Mitchell's delay of game call
Papyrus Tandoori
without another faceoff?
The way I see it, if it's a penalty, then there's time left on the clock. If
there's not time, it's not a penalty.
God refs suck.
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
Hmm... rule 63.2 says:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26355
"A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed on any player
or goalkeeper who deliberately shoots or bats the puck outside the
playing area during the play or after a stoppage of play."
I'm not sure I've seen anyone do it when it was cleanly after
a stoppage of play (i.e. whistle blows, then you shoot the puck
outside the playing area). Dunno if they'd enforce it.
So the question remains, if you flip the puck, then the whistle blows,
then the puck leaves the playing area (which is what I think happened
last night?) does that count as "during the play"? It could reasonably
be interpreted that way, I think.
I also couldn't tell from the one reply I saw on the Avs feed whether
the puck might have hit Liles' shoulder on the way up, which I think
would nullify the penalty?
Papyrus Tandoori
news:he9fb1$fat$1...@news.albasani.net...
Okay fine, but it obviously wasn't deliberate so that doesn't apply. The
only way someone would deliberately shoot the puck over the glass after the
whistle is if they were throwing some kind of temper-induced hissy fit which
obviously wasn't the case. So the paragraph which applies here is:
"When any player or goalkeeper, while in his defending zone, shoots the
puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there
is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game."
Since the period was over, there is no "delay of the game", since it wasn't
deliberate, the prior paragraph doesn't apply. And yeah, the replay they
showed from the end, it did deflect of Liles shoulder.
As for the timeline, you're right - he flipped the puck, then time expired,
then the puck went over the glass. And that is certainly what the refs
*must* have ruled, since they did not drop the puck for another faceoff.
Therefore, IF they are calling that in accordance with what is in the
rulebook, they must be saying that Mitchell deliberately shot it over the
glass, which is obviously not the case.
Anyways whatever - it was another in a long line of bad calls made by NHL
refs that seem to be getting worse and worse every year.
I guess I should leave the real ref complaining tihs week to Detroit and
Ireland... they're the ones who *really* got screwed.
Cheers
-PT
Keith Keller
>
> I'm not sure I've seen anyone do it when it was cleanly after
> a stoppage of play (i.e. whistle blows, then you shoot the puck
> outside the playing area). Dunno if they'd enforce it.
I have seen it enforced, but I think only once, and then it was fairly
obviously shot over the glass to show frustration with the officiating.
(I wish I could remember where I saw this, but I can't ATM.) The way I
recall it, the play was clearly whistled down, and the offending player
flipped the puck into the stands in the opposite direction from any
linesmen (so it's not like he meant to flip it to a linesman and
missed).
> So the question remains, if you flip the puck, then the whistle blows,
> then the puck leaves the playing area (which is what I think happened
> last night?) does that count as "during the play"? It could reasonably
> be interpreted that way, I think.
I think it's clear that it does count as during the play, because your
action took place during play. But by the rule you quoted, it wouldn't
even matter: any flipping the puck *deliberately* out of the rink is a
penalty. So it would be judging intent that would be crucial. (Note
that the rule that assesses a delay of game for putting the puck over
the glass from your own zone does not talk about intent.) From the
context, it seems like Mitchell didn't intentionally put the puck out of
play, so the next clause would come into play.
> I also couldn't tell from the one reply I saw on the Avs feed whether
> the puck might have hit Liles' shoulder on the way up, which I think
> would nullify the penalty?
It would nullify the non-intent from the defensive zone, if the
officials saw the deflection. If they didn't, they'd still call the
penalty.
Any video of the play? I'm curious to see it now.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
>On 2009-11-21, Lone Locust of the Apocalypse <zo...@ninthbit.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I've seen anyone do it when it was cleanly after
>> a stoppage of play (i.e. whistle blows, then you shoot the puck
>> outside the playing area). Dunno if they'd enforce it.
>
>I have seen it enforced, but I think only once, and then it was fairly
>obviously shot over the glass to show frustration with the officiating.
I would think unsportsmanlike conduct would cover that, but whatever.
>> So the question remains, if you flip the puck, then the whistle blows,
>> then the puck leaves the playing area (which is what I think happened
>> last night?) does that count as "during the play"? It could reasonably
>> be interpreted that way, I think.
>
>I think it's clear that it does count as during the play, because your
>action took place during play. But by the rule you quoted, it wouldn't
>even matter: any flipping the puck *deliberately* out of the rink is a
>penalty. So it would be judging intent that would be crucial. (Note
>that the rule that assesses a delay of game for putting the puck over
>the glass from your own zone does not talk about intent.) From the
>context, it seems like Mitchell didn't intentionally put the puck out of
>play, so the next clause would come into play.
Ah, true. Reading fail. And the next clause doesn't specifically
say whether it is governed by "during the play."
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
>Okay fine, but it obviously wasn't deliberate so that doesn't apply.
True (see also my reply to Keith).
>So the paragraph which applies here is:
>
>"When any player or goalkeeper, while in his defending zone, shoots the
>puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there
>is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game."
>
>Since the period was over, there is no "delay of the game",
If you want to be technical, the delay of game stems from the puck not
being in play for the second or two it takes to clear the glass, during
which there could be a scoring chance. Unlikely, sure, but it happens.
>And yeah, the replay they showed from the end, it did deflect of
>Liles shoulder.
I think this is your only legitimate beef against the refs, for not
noticing this (I thought it was subtle on replay and in slomo, which
they don't have available on the ice). Maybe the rule is stupid
and should be changed so that the puck has to leave the playing
area with time on the clock to be assessed, but the refs can only
enforce what's there.
I guess my point is, if you want to bitch about the reffing, there's
plenty of other better examples :-)
Scotty
I think he has a point. When the horn blows, the play is dead, and the
puck is dead. If it was about to cross the goal-line, it would have to
beat the horn. Same thing should apply to the glass.
Scott
Keith Keller
>
> I think he has a point. When the horn blows, the play is dead, and the
> puck is dead. If it was about to cross the goal-line, it would have to
> beat the horn. Same thing should apply to the glass.
I think deciding when the puck has crossed the glass is basically
unenforceable. The goal line has a bunch of cameras directed at it, all
(theoretically) synchronized with the game clock. It'd be prohibitive
to do the same for all areas of the glass.
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
I have no problem with that (consistency is always good) but the
dispute here is with the people writing the rules, not the ones
enforcing them, unlesss you want to encourage them to improvise
any more than they alread ydo.
Scotty
Yabut, that rule you quoted isn't the relevant rule (there's no
deliberate intention when a d-man is trying to clear the puck). The
following paragraph applies:
"When any player or goalkeeper, while in his defending zone, shoots the
puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where
there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game.
When the puck is shot into the players� bench, the penalty will not
apply. When the puck is shot over the glass �behind� the players� bench,
the penalty will be assessed."
It doesn't say anything about "during play or after stoppage of play" in
that paragraph. I say it was a bad call.
Scott
Steven Fisher
Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> I think deciding when the puck has crossed the glass is basically
> unenforceable. The goal line has a bunch of cameras directed at it, all
> (theoretically) synchronized with the game clock. It'd be prohibitive
> to do the same for all areas of the glass.
Except that they're already making that decision, aren't they? If they
don't do a faceoff, it means the puck sailed out after the horn.
Steve
Papyrus Tandoori
"Steven Fisher" <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:sdfisher-FA9DB7...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
That's the thing that irritated me... if they woulda had a faceoff with 0.1
seconds on the clock, I'd still disagree with the call and be annoyed, but
at least it wouldn't be logically unsound.
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
>Yabut, that rule you quoted isn't the relevant rule (there's no
>deliberate intention when a d-man is trying to clear the puck). The
>following paragraph applies:
This has already been pointed out and acknowledged by me twice
elsewhere in this thread :-)