Matt Cooke hit

[kmatt333 0]

We've seen plays similar to the cooke one, where the puck is right in the vicinity of the player who gets hit (in cookes case it really was right beside him) even if it's only for an instant as the puck goes cruising by.  Sometimes it seems they'll call the interference, other times not.  It would be interesting to know what the official rule pertaining to that type of play is.

The purpose of a check (by USA Hockey rules, at least) is to separate an opponent from the puck, not to intimidate or punish another player.

If a player hasn't established possession & control of the puck and is checked, an interference penatly should be called. If a player passes or dumps the puck he still technically has possession of the puck, but that doesn't necessarily leave him open to being legally checked. If, in the ref's opinion, the opposing player had a reasonable amount of time to avoid the hit, a penalty should be assessed. Most of the time, though, a player who's "finishing his check" won't draw a call unless the hit is unusually severe or completely blatant.

Does that make sense? Any other zebras want to jump in? (My rules interpretations may be a little rusty after taking a season off)

[msander 0]

Well if the NHL rule book reads the same as the USA hockey one pertaining to interference, then I would say that yes, Brown probably did deserve an interference penalty. I think the replays show quite clearly that cooke never had possession of the puck...he basically skated by it and then got drilled.

[mik3 1]

About Ruutu, he's going to end up getting one of his players really hurt.

[Chadd 916]

We've seen plays similar to the cooke one, where the puck is right in the vicinity of the player who gets hit (in cookes case it really was right beside him) even if it's only for an instant as the puck goes cruising by.  Sometimes it seems they'll call the interference, other times not.  It would be interesting to know what the official rule pertaining to that type of play is.

The purpose of a check (by USA Hockey rules, at least) is to separate an opponent from the puck, not to intimidate or punish another player.

If a player hasn't established possession & control of the puck and is checked, an interference penatly should be called. If a player passes or dumps the puck he still technically has possession of the puck, but that doesn't necessarily leave him open to being legally checked. If, in the ref's opinion, the opposing player had a reasonable amount of time to avoid the hit, a penalty should be assessed. Most of the time, though, a player who's "finishing his check" won't draw a call unless the hit is unusually severe or completely blatant.

Does that make sense? Any other zebras want to jump in? (My rules interpretations may be a little rusty after taking a season off)

First of all, the rule books aren't the same so the rest of this is pretty much irrelevant. In any case, most refs in USAH game will allow a hit if a player touches the puck and a large number will allow a hit if you're in the vicinity of the puck. There's a big difference between a legal check and a clean check.

[Eazy_b97 1]

I read an article a few years back during the lockout, where they asked a referee to watch the play and counthow many "by the book" infractions there was in a game. He was in the late 200s by the end of the first and quit counting after that.

Cooke was going to make contact with Brown, so I don't see the point in calling it penalty.

[Sven 1]

Someone reupload that big hit !

I sent the link to a friend and its down...

Thanks.

[truSteh 0]

Here it is.. that's the hit you're talking about right?

[QandA 0]

The first thing they tell me at my referee course is too not take any examples from the NHL.

[DarkStar50 679]

That is because we are not refing in the NHL. Lots of rules in amateur hockey are different than NHL. Thats why when I used to ref I knew who only watched NHL games and never read a rulebook by the bs they were screaming at me.