the instant the offense occurs.
For those wondering, the referees at the Winter Classic were correct for awarding a penalty shot with 20 seconds to go under rule 63.5, which reads in part:
I didn't like the way the game was called, but the aforementioned play is not one of the reasons. On my feed, there was no definitive evidence either way. The ref was at a better angle than any of the angles given by the TV. It did show enough to say that it was possible that an infraction occurred.
I'm pretty sure the officials conferenced before making the call as well. There was about a minute delay before they got everything put together at center ice, and it would make sense that if the ref (LaRue made that call, yes?) thought he saw it but wasn't 100 percent sure, he'd want to make sure the puck wasn't clearly loose from all other angles at the time.
The more interesting call to me was the matching hook/holding the stick with the empty net. Both calls were obviously correct, but there's some interesting interpretation discussion about whether there should have been an awarded goal.
Personally, I think since Callahan never made an attempt to score while being hooked, Walsh was correct to not award the goal even though it was an empty net. The purpose of the penalty shot/awarded goal (via the wording of rules 24 and 25) is to replace a lost scoring opportunity, and since Callahan chose never to create a scoring opportunity, evidenced by his taking one hand off his stick to grab at the one on his shoulder, then there's no opportunity to be replaced.
But I can also see the case for the argument that the hook came before the holding the stick, and strict reading of the interference rule says that should be an awarded goal.
Devorski is in full playoff DCS mode already (and full post-season terrible skating problems). He and Kimmerly combined to call one thing tonight, 14 seconds in, and then ignore any number of interference calls on both team the entire rest of the game.
I didn't like the way the game was called, but the aforementioned play is not one of the reasons. On my feed, there was no definitive evidence either way. The ref was at a better angle than any of the angles given by the TV. It did show enough to say that it was possible that an infraction occurred.
Yeah, the PS call was fine. I thought Larue blew the DOG call on the Rangers, where the NY player knocked the net off the moorings after being pushed by a Flyer, either a no-call or interference on PHI should have been the decision. It was sort of evened out by Walsh's quick whistle on the subsequent PP. I thought Walsh's call of matching minors in the empty net situation was good as well.
Yeah, the PS call was fine. I thought Larue blew the DOG call on the Rangers, where the NY player knocked the net off the moorings after being pushed by a Flyer, either a no-call or interference on PHI should have been the decision. It was sort of evened out by Walsh's quick whistle on the subsequent PP. I thought Walsh's call of matching minors in the empty net situation was good as well.
Agree on the int as opposed to DOG, if it was called. I had it as an int 70 but they weren't calling ints at that level prior. I also had the non-call Timonen hook on Gaborik as a 90. It was a must call on a breakaway.
First, someone please tell the Sharks color guy that there doesn't have to be contact with the goalie to be non-penalty GI. A player bringing himself into the crease in the time immediately preceeding a goal is enough, even if he vacates right after he arrives. It's a subjective (i.e., not provable by replay) judgment as to how much that impacts the goalie's ability to make a save. Whether or not you agree with the judgment is one thing, but it's not something that can be disproved by replay unless there is no jostling to begin with and it's a complete phantom, which happen but are extremely rare even with GI.
And second, I have a bit of a theory developing after watching the noticeably higher interference level allowed around the league. Given the bad publicity with all the concussions and the theory that the increased speed of the game has a lot to do with that, could the league have instructed the refs to be a little looser with the INT-type calls in order to establish more of the "roadbumps" that keep full speed collisions from happening?
Because I'm not sure what's going on, but there is a definite trend towards INT calls going away, even from the beginning of this season, and the traditionally tight-calling guys are as guilty as the DCS ones.
First, someone please tell the Sharks color guy that there doesn't have to be contact with the goalie to be non-penalty GI. A player bringing himself into the crease in the time immediately preceeding a goal is enough, even if he vacates right after he arrives. It's a subjective (i.e., not provable by replay) judgment as to how much that impacts the goalie's ability to make a save. Whether or not you agree with the judgment is one thing, but it's not something that can be disproved by replay unless there is no jostling to begin with and it's a complete phantom, which happen but are extremely rare even with GI.
or how about the fact that the refs were not even looking at the net. they were watching the puck and then just saw Kipper down and made the call based off that. What you are saying is that if an opposing player knocks down their own goalie, and another player is near it, it won't count?
First, someone please tell the Sharks color guy that there doesn't have to be contact with the goalie to be non-penalty GI. A player bringing himself into the crease in the time immediately preceeding a goal is enough, even if he vacates right after he arrives. It's a subjective (i.e., not provable by replay) judgment as to how much that impacts the goalie's ability to make a save. Whether or not you agree with the judgment is one thing, but it's not something that can be disproved by replay unless there is no jostling to begin with and it's a complete phantom, which happen but are extremely rare even with GI.
And second, I have a bit of a theory developing after watching the noticeably higher interference level allowed around the league. Given the bad publicity with all the concussions and the theory that the increased speed of the game has a lot to do with that, could the league have instructed the refs to be a little looser with the INT-type calls in order to establish more of the "roadbumps" that keep full speed collisions from happening?
Because I'm not sure what's going on, but there is a definite trend towards INT calls going away, even from the beginning of this season, and the traditionally tight-calling guys are as guilty as the DCS ones.
My replay showed that Wingels was never in the blue. Drew, the Sharks color guy, desperately needs to read the rulebook. He is finally catching on that stick to hands is the dividing line on hook penalties even though he occasionally falls back on stick parallel. He doesn't know the goalie int rules at all.
Thanks for the thoughts on ints. It makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risky F
or how about the fact that the refs were not even looking at the net. they were watching the puck and then just saw Kipper down and made the call based off that. What you are saying is that if an opposing player knocks down their own goalie, and another player is near it, it won't count?
She is saying that if he puts his skate in the blue such that it impedes the goalie with or without touching the goalie that he is at risk for an incidental goalie int call in the event of a goal. Couture is repeatedly guilty on the issue. Winchester occasionally. Most of the other Sharks use extreme care around the net.
Edit:
Kritter, just got the youtube. He did hit the blue in part due to contact from Jokinen. He was out of the blue already when the goal was scored. His skate in the blue did not impede Kipper from moving at all at any point much less when Kipper needed to move to make the save.
Easy - I personally wouldn't have made the GI call, but I can easily see how it got made.
Wingels takes himself into the blue paint already tangled up with Jokinen (both jostling for position, I can't call either more guilty of that contact than the other, because both stand to gain/lose from it). As he moves out of the crease, they continue jostling, and Jokinen (either because of that or just... because) falls into the goalie, preventing him from making the save.
The ref could either believe Wingels' actions forced Jokinen into his own goalie (which is pretty textbook non-penalty GI) or that the goalie was trying to move in response to Wingels going into the crease at some point in the play, and that having to move impeded his ability to defend his crease (perhaps he would think the goalie wanted to push out to the top of the crease as the shooter came down, and Wingels stopping in the blue prevented that from happening).
Now again, I wouldn't have called it based on the replay. But I do think Wingels set himself up for it by stopping in the paint instead of before it, especially if the teams had already been warned about crease issues earlier in the game.
And the INT stuff is just getting insane. If that's what's happening, and like I said, it's just a theory, I wish they would just come out and say it. Or does it always get this bad around this time of the season?
Easy - I personally wouldn't have made the GI call, but I can easily see how it got made.
Wingels takes himself into the blue paint already tangled up with Jokinen (both jostling for position, I can't call either more guilty of that contact than the other, because both stand to gain/lose from it). As he moves out of the crease, they continue jostling, and Jokinen (either because of that or just... because) falls into the goalie, preventing him from making the save.
The ref could either believe Wingels' actions forced Jokinen into his own goalie (which is pretty textbook non-penalty GI) or that the goalie was trying to move in response to Wingels going into the crease at some point in the play, and that having to move impeded his ability to defend his crease (perhaps he would think the goalie wanted to push out to the top of the crease as the shooter came down, and Wingels stopping in the blue prevented that from happening).
Now again, I wouldn't have called it based on the replay. But I do think Wingels set himself up for it by stopping in the paint instead of before it, especially if the teams had already been warned about crease issues earlier in the game.
And the INT stuff is just getting insane. If that's what's happening, and like I said, it's just a theory, I wish they would just come out and say it. Or does it always get this bad around this time of the season?
I think the reason the ref out high made the call and the one in close didn't was Wingles stick make contact with Kippers right skate and the ref could see Kipper falling immediately after. Nobody talked about that in the post-game. The ref in close could more easily tell the action was from the Flames player and didn't make the call. Because they did confer before the call, the high ref had to say he had a clear view of something the close in ref didn't. In post game interviews, Jumbo said the ref said he was 100% certain on the call, so he must have been pretty emphatic in his belief in that huddle. That's my theory. But it was a bad call. Wingles stick didn't cause Kipper to fall. Wingles didn't impede Kipper either. GI could be called, but the tolerance level was way too tight on one play, versus a game that had few calls and was played cleanly. Refs normally let the players play a little more in the 3rd quarter and OT to decide the game. If refs call with that tolerance level on GI across the league, Homer will lead the League in PIMs.
Relative to interference, I agree completely that the interpretation of the offense has changed most clearly on the entry play. The normal and clean play is to have 2 defenders at the point of entry, one checking the player on the dump in, and the second retrieving the puck. What is happening routinely now is the offensive player slides out of the lane to get the puck, but the defender is given a large step either way to impede the player giving the second player in the middle of the ice more time to skate to the puck. I don't have a good theory why they aren't calling that anymore.
I think the reason the ref out high made the call and the one in close didn't was Wingles stick make contact with Kippers right skate and the ref could see Kipper falling immediately after. Nobody talked about that in the post-game. The ref in close could more easily tell the action was from the Flames player and didn't make the call. Because they did confer before the call, the high ref had to say he had a clear view of something the close in ref didn't. In post game interviews, Jumbo said the ref said he was 100% certain on the call, so he must have been pretty emphatic in his belief in that huddle. That's my theory. But it was a bad call. Wingles stick didn't cause Kipper to fall. Wingles didn't impede Kipper either. GI could be called, but the tolerance level was way too tight on one play, versus a game that had few calls and was played cleanly. Refs normally let the players play a little more in the 3rd quarter and OT to decide the game. If refs call with that tolerance level on GI across the league, Homer will lead the League in PIMs.
Relative to interference, I agree completely that the interpretation of the offense has changed most clearly on the entry play. The normal and clean play is to have 2 defenders at the point of entry, one checking the player on the dump in, and the second retrieving the puck. What is happening routinely now is the offensive player slides out of the lane to get the puck, but the defender is given a large step either way to impede the player giving the second player in the middle of the ice more time to skate to the puck. I don't have a good theory why they aren't calling that anymore.
What they are still calling is if the defending player turns and takes a stride or takes a full side stride to obstruct the offensive player. Both of those actions are pretty extreme. They are easily giving them half side strides.
Thanks for the update on stick, I wasn't looking for that. I still am of the opinion that the non-penalty GI call was way out of line with the way that it is normally called.
I don't like the call, but I like the fact the ref farthest from the play called it. Had the ref right next to the play made the call I could give him the benefit of the doubt he saw something we couldn't.
Turned on tonight's BUF/NYR game on NBCSN during the 2nd period. Had vague feeling something was a little off, realized only one ref working the game (St. Pierre). Sutherland is listed as also working the game, did he get hurt or something?
Edit to add: waded into the NYR gameday thread, apparently Sutherland took a puck to the jaw early in the 1st. ouch!!!
Last edited by Dowisetrepla: 02-01-2012 at 08:29 PM.
I was watching the Caps vs Panthers game and while the Caps were in the offensive zone, the Panthers net was knocked off(not sure who knocked it off). Florida gained possession and skated the puck out of the zone and into the Capitals end. While the net was off the refs allowed the play to continue(rightfully, I believe), the Goalie (Clemmensen?) left for the bench for an extra attacker but not because of an impending power-play. Does this create some kind of potential "issue" of allowing an extra attacker with no threat of a goal against? Or, has this happened before and I just haven't seen it? I realize that should the defending team possess the puck, the whistle will be blown and that this situation doesn't happen often enough to be a big deal.
I was watching the Caps vs Panthers game and while the Caps were in the offensive zone, the Panthers net was knocked off(not sure who knocked it off). Florida gained possession and skated the puck out of the zone and into the Capitals end. While the net was off the refs allowed the play to continue(rightfully, I believe), the Goalie (Clemmensen?) left for the bench for an extra attacker but not because of an impending power-play. Does this create some kind of potential "issue" of allowing an extra attacker with no threat of a goal against? Or, has this happened before and I just haven't seen it? I realize that should the defending team possess the puck, the whistle will be blown and that this situation doesn't happen often enough to be a big deal.
If I were a Caps player I might have been tempted to skate down the other end and replace the net/pegs (which, BTW, is legal) while my team skated 6 on 4 because once the goalie comes off for an extra attacker he can't go back in until a stoppage in play.
It also mentioned his locale, Washinton, DC. He has a concentration there and in the Atlantic conference. He used to be West Coast.
Yeah, Sutherland is originally from BC. They noted that in the SCF last year. Maybe, since the league is still dominated by teams in the Eastern Time Zone, he moved to Washington to simplify travel issues.
Yeah, Sutherland is originally from BC. They noted that in the SCF last year. Maybe, since the league is still dominated by teams in the Eastern Time Zone, he moved to Washington to simplify travel issues.
He was based in Southern California previously. His profile is a bit odd as he gets a load of Atlantic Div. games as well as Southeast. Each ref has a base assigned by the league. Most refs get about 12-15 games in their home division, going as high as 18. 10 or less in their non-home divisions. 73 games a year. A few refs have what I would call a flat profile, no division preference. They also tend to have more games at their home arena. The league can mandate a change of home locales for the ref (and the league pays for the move). They have the ref "homes" spotted around the country. It helps them when they need emergency substitutes.
I got a look at the Peverly incidental contact/wave off goal in Bruins/Sabres 2/8. Instructive. Miller was outside of the crease but stationary. Minor contact Miller with no defender contact on the Bruin until after the contact with Miller. The contact did not interfere with Miller making the save but it did distract him and was emphasized by Miller throwing his arm into the Bruin.
I think it got called outside of the blue because of the no defender contact and because Miller was stationary. I don't agree with the call because at most the contact itself was a distraction and might have actually helped Miller if Miller had pushed off the Bruin to make the save.
Let's keep this in mind for GI/incidental contact outside of the blue. If the goaltender is stationary . . .
