Officiating Question

[shooter27 116]

Case A: Defensive player slashes the puck carrier's stick. The puck carrier's stick either breaks or is knocked out of his hand. The defensive player is called for slashing (this slashing call has become almost automatic in the last few years).

Case B: Defensive player slashes the puck carrier's stick. The puck carrier's stick does not break, nor is it knocked out of his hand. There is no penalty called on the defensive player.

Why is a penalty called in Case A and not Case B? The defensive players actions are identical in both cases, it just so happens that in Case A the puck carrier's stick is broken (or knocked out of his hands). I've always thought that the players' actions/intent is what determined a penalty call, not the result of the players' actions (with the obvious exceptions of drawing blood with a stick foul and delay of game for clearing the puck over the glass in the d zone). Is this a wrong impression? Is there something else I'm missing here?

[wrangler 157]

You might as well ask why they don't call every crosscheck or interference. They just don't.

[Krev 86]

Judgement is a key factor. The force of the slash is also another factor. The type of game that's being played, whether it be flow, grinding, or skill. For me, the key is force used. If in Case B, the force was the same used in Case A, a penalty would be called.

Again, this is all judgement.

[Chadd 916]

Krev is spot on, unfortunately too many refs look for excuses not to call the stuff that they are supposed to call and chalk it up to judgement. It's getting better now that the various leagues have tried to tighten up the loopholes.

[shooter27 116]

Thanks for the explaination. The force point makes sense, as does the judgement relative to the type of game that is being played.

I guess what I was getting at was the situation where the force is the same, but in case A it gets called and case B it doesn't. It just seems to me that the point of delineation for a penalty has become whether or not the stick breaks or it gets knocked out of the puck carrier's hands. My impression was there was nothing in the rulebook making that a point of delineation, but refs had (either consciously or unconsciously) made it an arbitrary threshold for making a call. Although, I guess you could say the stick breaking is an indication of the force of the slash. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was unaware of that makes the call automatic if the stick breaks/gets knocked out of the players hands.

[Krev 86]

While it can be a major indicator, I've had sticks break in half from just being tapped and I get a puzzled look from that player. Doesn't make it an automatic call, but as you said, it is an indication of the force used the majority of the time.

[tareatingrat 4]

To me it's the same as if player A gets their stick in player B's feet, player B stumbles but stays on his skates and there's no call. In beer leagues, there are a lot of penalties called simply due to the differences in skill between players. Someone who can't hold onto their stick, well, they're probably going to draw a few more slashing penalties.

I personally don't like the "broken-stick automatic penalty" call, especially with composites. But what are you gonna do?

I find I get away with a lot more simply by using one hand for the majority of my stick-checks. A lot of times you have to be glaringly obvious with your slashes to have them called. Having a broken stick = glaringly obvious, and depending on exactly what the ref was concentrating on at that moment...they're probably gonna call it.

I'm no ref., that's just from my experience. Take it for what it's worth.

[iceNsteel 0]

It's a lot like the blood vs no blood method to determine whether a high stick gets 2 or 4 minutes. Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary but you have to make a judgement call. If someone uses enough force to break the stick, or knock it loose from the player's hands, that's a pretty obvious slash. The line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and any spot is going to be just as arbitrary.

[AfftonDad 88]

Another Officiating Question:

One of my 10 year old players drops to the ice in the crease and covers the puck with his hand. The ref (correctly) calls delay of game and awards a penalty shot. The player asks me what he did wrong and I tell him and to next time use the side of your glove to shove it out of the crease. Two days later the same exact situation happens with the SAME REF and the SAME KID. He does exactly what I told him and the ref still awards a penalty shot (this time a goal is scored on the shot).

Is that ref right? Can you not even push the puck out of the crease with the side of your glove?

[Chadd 916]

The book only prohibits covering the puck in the crease. Based on position and angles the ref may have believed that he covered it. If he said that the kid can not play the puck at all in the crease, then he is incorrect. People make mistakes all the time, most refs will go back and look at the rule book after the game and learn from those mistakes.

On a side note, that kid really needs to stay on his feet and play the puck with his stick.

[theGhost 0]

As long as there are humans in stripes there will be missed calls and sometimes blatant disregard for rules or infractions. They are people too, not excusing it but sometimes they are just having a bad night... I agree with Chadd though, too many abuse the judgement card...

[Jason Harris 31]

I took my brother-in-law to his second game the other day, and a concept came up that I think I know the answer to intuitively, but I'm not positive.

During a delayed penalty, play is halted only when the offending team gains control of the puck, so play would continue when the puck just glances off their stick or leg. And many of us have probably seen those rare occasions when a team scores on its own empty net by making a bad pass that goes all the way down the ice. But what happens when the puck ricochets off the offending team and ends up in the empty net? I've never seen it happen, but when the puck bounces off the player's stick, I'm sure the ref wouldn't have stopped play, because no control was gained. However, three-and-a-half seconds later, the puck could be in the offended team's net, which would seem to contradict what I am assuming is the intent of the rules when a team has been offended -- that the offending team is not supposed to score a goal until the actual shorthanded situation.

In other words, do the rules specifically rule out this anomaly or are teams taking chances when they pull their goalie?

[goblue9280 33]

But what happens when the puck ricochets off the offending team and ends up in the empty net?

NHL rule 78.5(xi):

During the delayed calling of a penalty, the offending team cannot score unless the non-offending team shoots the puck into their own net. This shall mean that a deflection off an offending player, or any physical action by an offending player that may cause the puck to enter the non-offending team’s goal, shall not be considered a legal goal. Play shall be stopped before the puck enters the net (whenever possible) and the signaled penalty assessed to the offending team.

[AfftonDad 88]

The book only prohibits covering the puck in the crease. Based on position and angles the ref may have believed that he covered it. If he said that the kid can not play the puck at all in the crease, then he is incorrect. People make mistakes all the time, most refs will go back and look at the rule book after the game and learn from those mistakes.

Those were actually his words ("That he can't play it all with his hands in the crease"). I remember this distinctly because I then said "could he do it with his forearm?", to which he replied "yes" and then I said "well could he do it with his wrist" to which he replied "yes" and then he saw where I was going and dropped back to "he can't play it at all with his hand in the crease".

On a side note, that kid really needs to stay on his feet and play the puck with his stick.

Agreed. 10 year olds think it is the coolest thing in the world to drop and/or slide on the ice.

That's OK though... just one of those things... In sports, all breaks even themselves out in the long run... i.e. he is probably going to make that same call against an opponent someday as well.

[technophile 0]

Getting back to the situation in the OP, in the Bruins/Canucks game yesterday during a power play in the third (maybe halfway through?) Ryan Kesler went to lift someone's stick and launched it about 20 feet into the air. No call, but it was pretty amusing to watch. You'd think pros would remember to keep a good grip on their twig. ;)

[ochockey 0]

to the ORIGINAL question it is most likely because the slashing motion would be harder to see if there was not a broken/dropped stick. It would seem like a "diving" situation where you don't see it unless you express it more than it needs to. But the call should be called slashing on both plays.

[AfftonDad 88]

New (odd) officiating question...

Puck carrier is rushing and deliberately tosses his glove at the defender he is rushing against in order to distract him so that he can move around him.

It happened in a referee'd HNA game last night and no call was made. Is it legal? I have to believe it isn't, but what rule would it be called under?

[ArrogantOwl 7]

New (odd) officiating question...

Puck carrier is rushing and deliberately tosses his glove at the defender he is rushing against in order to distract him so that he can move around him.

It happened in a referee'd HNA game last night and no call was made. Is it legal? I have to believe it isn't, but what rule would it be called under?

I'm not sure with hockey but my lacrosse experience tells me that something along the lines of USC or improper-equipment.

[hockeymass 11]

New (odd) officiating question...

Puck carrier is rushing and deliberately tosses his glove at the defender he is rushing against in order to distract him so that he can move around him.

It happened in a referee'd HNA game last night and no call was made. Is it legal? I have to believe it isn't, but what rule would it be called under?

The interference rule prohibits players from throwing objects at anyone who doesn't have the puck. Aside from being illegal, it's pretty much pointless and makes you look like a clown.