Some venting on the NHL's Officiating and Suspension Ruling

[RGM81]

After looking at the rules because I was curious myself, the call that was made fits well within the guidelines and the call is by the book. Here are the rules I refered to, all available on nhl.com

Rule 56: Interference (removed irrelevant portions, very long rule)
Possession of the Puck:
The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

A minor penalty shall be imposed on an attacking player who deliberately checks a defensive player, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck.

56.4 Major Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of interfering with an opponent (see 56.5).

56.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

So, under the rules this is a legit penalty. He never touched the puck because it took a bad hop, it was overly violent, and an injury resulted.

The problem that I have with the Kronwall play in particular is that--as every network has shown--at no time did a single zebra's arm go up in the air to signal a penalty on the play. Play went on for about 3-5 seconds after the hit--nothing. It was only after they pulled everybody out of the scrum that we saw Kronwall get tossed. Had they called an infraction right away, then I could see them bumping the penalty from your common 2-minute interference call to a 5 minute major & game misconduct based on the result. But at the time of the hit, not one of the four officials made any indication that it was a penalty.

[richied98]

Thanks Rich, thats anotehr big point to this.

The referees thought it was a clean hit until the injury. Many times I get so upset and frustrated that I forget what I'm trying to say. The referees base their call off of the injury and not the action, which drives me insane.

[30ranfordfan]

Yeah, I get that.... and I think that's why the analogy works well.

If you're driving, and someone runs out in front of you (pretty much committing suicide by jumping in front of a car) you've done nothing wrong. You're just the victim of circumstances.

If you're drunk, and crash your own car.... you'll be charged. If you're drunk and crash into someone else's car, hit a pedestrian, whatever.... you'll be charged with impaired, plus a whole bunch of other, more sever charges.

If clean hits result in injuries, or freak accidents happen... well, there's nothing the players could (or should) be expected to do, so I don't think they should punish them.

I think a hitting from behind penalty (my favorite example, because it's the absolute dirtiest thing you can do, IMO) should ALWAYS result in a suspension. At best it happened because the offender was careless, and at worst they were trying to injure someone. I don't care if the player gets right up and walks away from it. Hitting from behind should be a 2 game suspension, that escalates each time you do it.

Injure the other player.... and start throwing more games at him for intent to injure, or whatever you want to call.

well the difference is that if i got into an accident and someone got killed or seriously injured, if I wasn't drunk in the first place there would be no charges. The charges would only come because I was doing something I wasn't supposed to be doing in the first place ie checking from behind or slashing or elbowing.

[michiganice91]

So, under the rules this is a legit penalty. He never touched the puck because it took a bad hop, it was overly violent, and an injury resulted.

you need to understand that the call was incorrect. The rules clearly state that a puck in the feet of an opponent is possession regardless of whether the puck contacts the blade of the stick.

You cant just have a league where anyone can skate with their head down and automatically be free from getting body checked.

To sum it up; the puck was in Havlat's feet, Kronwall stepped up and made a legal hard body check, Havlat was dazed, and had to leave the game. No penalty should be called.


As for consistency, I would like to bring us back to game 7 of Anaheim vs Detroit.

Is this not the same play...if not even worse than what kronwall did? Why was it not penalized in the exact same fashion???

[Cerialthriller]

you need to understand that the call was incorrect. The rules clearly state that a puck in the feet of an opponent is possession regardless of whether the puck contacts the blade of the stick.

You cant just have a league where anyone can skate with their head down and automatically be free from getting body checked.

To sum it up; the puck was in Havlat's feet, Kronwall stepped up and made a legal hard body check, Havlat was dazed, and had to leave the game. No penalty should be called.


As for consistency, I would like to bring us back to game 7 of Anaheim vs Detroit.

Is this not the same play...if not even worse than what kronwall did? Why was it not penalized in the exact same fashion???

According to the rulebook puck in the feet does not equal possession.. I just cut and pasted the rule exactly from NHLs website.. You have to touch it first which he did not..

[gregmal05]

Those announcers sounded like idiots. The refs hand went up almost immediately after the hit on Selanne. Maybe if they were not too busy cheering a dirty hit they would have noticed it.

[GrimUSMC]

well the difference is that if i got into an accident and someone got killed or seriously injured, if I wasn't drunk in the first place there would be no charges. The charges would only come because I was doing something I wasn't supposed to be doing in the first place ie checking from behind or slashing or elbowing.

So not true. You can still be arrested and charged with Vehicular manslaughter withotu beign drunk if you kill someone in your car. PLUS, you can have been drinking get in a crash and kill someone and not be charged with anythign other then DUI. In order to be charged with the Manslaughter, or vehicluar homicide part, there needs to be evidence that you were intoxicated to a level that makes it completely reckless, or your actions leading up to the crash show completely reckless Behaivior.

If your drinking and riving, and someone slams into the back of your car and kills thenself, you dont get charged with Vehicular Homicide, you get charged with DUI, thats it.

Now that that is straightened out, the hti was completly legal and this is further evidence of why the NHL is slipping further and further into Joke status. Its a hard and fast game, people get hurt, it happens. I agree with Richied98 100%, except I think Downie got jobbed becasue of the logo on his jersey.

[Cerialthriller]

So not true. You can still be arrested and charged with Vehicular manslaughter withotu beign drunk if you kill someone in your car. PLUS, you can have been drinking get in a crash and kill someone and not be charged with anythign other then DUI. In order to be charged with the Manslaughter, or vehicluar homicide part, there needs to be evidence that you were intoxicated to a level that makes it completely reckless, or your actions leading up to the crash show completely reckless Behaivior.

If your drinking and riving, and someone slams into the back of your car and kills thenself, you dont get charged with Vehicular Homicide, you get charged with DUI, thats it.

Now that that is straightened out, the hti was completly legal and this is further evidence of why the NHL is slipping further and further into Joke status. Its a hard and fast game, people get hurt, it happens. I agree with Richied98 100%, except I think Downie got jobbed becasue of the logo on his jersey.

wow that went right over your head... i dont know how you can be literate and not understand the interference rules they are plain as day..

[michiganice91]

According to the rulebook puck in the feet does not equal possession.. I just cut and pasted the rule exactly from NHLs website.. You have to touch it first which he did not..

This is completely wrong. As a referee I am telling you that when a puck is in a players skates that is possession.

If what your saying is correct, a player could just stand over the puck, and if someone hits them...its an interference.

[sholi2000]

wow that went right over your head... i dont know how you can be literate and not understand the interference rules they are plain as day..

I thought CBC explained it pretty clearly as to why the penalty was called. However it was called after the play, which does happen. The player was hit in a vulnerable position. Too bad that new rule wasn't around int he 90's!