Some venting on the NHL's Officiating and Suspension Ruling

[Cerialthriller]

should we count goals now based on whos feet it gets close to last? If you shoot the puck and it goes between my legs, hence in my feet, and into the goal, thats my goal then since I last possessed the puck? And Richie my ridiculous scenario was in responce to the other ridiculous scenario. The rules say you got to touch it to gain possession and then makes sense to me unless you want the definition of possession to change for every single instance of the game.

[michiganice91]

Possession does not require a player to touch the puck. The rule book gives a definite definition of possession, but does not say that if a puck is in a players skates he does not have possession. The league has pretty much made it well known based on every single call ever made except this one that a puck in the skates = possession...especially since havlat was just about to touch it. Also the puck may have hit him in the leg coming off of the boards...there was only 1 angle of the play.

[michiganice91]

lets see what Hal Gill says...

Teammate Hal Gill agreed, saying it looked like Havlat was preparing to make a play to move the puck out of the Chicago zone.


"It looked like he had the puck and looked up to see where he was going to pass it to," Gill said. "He let it go through his skates, I don't know. Usually, the rule of thumb is, if the guy's not looking, then he doesn't have the puck yet. But that one, it's pretty obvious he's positioning himself so that he can get it. I call that possession."


Article.. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/...upplayoffsblog

pretty much everyone everywhere except hawks fans and Dan O'halloran say the hit was clean...yet you still disagree.


oh..heres another

[Cerialthriller]

i said before I never said it was dirty. What I said was that the penalty that was called fit the rules that are laid out within the book. In no other instance does the puck being near your feet qualify as possession. Hal Gil says that he was positioning himself to get the puck, well impeding a player who is attempting to play the puck = interference that is the whole definition of the rule.. The fact is your definition of possession does not match what the NHL put in the rule book. I am done here, you can direct any further comments to Bettman and the NHL who is in charge of what goes into the rule book.

[griff2311]

lets see what Hal Gill says...

Teammate Hal Gill agreed, saying it looked like Havlat was preparing to make a play to move the puck out of the Chicago zone.


"It looked like he had the puck and looked up to see where he was going to pass it to," Gill said. "He let it go through his skates, I don't know. Usually, the rule of thumb is, if the guy's not looking, then he doesn't have the puck yet. But that one, it's pretty obvious he's positioning himself so that he can get it. I call that possession."


Article.. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/...upplayoffsblog

pretty much everyone everywhere except hawks fans and Dan O'halloran say the hit was clean...yet you still disagree.


oh..heres another

Come on, get it through your head... You seem to think that those of us who believe the call was just also believe the hit was dirty. Never once have i said the hit was dirty, i don't think it was. The fact remains the call was correct, maybe unjust, but correct. Pure and simple. You can argue against the rule book all you want. You can kick and scream and throw a hissy fit if that makes you feel better about all of this. You describe possession completely different than the rule book does and you can find legions of people that agree with you but that still does not change what is spelled out in the rule book, no?

I am not debating weather or not the hit is clean or not. I'm debating weather or not the call is justifiable by the rules and in fact it is. As an official myself i love it when the guys in the pros get one right by the book, i figured a fellow official would think the same way. Your passion for your team has the best of you in this situation.

[michiganice91]

actually it does. The rule book says "the player deemed to be in possessition" which is totally different than "the last guy to touch the puck". So...havlat was "deemed to be in possession".

[griff2311]

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.

I'll let you re-read. You are getting caught up on the "deemed" part. The rule spells out right before it what constitutes possession. And when you deem the player has possession, you deem that the player that has possession was the one who touched the puck last. Thats pretty simple. I'm just explaining the language used in the book. By no means does that mean a ref can deem a player has possession in any other way other than he was the last player to touch the puck.

[michiganice91]

I'll let you re-read. You are getting caught up on the "deemed" part. The rule spells out right before it what constitutes possession. And when you deem the player has possession, you deem that the player that has possession was the one who touched the puck last. Thats pretty simple. I'm just explaining the language used in the book. By no means does that mean a ref can deem a player has possession in any other way other than he was the last player to touch the puck.

puck in feet = possession plain and simple. Its been called that way since forever..and it will continued to be called that way. Either way the call obviously wasn't based on whether havlat ever touched the puck or else the arms would have been up right away. The call was made on the fact that havlat got injured which is complete BS.

[Cerialthriller]

puck in feet = possession plain and simple.

Link this from the NHL rulebook and you win. Until then you are pulling this out of your behind.

[griff2311]

Link this from the NHL rulebook and you win. Until then you are pulling this out of your behind.

Agreed put your money where your mouth is.