New rules

[All Torhs Team 0]

k, im not gona argu with you anymore online

and for the record, my comment in this thread about shirts, was a joke. the point was most people on this board seem to be amused by macks comments.

[Gongshow11 1]

actually buddy,t he next tiem you chirp me, i was a member on this board the day it opened, and had over 1000 posts on corebeam

[mack 44]

All right, I'm tripping over all the dick that's being tossed around in here.

[Gongshow11 1]

you mean you felt the splash of him pissing on his balls when he saw you

[mack 44]

Even Jesus has fans that get a little over-zealous.

[Gongshow11 1]

lets not go too far here, i mean you're no kanye west

[hockeymom 2]

Educate me guys... are these penalties or bad calls?

2 penalties - have repeated each clip twice and then again in slow-mo

Is the first clip a penalty?

What is the penalty in the second clip and who do you think received it?

penalty clips

[Project824 0]

Educate me guys... are these penalties or bad calls?

2 penalties - have repeated each clip twice and then again in slow-mo

Is the first clip a penalty?

What is the penalty in the second clip and who do you think received it?

penalty clips

I say bad calls. It seems like the referees have taken the standards enforcements way too far.

The first one there is blade on blade contact, but one player has the puck. The other player is going for the puck... how else are they supposed to make a play on it, especially in women's hockey where they can't put a shoulder in?

The second, if you're not allowed to go stick on stick as a pass is being made, you might as well just do the other team a favor and pick up the puck and throw it into your own net for them. The pass ended up not getting through, but if it did, that conversion of sticks and puck would have been right on time.

[technophile 0]

(I'm not a ref, but I play one on the internet! ;))

The first one, assuming that was called as slashing, is borderline, but should be called legal, I would think. The ref video USAH released specifically shows a similar play as legal; you're allowed to use your stick to strike at the puck, which was what it looked like to me. The ref may have felt it was a little too much of a chopping motion and not enough of a poke check, though.

The second one I'm guessing was on the player in white (#29), and was either interference or tripping. I would call this one a penalty--esp. in the slow motion take, you can see the white player rotate and back up into the dark player's skating path (interference), which results in the dark player's foot catching the white player's skate and causing a fall (tripping). Again, it's borderline, but on this one I'd go with the refs, assuming I guessed the call right. (It's hard to tell without a ref in the picture to see the arm go up.)

[hockeymom 2]

Oh Technophile... you're good! In the second clip, the penalty WAS on white #29 - for tripping.

The question now is - was this a good call?

The first clip was slashing on #19 - the distinction the ref made was she was gliding, not striding, at the point of contact. Is this a good call?

[zrez 0]

actually buddy,t he next tiem you chirp me, i was a member on this board the day it opened, and had over 1000 posts on corebeam

And your point is?

I guess no one is allowed to chirp people who were from corebeam?

[Chadd 916]

Oh Technophile... you're good! In the second clip, the penalty WAS on white #29 - for tripping.

The question now is - was this a good call?

The first clip was slashing on #19 - the distinction the ref made was she was gliding, not striding, at the point of contact. Is this a good call?

Gliding should be a factor in hooking, not on a play like this. It's a bad call. As for the second play, I would probably not have called it as the white player looks like they're trying to get into a better scoring position and is unaware of the other player. I believe the official was a bit overzealous in both cases, bear in mind that it's still early in the season and most refs are learning the new standards for themselves.

[Gongshow11 1]

actually buddy,t he next tiem you chirp me, i was a member on this board the day it opened, and had over 1000 posts on corebeam

And your point is?

I guess no one is allowed to chirp people who were from corebeam?

he chrisped me saying i have no useful posts, and i proved i do. who are you anyways? gloria allred?

[zrez 0]

actually buddy,t he next tiem you chirp me, i was a member on this board the day it opened, and had over 1000 posts on corebeam

And your point is?

I guess no one is allowed to chirp people who were from corebeam?

he chrisped me saying i have no useful posts, and i proved i do. who are you anyways? gloria allred?

Watch yourself buddy. Iam also from the corebeam days. Your not allowed to insult me.

[93mom 0]

Hockeymom,

I don't understand the striding/gliding thing at all, or why that would make a difference with a slash. My guess was that the call was made because she seemed to lift her blade off the ice before making contact w/ opponents stick. But I still have alot to learn about these new standards, especially since I didn't know all the old standards yet.

What I don't understand was why the whistle was blown while the dark team still had posession, shouldn't that have been a delayed penalty?

[hockeymom 2]

Hockeymom,

I don't understand the striding/gliding thing at all, or why that would make a difference with a slash. My guess was that the call was made because she seemed to lift her blade off the ice before making contact w/ opponents stick. But I still have alot to learn about these new standards, especially since I didn't know all the old standards yet.

What I don't understand was why the whistle was blown while the dark team still had posession, shouldn't that have been a delayed penalty?

Chadd or one of the other refs on here would be much better to answer your questions... but I'll take a stab at it knowing (hoping) that they will come along and clean up any bits I get wrong..lol

Striding/Gliding: I believe the distinction is: If you are still striding you are still trying to get the puck, if you glide you have changed your intent. Bracing yourself to hook them and slow them down by putting the brakes on yourself.

I actually think the ref made a mistake on that call because #19 made a jabbing motion with her stick; my daughter thinks it was a good call.

#2 penalty: This one actually happened right before the penalty in the 1st clip - lol, not the most productive shift! It is hard to see in the jumble of bodies and sticks, but the goalie did clear the puck... no one had possession and #92 white was right on it... so the timing of the whistle was fine. The call is just one of those weird things in hockey.

We've been looking at/discussing penalties on tape to tell the girls what they need to change in their play. In this case, I wouldn't change a thing. The other calls the refs made I haven't posted because they were clearly penalties!

[Storm 0]

I'm sure the girls appreciate this HM.

No penalties in both cases. imo.

#19 played her man perfectly. If she hadn't stop skating she would have landed on the opposing player. ( great player by the way, pretty sure she could play with boys.)

I find that good players make better refs since they can understand intention better. She started to glide because she was on her man. Not out of fatigue or laziness.

#14 tripped on #29's leg.

I would like to add that I would like to see a 3 ref system as well Chadd.

Also would like to add I'm a big fan of penalty shots for penalties.( Were the player taking the shot lines up on the blue line and everyone else chases him from the red and the play continues if he doesn't score.)

I would hate to see the game turn into a special teams game.

[Rebels Ice hockey 0]

I had my first college game last night. 49 penalties. the game lasted 3 hours. It was rediculous. The coaches, refs, players, and fans pretty much all hate the new standards.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

long story short, zam was broken and couldnt cut the ice. my beer league team was slotted for the second game of the night and both teams agreed to just play it. So, third period, the ice is absolutely terrible, i went down with nobody around me for 15 feet and the other team got called for interference. HILARIOUS. I went up to the guys after the game and told them i was more shocked than they were. We all got a good chuckle out of it.

[Ogie 0]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/home.html

Check out the picture. By the new standard, the player is not making a play on the puck. No Penalty called.

[Chadd 916]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/home.html

Check out the picture. By the new standard, the player is not making a play on the puck. No Penalty called.

Umm, isn't that the NHL? They play by a different rule book.

[hockeymom 2]

Here's another situation we're discussing at our house; would appreciate some advice...

At the face-off, to direct the puck to your off-side, you end up having to swing your butt in the way of the other centre. Is this still ok, or is it now considered interference?

[Miike 1]

Here's another situation we're discussing at our house; would appreciate some advice...

At the face-off, to direct the puck to your off-side, you end up having to swing your butt in the way of the other centre.  Is this still ok, or is it now considered interference?

It depends. Are you impeding the other centre where he loses control, or do you win directly. If you intentionally force your butt end to hook or get in his/her way of moving in any direction then yes it SHOULD be a penalty. If you in no way make contact with the player or impede him/her from being able to move then there is no reason for it to be called.

Please correct me if i'm wrong. I wrote about what i saw the situation to be.

[chk hrd 164]

Here's another situation we're discussing at our house; would appreciate some advice...

At the face-off, to direct the puck to your off-side, you end up having to swing your butt in the way of the other centre.  Is this still ok, or is it now considered interference?

It depends. Are you impeding the other centre where he loses control, or do you win directly. If you intentionally force your butt end to hook or get in his/her way of moving in any direction then yes it SHOULD be a penalty. If you in no way make contact with the player or impede him/her from being able to move then there is no reason for it to be called.

Please correct me if i'm wrong. I wrote about what i saw the situation to be.

If you have the puck in your possesion you should be able to turn your butt in any direction without getting a penalty.

[Miike 1]

Here's another situation we're discussing at our house; would appreciate some advice...

At the face-off, to direct the puck to your off-side, you end up having to swing your butt in the way of the other centre.  Is this still ok, or is it now considered interference?

It depends. Are you impeding the other centre where he loses control, or do you win directly. If you intentionally force your butt end to hook or get in his/her way of moving in any direction then yes it SHOULD be a penalty. If you in no way make contact with the player or impede him/her from being able to move then there is no reason for it to be called.

Please correct me if i'm wrong. I wrote about what i saw the situation to be.

If you have the puck in your possesion you should be able to turn your butt in any direction with getting a penalty.

You mean without right?