Some venting on the NHL's Officiating and Suspension Ruling

[Cerialthriller]

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.

read it for yourself
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348

also, there is a rule called refusal to play the puck which would cover your scenario.

[michiganice91]

read it for yourself
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348

also, there is a rule called refusal to play the puck which would cover your scenario.

Havlat was deemed to have possession of the puck. Any referee in the world will tell you this. Stop trying to justify a horrible call. You are wrong, O'halloran was wrong, and everyone knows it.

You cant find one story or writer who says that havlat did not posess the puck, because everyone knows he did.

[GrimUSMC]

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..

Over my head why, because I cleared up somethign you said that was wrong? Or because I think it was a horrible call and your interpretation is completely flawed? Im just curious as to which one makes you think what you said went right over my head, so please clear that up for me.

[Cerialthriller]

Over my head why, because I cleared up somethign you said that was wrong? Or because I think it was a horrible call and your interpretation is completely flawed? Im just curious as to which one makes you think what you said went right over my head, so please clear that up for me.

I thought it was clear in the rest of the thread but here goes...

Im not disputing the hit was "dirty" or whatever, it was a fine hit. The fact was that interference was called, in accordance to the rule book and the penalty handed out was exactly in line with what was in the rulebook. Which is that if you commit an interference penalty and you injure someone, you get a game misconduct. If the refs deemed that he had puck possession (which they did not on this play) then it would have been no penalty. According to the rule book the puck in the skates if not touched yet, does not count as possession.

Therefore, if I was driving, and the person in front of me has to slam on their brakes or something or swerve whatever and I hit and someone dies, its a tragedy but its unlikely i would have any charges pressed. Now if the same thing happened and I was drunk and slammed into the person, I'd probably be going to jail, all because i was driving while drunk which is against the rules.

You can argue that you dont agree with the rules, but the call was 100% within the rules laid out by the NHL. You can argue the inconsistency and all that all day long but the fact is that this was called exactly how the rules are written. If you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread, which is kind of obviously, refer to rule 56 on Interference. have a good day.

[michiganice91]

I thought it was clear in the rest of the thread but here goes...

Im not disputing the hit was "dirty" or whatever, it was a fine hit. The fact was that interference was called, in accordance to the rule book and the penalty handed out was exactly in line with what was in the rulebook. Which is that if you commit an interference penalty and you injure someone, you get a game misconduct. If the refs deemed that he had puck possession (which they did not on this play) then it would have been no penalty. According to the rule book the puck in the skates if not touched yet, does not count as possession.

Therefore, if I was driving, and the person in front of me has to slam on their brakes or something or swerve whatever and I hit and someone dies, its a tragedy but its unlikely i would have any charges pressed. Now if the same thing happened and I was drunk and slammed into the person, I'd probably be going to jail, all because i was driving while drunk which is against the rules.

You can argue that you dont agree with the rules, but the call was 100% within the rules laid out by the NHL. You can argue the inconsistency and all that all day long but the fact is that this was called exactly how the rules are written. If you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread, which is kind of obviously, refer to rule 56 on Interference. have a good day.

The rule book does not say that the puck in the skates is not possession. All it says is "the player deemed to have possession". A player with a puck in his skates will always be deemed to have possession. The fact of the matter is that the call was WRONG, and the fact that the reds only made the call post facto as seen by the replay...and they made the call based on the result of the legal hit, not on the legality of the hit.

[Cerialthriller]

The rule book does not say that the puck in the skates is not possession. All it says is "the player deemed to have possession". A player with a puck in his skates will always be deemed to have possession. The fact of the matter is that the call was WRONG, and the fact that the reds only made the call post facto as seen by the replay...and they made the call based on the result of the legal hit, not on the legality of the hit.

it says last player to TOUCH the puck is in possession. At no time did he touch the puck, he was attempting to and was impeded on

[michiganice91]

it says last player to TOUCH the puck is in possession. At no time did he touch the puck, he was attempting to and was impeded on

so by your account...say a player shoots the puck down the ice and it stops an inch short of the goal line with no one around it...you'd say that the guy who shot the puck 150 some odd feet away is in possession of the puck correct?

[Cerialthriller]

so by your account...say a player shoots the puck down the ice and it stops an inch short of the goal line with no one around it...you'd say that the guy who shot the puck 150 some odd feet away is in possession of the puck correct?

so what you are saying then is that if the puck gets too close to someones feet while they are hopping off the ice for a line change they can legally be slammed through the open door all while getting the too many men on the ice penalty because the puck was close to the skate and therefore in his possession?

[richied98]

The puck was between his legs, and the pass was intended to him. Someoen jumping over the boards is a completely different game situation. The pass was coming and havlat didnt time it correct. Kronwall timed it perfectly, and he SHOULD do that play everytime he has the opportunity. Havlat couldn't find the puck between his legs.

If a player receives a pass and can't find it between their legs in my opinion that counts as possession of the puck. The referees thought it was a clean play, UNTIL they saw he was injured. That is the most ridiculous thing about this. Whether or not he had possession or not, the referees are full of **** in this league. As much as I respect them, theyneed to stop calling penalties based off of injuries.

Also, you know if Havlat was Crosby, Kronwall would have been suspended for at least 2-3 games. That's another part of this game that needs to go.

[griff2311]

Michiganice, come on, he has showed you the rule in the book. You had an emotional interest in this hit but the fact is by the book it was right.

The debate really should be why was no call made while the hit occurred and instead was made after the fact. Who knows why? Maybe the ref asked a linesmen is Havlet touched the puck? Or it very well be one of the refs was disturbed by the nature of the hit and came down on Kronwall. We will never know.


The fact is the call was correct based on the law of the rule book. Possesion requires one to touch the puck. That is how a delayed penalty plays are blown dead. One should not stop play on a delayed penalty if the puck is close to a players feet.