Good Call/Bad Call?

[hockeymom 2]

It is time to play the Good Call/Bad Call game again. I have 3 penalties. Once again, for those of you new to the game, the focus here is what did the PLAYER do wrong and what should they do differently?

I have repeated what I think is the critical moment in slow motion. Sorry for the long tag on the 3rd penalty - couldn't resist leaving in my evil laugh providing "parental support" as she steps into the SinBin LOL

The player in all 3 penalties is #92 centre - MissD

Sort me out on these, please.

Penalty one - her stick went too high?

Penalty two - as the other player had beat the defense, I guess this one was ok as far as getting a penalty, but what specificlly caused the penalty? Is it reaching from behind? too much lean? that the other player fell?

Penalty three - Is this a good call? Where is the line on collisions?

Here's the vid link:

3 Penalties

[All Torhs Team 0]

For #2 was it Tripping? I couldnt imagine anything besides it. (Great back check by the way)

And for #3 I think it was a good play, but from the refs point of view, I bet he saw it as being blind-sided. If I were here on that play, I still would have hit her, but maybe not as hard to avoid the penalty. Not making her fall, but still enough to knock her off balance.

Im no expert though.

[Jason Harris 31]

All Torhs is correct that the ref's perspective is crucial. To the ref, it might appear Player A's stick is impeding Player B, but if viewed from the opposite side, it becomes apparent that the stick never touched Player B.

In Miss D's case, Penalty 1 looked like hooking, particularly since the player fell, although that turns hooking into tripping.

Penalty 2 was the least onerous, since it's apparent the other player slipped, versus being tripped. However, Miss D somewhat blocked the girl's path with her stick, so maybe she was called for inteference, especially since one of the refs would be on the opposite side.

Penalty 3 looks as though her elbow came up to high as she collided with the girl, so it was probably elbowing or checking from behind.

[hockeymom 2]

MissD thought penalty #1 was a good call because her stick went up too high.

She didn't think she deserved #2, because she felt she had played the puck. But she WAS leaning on the other player a bit. Should she have skated a bit more paralell to the player?

#3 was an accident... my delicate flower would never hit anyone All Torhs...LOL

She thought that was a bad call because the other player skated back into MissD's lane and they collided. Is there any merit to this line of reasoning?

But you're right Jason, her elbow did come up and maybe that is what the ref focused on.

[RadioGaGa 162]

I don't ref...but to me....#1 & #3 look like penalties. #2, I'm not sure.

#1 - they were just explaining this on TSN the other day...a stick, horizontal to the ice that makes contact with the other players body or hands is supposed to be called. Hooking, slashing, tripping...take your pick, I guess.

#3 - If you can see the numbers on the back...don't make the hit. Looked like it was from behind. Having said that...it is a fine line between no contact & no hitting. She is also smaller than MissD and doesn't look like she is in a really strong position, so that might have looked worse than it was...but Hockey Canada is taking that STOP sign on the back pretty seriously...so I'd say she should let up in that instance.

#2 - Did the player fall because of MissD's contact...? It looks like she stops skating and tries to lean back into her...then just falls. I don't even know how you would begin to separate the player from the puck these days without getting called for something...She was in clean (by the looks of it...) so as far as a good penalty to take if indeed it was a penalty that one at least took away what looked like it was going to be a scoring chance.

Like I said...I don't ref...just observations from a fan/casual player. MissD looks like she doesn't lack hussle. That is a good thing. I don't know what you'd tell her. #1 looks like it could be called a "lazy" penalty (hoking, holding usually are)...but the other 2 (especially #2) come out of hussle. What's the old saying..."You'll kill off the 'good' penalties, but 'bad' ones will kill you".

Did the team kill them off?

btw...the "evil laugh" is a nice touch.

[Cavs019 708]

That's my issue with #1......Despite the Horizontal stick it's not missD's fault that the player in question had no edge control and would have fell regardless.

[hockeymom 2]

Did the team kill them off?

They won 4-2 but I'm afraid MissD's rep as a brute was also sealed up out of this game...LOL

[Jason Harris 31]

Cavs, you are correct that it appears the player would have fallen anyway, but that should only change the call from a hook to a trip.

I remember one adult game where the other player was visibly tugging our guy -- kinda, "Heave.....Ho.....Heave.....Ho." The ref was right in front of our bench, so we yelled at him, "C'mon, you gotta make that call!" His response was, "Tell your guy to go down and I'll call it!"

Now, obvious response would be that that would change the hooking to a trip, since the hooking had ocurred all along, but sometimes the bigger picture is it doesn't pay to educate the refs.

[Chadd 916]

#1 was hard for me to see on my monitor, but any time the stick is used on the shaft or body of another player, there's a good chance you're going to the box.

#2 looked like she was able to restrain the other player with her right hand/arm. As Jason said, the referee's angle may have made it look even worse than it was. The other player was in front and went down, in a lot of cases that's enough for most refs right there.

#3 looks like a check to me, no attempt to play the puck and with intent to create contact. The fact that her stick wasn't on the ice and she wasn't looking at the puck don't help her case for it being accidental.

[ljbaron 0]

#1=Hook

#2=Shouldn't have been a penalty

#3= Interferance

[Chadd 916]

#1=Hook

#2=Shouldn't have been a penalty

#3= Interferance

The player had the puck so it can't be interference.

[MissD 0]

Okay, hello :)

umm, if memory serves me right #2,3 were both body checking.

On the first one, I knew it would be called, like mum said.. I went to lift her blade, but it slipped and well. >_<

on #2 I've gotten two or three penalties doing this, and a bunch weren't called this year. I'll be getting the puck, but lean on the girl a bit. They need learn balance, cause someone always falls. I don't push that hard either. Is leaning O.K. or something I should avoid altogether?

on #3 I was looking at the puck, and lost it. Next thing I knew a girl and myself were on the ice. I was thinking "aww crap not another one."

The timekeepers said to me "Welcome Back!! are you always such a brute?"

[ljbaron 0]

#1=Hook

#2=Shouldn't have been a penalty

#3= Interferance

The player had the puck so it can't be interference.

Yah that is true

[Chadd 916]

Okay, hello :)

umm, if memory serves me right #2,3 were both body checking.

On the first one, I knew it would be called, like mum said.. I went to lift her blade, but it slipped and well. >_<

on #2 I've gotten two or three penalties doing this, and a bunch weren't called this year. I'll be getting the puck, but lean on the girl a bit. They need learn balance, cause someone always falls. I don't push that hard either. Is leaning O.K. or something I should avoid altogether?

on #3 I was looking at the puck, and lost it. Next thing I knew a girl and myself were on the ice. I was thinking "aww crap not another one."

The timekeepers said to me "Welcome Back!! are you always such a brute?"

If 2 was a body check, that's a horrible call. You still have the ability to battle for the puck and a " body check" to me involves an impact between the two players. Since there was no impact of the bodies coming together, there is no reason for it to be called a check. I could see holding depending on the refs angle.

[MissD 0]

Chadd, is leaning on them okay? Or is that what is causing the problem?

[kosydar 0]

1- I'd call that a hook almost every time. She impeded the player with the puck's ability to skate and handle it. A hooking penalty doesn't have to be something around the body, nor does the person have to fall.

2- From the angle in the video I wouldn't have called anything, thats just two players going for the puck. However, like its been brought up before, the ref probably wasn't at that same angle. My first instinct on that play was that MissD took her hand off her stick and grabbed on to the other player's torso. It wasn't until it slowed down that I realized that wasn't the case. For a ref skating 10-15 feet behind the play, its very likely that is what they thought as well.

3- Is this being played in a non-check girls game? Or is it mixed checking? Regardless it looked like an elbow to me, and if not an elbow a roughing. I wouldn't call that a check from behind because in USA hockey (even though I know you guys are in Canada) the minimum is 2 + a 10 minute misconduct and I don't think thats necessary in this case.

[moose77 0]

From what I was able to see from this video, I'd have called it this way:

1: Hooking - Stick brought parallel to the ice (red flag for officials right there) and used to impede the progress of the puck carrier.

2: No penalty - At first I thought there might be a holding, but after looking at it a few times I saw two girls going for the puck and nothing more. It was what I'd call "just a good, hard hockey play".

3: Body Checking - White player had posession of the puck and "the brute" took her out! No bodychecking in female hockey. Had this been a bodychecking game, I'd have called nothing.

Chadd, is leaning on them okay? Or is that what is causing the problem?

If you're going to lean on the other players, be careful! If it's a situation where you're racing another player for a loose puck and you lean on her to slow her up to gain position, you could very well be called for interference.

[Chadd 916]

Chadd, is leaning on them okay? Or is that what is causing the problem?

First, you have to realize my opinion may not be the same as the people who ref your games. There is nothing in the rules against leaning on someone, in fact that's a huge part of hockey. As long as it doesn't look like you're restraining the other player, there should be no penalty. I will say that in a lot of cases in our area, women's hockey does not get the best officials. And by that I mean that I rarely do the games. Seriously though, sometimes you just have to adapt your play to the way the official calls the game.

Chadd, is leaning on them okay? Or is that what is causing the problem?

If you're going to lean on the other players, be careful! If it's a situation where you're racing another player for a loose puck and you lean on her to slow her up to gain position, you could very well be called for interference.

That should be a "battle for the puck" in USAH terms. As long as you don't use your hands or stick to restrain the other player, it should be ok.

[moose77 0]

If you're going to lean on the other players, be careful! If it's a situation where you're racing another player for a loose puck and you lean on her to slow her up to gain position, you could very well be called for interference.

That should be a "battle for the puck" in USAH terms. As long as you don't use your hands or stick to restrain the other player, it should be ok.

True, but also in the USAH DVD this year it said that each skater is entitled to a clear skating lane to the puck in an instance like I mentioned above and that you're not allowed to "cut off" another player in a race for the puck. I'd probably allow leaning and a battle for the puck as long as each skater is allowed to get TO the puck without an obstruction by the other.

[ChiefHockey13 0]

1. It's a call the ref had to make she may have been fighting for the puck and tripped the girl up but still a ref doesn't no.

2. it looked like a trip in my view I think this would be the 1 the ref should call.

3. Wat did she get called for? Tripping? If I were the ref I wouldn't have called this 1.

[MissD 0]

Thanks for your help everyone ^_^

I guess sometimes it is okay for you mum to catch ALL YOUR MISTAKES on tape. ¬_¬

[technophile 0]

That's my issue with #1......Despite the Horizontal stick it's not missD's fault that the player in question had no edge control and would have fell regardless.

I don't think the fall was the penalty. Not that I'm a ref, but under the new interpretation, as soon as the stick left the ice and made contact (esp. around the hands/waist), that's a hook. MissD lost position on the other player, and when that happens your only two options are to let them go and hope someone else can pick them up, or take a penalty.

#2 might have looked like a trip from the ref's perspective, since the other player's skates kind of slid out from under her. Given how much more speed MissD had, she might have wanted to take one more stride before cutting in and going for the puck, just to make sure that she didn't look like she was out of position or anything. I would mostly put this one down to the ref's viewpoint.

Edit: If it was body checking, that was a bad call, I agree. Leaning isn't a check, nor is battling for the puck, even if someone falls down.

#3 I think was a hit from behind. Not intentional -- the player basically pivoted right as she was getting hit -- but I'm not surprised the ref would call that, especially if HC is trying to cut down on hits from behind.

Edit: I see this was a non-check game. Yeah, that's a check even if it's not a hit from behind, whether intentional or not. ;)

(Edits: I should refresh the page before posting. ;))

[Storm 0]

I'm trying to figure out where your seats are?

On the third penalty .. i was like is she (hockeymom) on the ice?...you can see the inside of the boards.

Keep in mind that from the refs perspective the game is a mess. He's not calling nearly all the penalties that he sees.

1st. her stick makes contact with left knee.

A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player who shall place his stick or any portion of his body in such a manner that it shall cause his opponent to trip and fall.

2nd. look at her left hand before they both fall.

A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who holds an opponent by using his hands, arms or legs

3rd. I realize it was not intentional none the less she has to be in control.

Incidental contact, a non-checking attempt to play the puck while indirect secondary contact occurs with an opponent, is legal. Deliberate and/or aggressive contact intended to impede the progress of an opponent is illegal and shall result in a minor or major penalty, depending on its severity.

I'ld give her points for heart if I could.

[DamnLocust 0]

Disclaimer: I'm not a ref, and it's probably a stretch to call myself a hockey player, but here's my 2 cents.

First Penalty: It was a hook, but should have had nothing to do with the girl falling down. She pretty much lost control of herself and her knees buckled and she went down. With the crackdown on stick infractions, this gets called. prior to the crackdown, I don't think it would have been called, except that the girl went down, and depending on the ref's angle, it may look as though Miss D's hook caused her to fall.

Numba 2: Damn good effort to take away the breakaway, and not a bad penalty by any means. At the same time, had she taken 2 more strides, she would have had a cleaner shot at the puck. A lean is a lot more effective and will be less likely to be called if you can get even with or ahead of the opposing player. In this case, she was kind of leaning on her and pushing her towards the goal.

Example C: Don't you just hate it when smaller players get in your way? It's one of those unavoidable things, "the opponent" stopped and turned in miss d's lane, not much more to say there. Sometimes it gets called, sometimes it's a wash.