Question for the Refs: delay of game interpretation

[Law Goalie 147]

I had a funny question from one of my goalies the other day, and I thought I'd ask here to see what the prevailing thinking was, whether anyone had ever seen such a thing happen, and how it was or might have been called.

Can a goalie go out of his net to play the puck, then decide to draw it back into the crease to freeze it without getting a penalty for delay of game?

I was explaining to a group of 10/11 year olds about playing the puck, and in particular, how to deal with a forechecker who beats the defence to the bottom of the circles. One of them asked the question I was hoping for, which was how to deal with two of those forecheckers: I talked about using the net to shield yourself from one, stalling for time, etc.

Then one of them piped up asking what to do if THREE forecheckers beat his team back. I asked if it had ever happened to him -- "Yup, three or four times last game." I said he should just stop the puck behind his net, against the boards, leave it there, and go back to the net; at least that way, he puck wouldn't be in a scoring position for a little while longer, and he would be in position. That's when he asked about pulling the puck back to the crease and freezing it.

Obviously, the risk here is in having one of the forecheckers poke the poke into the net while the goalie's trying to freeze it -- but from a strictly penal point of view, can a goalie get away with this? The letter of the rulebook seems to suggest that it is possible, but the vagueness of the delay-of-game wording makes me think it's largely up to the discretion of the ref.

[furlanitalia 1]

A quick look through my rule book and I can't even find the specific rule regarding this. For me if a goalie plays and freezes a puck that was not coming directly at them I would give them a delay of game, including if they took the puck from behind their net back into their crease. If a goalie takes one step out and pulls it in then I might let it slide.

[Chadd 916]

As long as he is in the goalkeepers privileged area the goalie can cover the puck. If he is behind the net, some part of him must touch the crease, or he must get in front of the goal line. USA Hockey rule 104 (d), not sure what Hockey Canada has to say on the matter.

[furlanitalia 1]

With ours I know the puck has to have been coming to the goal for him/her to cover it. If he leaves the crease to cover it then it is a delay of game regardless of if he/she brings it back to the crease. But, like LawGoalie said it is very much a ref's discretion call, and it would not surprise me if a lot of guys just didn't call it.

[Law Goalie 147]

I don't know that Hockey Canada has a well-defined 'privileged area' - I need to re-check that.

My chief concern is that the wording of most versions of that rule - when goalies can and can't cover the puck - seems to be concerned with covering the puck in the course of a scoring chance (eg. a shot on goal, a wide rebound, goalie dives for it), rather than a situation in which the chance of scoring is purely speculative.

I have seen goalies regularly penalised - or at least warned - for freezing a puck that was dumped softly in near or actually on goal, with an undefended opponent coming in. The refs all said the same thing: you had a chance to play the puck. In the three undefended forechecker scenario, the goalie has all the time in the world to play the puck but will create a scoring chance almost any way he does.

I'm starting to think the best play would be to take it to the front of the net and just try to fire it away or flip it into the rafters: at least that way, if it gets picked off, the goalie's in reasonably good position to face the 3v0. Playing it from behind the net in this situation is pointless.

[Chadd 916]

That sounds somewhat different than what officials are instructed to do here.

[Law Goalie 147]

Heh. There's a lot of 'instinctual refereeing' up here.

[Chadd 916]

Heh. There's a lot of 'instinctual refereeing' up here.

Down here too. Gotta love those guys that have been doing it for 20 years and don't really care about all those "new" rules.

[chk hrd 164]

those new rules like when a kids pants are ripped clear up to the crotch and they don't make him fix them before a game. Had a lengthy discussion with a couple of refs about that one.

[psh 25]

those new rules like when a kids pants are ripped clear up to the crotch and they don't make him fix them before a game. Had a lengthy discussion with a couple of refs about that one.

This is off topic, but those kids just need an anatomy lesson about the femoral artery.

[chippa13 1844]

I don't know that Hockey Canada has a well-defined 'privileged area' - I need to re-check that.

My chief concern is that the wording of most versions of that rule - when goalies can and can't cover the puck - seems to be concerned with covering the puck in the course of a scoring chance (eg. a shot on goal, a wide rebound, goalie dives for it), rather than a situation in which the chance of scoring is purely speculative.

I have seen goalies regularly penalised - or at least warned - for freezing a puck that was dumped softly in near or actually on goal, with an undefended opponent coming in. The refs all said the same thing: you had a chance to play the puck. In the three undefended forechecker scenario, the goalie has all the time in the world to play the puck but will create a scoring chance almost any way he does.

I'm starting to think the best play would be to take it to the front of the net and just try to fire it away or flip it into the rafters: at least that way, if it gets picked off, the goalie's in reasonably good position to face the 3v0. Playing it from behind the net in this situation is pointless.

Goalies seem to get a lot of leeway on whether or not they have to move the puck. I've operated under the assumption that if you have time and a safe play to a corner or teammate then you'd better take it. If not, I'll warn the goalie.

I had an interesting situation during a men's league game years ago. A player went in on a breakaway and the goalie made the save and wound up on his back on top of the puck. The breakaway guy had peeled off and there wasn't a player in the zone let alone any forecheckers so I told the goalie to move it. With colorful language he refused and since he was on the puck I cut him some slack and wound up whistling the play dead. As I blew the whistle I waved my arm out to show him that there was noone in the same zip code. Not sure what other refs would have done there but I warned him both for the language and to move the puck.

[furlanitalia 1]

We all need a lesson in personal safety but we all disregard it. How many Refs on here who said they would wear a neckguard after the Kevin Brown incident actually did? I do every time now, but not when I play. Try figuring that one out.

As for instinctual ref's: one of our arena's is being remodeled, so the ref room is the end of a blocked off hallway in the lobby with two sheets of plywood bolted to the walls as doors. Older officials have refused to do games because they feel the services are inadequate. Way to do it for the kids. Not they show any respect anymore.

Sorry to jump off topic with all that. I'd like to ask a question though, not being a goalie myself:

After watching the Canada game last night and seeing Brodeur (IMO) over-handle the puck (in the corner, batting it out of the air, and diving for it) I have to ask is it really in a goalie's best interest to chase a puck behind the net when there is a forechecker coming down on it? I understand a two on zero can be pretty deadly, but would it not just be best to leave the puck sometimes or simply fire it away then to try and hold on to it?

[Law Goalie 147]

The best take I've heard on goalie puckhandling is that it should be an extension of the goalie's overall job to control the puck on behalf of his team. That control includes communicative elements (talking with the D, tapping out the last seconds of a powerplay, etc.), save elements (actually stopping shots, but more importantly, rebound control), and puckhandling elements. If a goalie goes out of his net to play the puck and does *not* control the puck for his team, he might as well not have bothered; if he turns it over or interferes with his D, he should rightly be criticised.

To my mind, Eddie Belfour was the best control goalie in recent memory; he learned the best of Tretiak's game and added to it more modern puckhandling skills (curved sticks and elevation from Hextall and Brodeur, late in his career the Turco-grip, etc.). Most of the time it only consisted of stopping and placing the puck for his D, but with subtle stuff like always laying it off on the D's forehand, placing the puck to shield the D from the forecheck, running a little interference, etc. Less flashy than swatting the puck out of mid-air, and vastly more effective. Part of the reason McCabe had a couple of good years and then tanked in the defensive zone was, in the opinion of one of his coaches, that he wasn't getting those soft "muffin" pucks on a platter any more after Belfour left.

Vesa Toskala is, by comparison, a much more skilled puck-handler than Belfour - Toskala remains the only goalie I've seen who can take effective slapshots in full goalie gear with a goalie stick, and he made Pogge's little lacrosse routine look like tiddlywinks - but he's nowhere near as effective at controlling the puck and the game as Eddie.

Ditto Brodeur: I read a scouting report a while back that acknowledged his phenomenal gifts for stopping shoot-ins and making long, hard, accurate clears and saucer passes; it also observed that his backhand is basically nonexistant, and that, if pressured, he'll fire forehand rims on the glass 90+% of the time - which is exactly what he did in the game against the US, and exactly how they attacked their shoot-ins.

[furlanitalia 1]

Interesting stuff, and good to know.

I talked this over with a ref the other night and he said if the goalie brings it back into his crease because he is pressured it wouldn't be a delay of game. I would still be wary of doing this though as some might see it as a penalty; the line isn't always clear and usually up to the ref's discretion.

For example, how many times have you seen a d-man pin the puck to the boards with his feet when on the penalty kill? And how many times have you seen it called for delay of game? Technically unless he is checked into the boards and then holds it, it is a penalty yet I've never seen it called.

[Law Goalie 147]

Thanks for asking him; I appreciate it.

I suspect that in the real world, the difference between a warning and a penalty in this situation is going to boil down to the relationship the goalie has with the ref, and the game situation. If the ref is looking to make an even-up call, or has it in for the team, the goalie would be well advised not to do it; if, on the other hand, relations are good to neutral, the worst that would happen is probably a warning and a short conversation much along the lines of what you had with your ref.

That might also fall under the category of 'communicative control' for a goalie - keeping good relations with the ref even while your team is mouthing off and playing hockey so dirty it would have drawn censure in the industrial leagues. :D

[furlanitalia 1]

Haha yah, I don't think you could stress enough the importance of keeping on good terms with a ref. I'm pretty protective of goalies but when something tiny happens and they flip out, take a swing at a guy, or lip me off I'm not exactly going to be giving them the benefit of the doubt the rest of the game. Not that I won't call someone charging them, but I'm not about to let them get away with anything (pulling a players feet out, etc.)

My advice to goalies would be that when a player lightly taps you with the toe of his blade as the whistle is being blown there is no reason to throw a hissy fit. Ask politely to watch the stuff after the whistle and it'll go a longer way then over reacting to nothing.

[zebra_steve 11]

Joining this one a bit late, but the goalie is permitted to cover the puck if he is in contact with his goal crease and the puck is not below the goal line. He is not permitted to freeze the puck against the end boards, side boards, or goal frame. If he is in his privileged area and in the act of playing goal\stopping a shot he can also freeze it. This usually will mean that he has immediate pressure and\or has absorbed the shot into his body and it would be very difficult for him to get it loose. A glove save means that all he needs to do is drop it and move it out so less wiggle room there - no pressure = move the puck but most officials are very generous on the definition of pressure. If he stops it with his stick and has a reasonable opportunity to pass it or dump it away and then opts to cover it, or leaves the crease to stick handle the puck and then drops to cover it (especially below the goal line) this should be penalized as delay of game. Likewise, a goalie races out to beat an opponent to a loose puck and dives on it above the top of the circles it should be a delay of game as he was outside of his privileged area. The goalie is given a lot of room and protection to do his job (which is to prevent the puck from entering the net) and you will frequently hear us telling them to "move it".... once he transitions to the type of play that the other players are responsible for he generally has no more rights than the other player. Also, Note that the goalie is not "fair game" when he leaves his crease or privileged area to play the puck.

If he carries it anywhere with his stick and then covers it he should get a delay of game.... ie: stick handles from behind the net back to the crease and covers it. All of this assumes he has some control over the puck - if the goalie loses the battle with the fore checker and it is a "loose puck" that slides into the crease then by all means cover it as he is now back to "playing goal" and not stick handling.

In short, he's permitted to cover\freeze the puck as part of making the save and in most other cases he has no more rights than any other player on the ice.

USA Hockey rule references:

104d - goalies privileged area

606b- charging\contact with goalie

609e - specific wording for player or goalie freezing puck on boards

609f - specific wording for goalie stick handling and then freezing puck

612b - specific wording about goalie falling on or gathering puck into his body outside crease, behind goal line, or outside privileged area

629a - puck must be kept in motion

629b- freezing puck along boards

USA Hockey Casebook references:

Rule 606:

Situation 2

Rule 612:

Situation 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13

[zebra_steve 11]

Regarding the "slash" on the keeper.... This one is about game management. You don't want a "ticki tack" call on a forward trying to make a legitimate play on a loose puck, but you also cannot allow the keepers' hands to be free to whack.

If it's a "continuation of play" - as in the forward is going for the loose puck and the keeper wins the race with the stick contact is near simultaneous with the keeper covering the puck I got nothing... (We are not talking about running into the keeper here, just stick contact) Now if the keeper clearly has it and the forward shoves his stick into the glove anyway I will at least drag him aside and warn him. If he was really aggressive with a whack or shoving the stick in then he sits. If it's clearly covered and he gives a good whack on the glove he should get a slashing penalty.... same goes for a whack on the pads. A stick to the chest or mask opens up a bigger can of worms.... comes down to whether he was trying to make a legitimate play on the puck and realistically could avoid contact.

Now if the keeper gets the light tap on the pads or glove and tries to feed him the blocker who do ya suppose is gonna get the warning?

[furlanitalia 1]

Regarding the "slash" on the keeper.... This one is about game management. You don't want a "ticki tack" call on a forward trying to make a legitimate play on a loose puck, but you also cannot allow the keepers' hands to be free to whack.

If it's a "continuation of play" - as in the forward is going for the loose puck and the keeper wins the race with the stick contact is near simultaneous with the keeper covering the puck I got nothing... (We are not talking about running into the keeper here, just stick contact) Now if the keeper clearly has it and the forward shoves his stick into the glove anyway I will at least drag him aside and warn him. If he was really aggressive with a whack or shoving the stick in then he sits. If it's clearly covered and he gives a good whack on the glove he should get a slashing penalty.... same goes for a whack on the pads. A stick to the chest or mask opens up a bigger can of worms.... comes down to whether he was trying to make a legitimate play on the puck and realistically could avoid contact.

Now if the keeper gets the light tap on the pads or glove and tries to feed him the blocker who do ya suppose is gonna get the warning?

Totally how I see it. Unfortunately none of the players see it that way.

[zebra_steve 11]

Totally how I see it. Unfortunately none of the players see it that way.

Yep, and that's why we use the rules book..... You want to stop the BS after the whistle, tell the captains BEFORE the game that you won't tolerate it and crack down early..... maybe warn them the first occasion if not flagrant and then next two get a deuce for unsportsmanlike and maybe add a 10 minute misconduct if the linesmen have to work to separate them. Tone is set... stop at the whistle..... but you need to be consistent with it.... Another option is to make sure the aggressor (not necessarily the instigator) gets an extra minor....coincidentals plus one extra, or just one on the aggressor - put his team down for his lack of control.... this puts the onus of control on the players and coaches.

It's easier to start tight and loosen up a little than it is to get a lid back on things when it's boiling over. In the case of the whack on the keeper, all you have to do is make that call and stuff usually defuses itself. If the defending team is too aggressive in "defending their goalie" then you sit 'em down.... Most kids are smart enough to figure out what they can get away with as long as you are consistent......

Some players think with the "little head" and their judgment is clouded by testosterone.....

[Chadd 916]

Some players think with the "little head" and their judgment is clouded by testosterone.....

In beer leagues, you can up the "some" to "many" and in lower level junior it's damn near "all"

[Law Goalie 147]

Thanks for that, Steve.

Unfortunately, given that there is no "privileged area" defined by Hockey Canada (or the IIHF, it seems), I'm not sure your analysis applies outside the US. The rules elsewhere appear to be purely contextual:

Rule 10.3: Falling on the Puck

B. a Minor penalty shall be assessed any goaltender who, while outside his crease, deliberately falls on or gathers the puck into his body, or holds or places the puck against any part of the goal, thus delaying the game unnecessarily.

SITUATION 3 Rule 10.3 B. The intent of this rule is to eliminate unnecessary stoppages caused by the goaltender. The following guidelines should clarify the application of this rule.

1. A goaltender may freeze the puck in the goal crease when under pressure from attacking player(s).

2. The goaltender comes out of her crease to cut down the angle and after stopping the shot, covers the puck or catches the shot. This is legal.

3. Rule 9.1 B., a Minor penalty shall be assessed to a goaltender who after one warning freezes the puck in the crease when not under pressure from attacking player(s).

4. The goaltender comes out of her crease to beat an attacking player to the puck and simply jumps on the puck, causing a stoppage of play. No warning shall be issued in this instance. A Minor for Delay of Game shall be assessed to the goaltender.

5. When a goaltender leaves her crease, she shall not be allowed to freeze the puck. No warning shall be issued. A minor penalty for Delay of Game shall be assessed to the goaltender. Note: The overall intent of this rule is to keep the play going.

The key clauses are "when under pressure" and "when not under pressure." This makes it entirely a discretionary call on the part of the referee; that said, there is something else going on here.

Reading a little more closely, it appears that between 10.3 B.1 & 3 (quoting 9.3 B.), the crease is the only area of privilege given to the goalie; it is, moreover, not all that privileged, since a Hockey Canada referee can assess a DOG penalty to a goalie who freezes the puck in the crease when not under pressure.

In addition, 10.3 B.2, 4 & 5 suggest that a goalie who leaves the crease to play the puck or simply to "beat" an opposing player to it *gives up entirely* the privileged ability to freeze the puck, at least until the next distinct scoring chance.

Seems this plays a lot differently across the 49th parallel. Some of it agrees (the idea that, generally, a goalie who acts as a defenceman is treated like a defenceman until he resumes his goalkeeping duties), but the lack of a privileged area really confuses things.

[zebra_steve 11]

Law Goalie,

I believe that this would pretty much cover the rules reference that you've listed. The concept is easy, the application is where we mess it up.

Given that the universal rule of thumb seems to be whether the keeper is "in the act of playing goal" - ie: making a save\blocking a shot whether he is in his crease or out playing the angle.... then that would be my criteria. Basically, if he has time to stick handle the puck then he has time to pass or dump it off so it would be a delay of game to pull it back in and cover it - even if he were in the crease. Likewise making a save and having no pressure... gotta move it out.... The thing that the organizations are trying to accomplish is to keep the puck moving.

[furlanitalia 1]

I agree Law Goalie. It'd be nice of Hockey Canada would put it a little more bluntly for everyone so there is no discrepancy

Most kids are smart enough to figure out what they can get away with as long as you are consistent......

I always hope this, but it's rare that it actually happens.

[zebra_steve 11]

Not sure the definition of the privledged area really makes much difference if you use common sense...

USA Hockey defines the goalies privileged area as the area bounded in the rear by the end boards, in front by an imaginary line connecting the end zone face off spots and on the sides by imaginary lines extending perpendicular from the end boards to the end zone face off spots. This is the only area where a goalie can take warm-up shots. It is also the area where the goaltender may exercise the goaltender privileges. In this area, the goalkeeper should be generally free from body checks and contact which would interfere with his ability to perform his duties as a goaltender.

It looks like the way it's called is essentially the same for USA Hockey vs the world. Not sure there is a huge benefit to defining it..... Would it not be better to simply say that the goaltender may not be body checked - at all (and cannot initiate a body check either) think along the lines of the rules applied to all no check games because body contact would be allowed when battling for a loose puck. And that the goaltender may not be physically interfered with in any way that hinders or prevents them from performing their duties as a goaltender. Intentional contact or "Avery type arm waving interference" = penalty, unintentional takes the face off outside the zone (does not mean he cannot be screened) ... Defense causes contact or interference, then maybe we have no call or interference on the defense man same as we have it now. Keep the current standard on when and where they may freeze the puck. You can eliminate the crease violation - go wherever you want so long as you don't interfere..... ikinda like the NCAA standard.....