Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
marka

Officiating 101

Recommended Posts

Howdy,

Yeah, those answers feel right to me (not that I have the hockey history that most here do).

But I'm not finding that stuff in the rulebook.

This rule is about the puck going out of play:
https://www.usahockeyrulebook.com/page/show/1084689-rule-631-puck-out-of-bounds-or-unplayable

And this is about hand passes:
https://www.usahockeyrulebook.com/page/show/1084666-rule-618-handling-puck-with-hands

The handpass rule specifically says "directly to a teammate"... Nothing about the other team getting possession or whatever.  It seems like if a deflection out of play counts as a 'last play' (and I can certainly see that), it ought to count if its a deflection off a goaltender's pads too, right?  And therefore that wouldn't be a handpass?

I'm asking because I frequently struggle to find the "of course" answers to weird situations like this in the actual black and white rule book.  Which I'm pretty sure is more an indication that I don't know how to read the book, more than anything else.  And which I'd like to get better at, because I hate not knowing the underlying rules in those weird situations.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from the Hockey Canada rule book:

SITUATION 2 Rule 9.1 (d) 
QUESTION:
The puck is batted with the hand, hits the opposing goaltender, rebounds back out and is 
picked up by another player of the same team batting the puck. Does play continue or is 
play stopped? 
ANSWER:
Play is stopped. Play can only continue if the non-offending team gains “possession and 
control” of the puck. Since the puck only hit the goaltender (possession, but not control), 
play would be stopped.

The rule itself is similar to what you see in the US rule book. It's clarified in the situation. Here's the rule:

(d) A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with her open hand, or to 
push it along the ice with her hand and play shall not be stopped, unless the player 
has directed the puck to a teammate in the neutral or attacking zone. When this 
occurs play shall be stopped and the puck faced-off at the spot where the offense oc-
curred, unless the offending team gains a territorial advantage, then the face-off shall 
be where the stoppage of play occurred, unless otherwise covered in the rules. Play 
shall not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.

So I would look at the situations or cases. Under the HC rules, the hand pass situation is similar to high sticking the puck. Those are only negated if the opposing team gains possession and control. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, marka said:

Howdy,

Yeah, those answers feel right to me (not that I have the hockey history that most here do).

But I'm not finding that stuff in the rulebook.

This rule is about the puck going out of play:
https://www.usahockeyrulebook.com/page/show/1084689-rule-631-puck-out-of-bounds-or-unplayable

And this is about hand passes:
https://www.usahockeyrulebook.com/page/show/1084666-rule-618-handling-puck-with-hands

The handpass rule specifically says "directly to a teammate"... Nothing about the other team getting possession or whatever.  It seems like if a deflection out of play counts as a 'last play' (and I can certainly see that), it ought to count if its a deflection off a goaltender's pads too, right?  And therefore that wouldn't be a handpass?

I'm asking because I frequently struggle to find the "of course" answers to weird situations like this in the actual black and white rule book.  Which I'm pretty sure is more an indication that I don't know how to read the book, more than anything else.  And which I'd like to get better at, because I hate not knowing the underlying rules in those weird situations.

 

Mark

Remember to read your casebook, not just the rule.

For the puck out of play, the face off is located based on who caused the puck to go out of play.  "Last play" faceoffs are determined by which team's actions caused the stoppage.  In your case, the defending team caused the stoppage by deflecting the puck, and since it was inside his defending zone, the faceoff is at the nearest end-zone faceoff spot to where the puck went out.

For the hand pass, it's defined in Situation 4 of the casebook

https://www.usahockeyrulebook.com/page/show/1085021-handling-puck-with-hands

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

So... Covid break from reffing over.  🙂

Anyone know what the deal is with officiating seminars for USA hockey for the 21/22 season?  I'm not seeing any listed here:

https://www.usahockey.com/officialseminars

I let my ref registration lapse.  Hoping to buy that again, and attend another level 1 seminar this summer in preparation for the coming season.

 

Mid-Am district, if it matters.


Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

Heard back from someone in Mid-Am... Sounds like they expect the seminar schedule to come out late June / July.

Just in case anyone else cares.

Mark

Edited by marka
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

So, first serious hockey fight as a ref.

Beer league A level game.  A bunch of guys that played hockey "for real" mostly.  Game was a bit "stick-y".  Nobody taking runs at folks or anything like that, but the occasional stick whack or "nuisance hook".  I missed a more real hook (saw it late, didn't process fast enough that it was too much to call the penalty).  The guy I missed the hook on then proceeds to give a hook back, which I let go, then talked to him after the shift and explained that I thought I missed the hook on him, so I let the one he gave on the other guy go but that was it.

Kept a tighter watch, but I'm sure I missed stuff.  The guy above was bitching pretty constantly.  He lost his temper and slashed a dude in the hands pretty hard, which I called.  Talked to him again.  A little later someone hooks him just about exactly like the first hook and I call it.

But the tone is pretty well set and now each team is the aggrieved party.  The one positive is that I'm reffing with the guy that literally runs the league and has been a ref, coach, league commissioner, taught me initially how to ref, etc. etc.  And he knows most of the guys by name.  So I'm basically letting him take the lead on when to start streaming guys to the box, which ends up not happening.  A few calls, but not a parade.

Boils over at the end of the 3rd with a couple guys pushy shovey which turns into one guy doing a half face wash, half punch.  More pushy shovey.  My ref partner is in there, so I go in as well to try and separate.  Guys are pairing off a bit, but there's not like five fights or anything.  As I'm doing that, one player skates in from behind me.  Later the other team says he came from the bench, but I can't say that for certain without video.  He grabs one of the pushy-shovey pairs from behind / jumps on him / knocks us all down to the ice.  I saw him coming in late and tried to stop him, but wasn't quick enough.

Guy he jumps on turns out to be tougher than he is, and said guy proceeds to get on top of him and pummel him for a bit.  I'm still trying to separate.  Notice blood on the ice.  Turns out that the jumpee is cut under the eye (not seriously).

Eventually the jumpee lets the jumper go.  My partner takes the jumpee and I take the jumper.  I hear a more commotion further away and apparently the jumpee is threatening my partner.  Luckily my partner can handle himself and that doesn't seem to be escalating beyond loud noises.

Stuff keeps calming down.  I get the Jumpee to look at me so I can see if he's bleeding seriously (he's not) and realize that my arm is covered in blood (turns out he was dripping blood on me pretty steadily, how I had him trying to pull him off).  Jumper by this point has finally left the ice (and apparently won't ever return... Pro Tip, don't throw a punch and accidentally(?) hit the ref that's the league commissioner and then threaten him with "you're next").  There's a minute left on the running clock and we all make weak jokes about if we should drop the puck for the remaining minute of ice time.

Turns out blood seems to rinse out of a CCM ref jersey fairly well.  Not really happy about getting bled on, of course.

Take-aways... In hindsight, clearly starting a parade to the box earlier would have been smarter.  I dunno what to do about calling penalties for infractions I don't process...  I guess just be more ready to call a penalty and if I'm wrong, be wrong on the side of it being ticky-tack vs. something 'real'.  I saw the game getting a little more out of control in terms of bitching, and instead of relying on my partner's judgement, I probably could have just started calling anything that even remotely looked like a penalty.  Kinda hard being that I was by a LOT the least "hockey experience" person on the ice, but whatever.  Again, likely better to be wrong on what was a penalty and have the teams be pissed at me, vs. pissed at each other.  Probably.

In terms of managing the fight itself, I think I needed to be less focused on the actual fight until I was sure there weren't going to be any more arrivals.  If I'd seen the jumper coming in earlier, maybe I could have intercepted him.  My recollection is that I was standing back a bit until I saw my partner getting in there, but my attention was still on what was in front of me with maybe 3 pairs of guys and trying to get them calmed down vs. watching behind for late arrivals.

I'm pretty surprised this happened at this level btw.  I always figured that the really salty folks were the late comers like me where beer league was the highest level hockey they ever played and they took it way too seriously.  I'd have thought a bunch of guys that played AAA / Junior / college / minor pro would have been there and done that enough to just want to play hockey and have fun.  I've only done 3 or 4 other games at this level and all of them have had exactly the vibe of a bunch of guys were damn good at hockey and are just out getting some exercise, playing hard for sure, but erroring on the side of clean if there's a question.

Driving home, I was wondering a bit if this is worth it.  I don't need the money from reffing by any stretch.  In the end, I decided that I'm selfish enough that I enjoy getting paid to exercise and enjoy doing these faster games in particular.  I'm certainly far from the best ref around and have no illusions about that.  But as long as it seems like there are some folks that think I'm doing an ok job... Good enough.  If I could reliably play hockey (vs. ref) five or so nights a week then I'd rather do that, but that doesn't seem possible.  So I'll continue to ref two or three nights a week and play a couple nights a week and drive on.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- My brother plays with those level guys and there are tons of stories like yours

2- There is no way in hell if I was reffing I would get involved in breaking up something more than a little scrum.  The risk/reward doesn't even come close to me to being worth it.  People don't understand, one stray punch, getting your legs accidentally taken out, falling on your head, etc. can have serious consequences.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For travel hockey, you'll have two linesmen and either one or two referees. In situations like you described the linesmen go in as a team, but the refs stay back and use a riot pad to write down numbers and infractions. 

For two official games or men's leagues games, I've been guilty of going in to try to break things up myself in the past and understand the instinct, but I think it's better to just stand back, use a loud whistle and your voice to try to get them to separate and write down numbers and infractions (much like a ref would in a hockey game with a full officiating team). If someone is down on the ice just getting destroyed, then you go in with your partner, but if it's all wrestling or even fights, the better option is to just record the infractions, let them tire themselves out and only go in if someone is at a real disadvantage. 

When summer/fall hockey briefly returned in my area last year, rules were written that stated referees would not physically engage with any players due to COVID and would use their voice and electronic whistle and record the penalties. In men's league, this is probably how it should be all the time in most situations. In leagues where you have refs and linesmen, sure the linesmen can go break things up (even then you want to wait until they've tired themselves out a bit unless someone is at a severe disadvantage). 

Calling penalties early can be helpful, but sometimes things will get heated anyway. In hindsight, calling the hook early may have been better. Even if you called it late, you might get some whining over a late or soft call, but at the end of the day it's only a 2 minute minor and may have sent the message that you're seeing and calling infractions. 

Edited by althoma1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

Yeah, I've always thought I would not try and separate.  Agree with "not worth the risk".  And I'm pretty happy that when I got taken down my head didn't hit anything / leg didn't get twisted, etc.

But in the actual moment, it was a combination of seeing my partner surrounded and then later that one guy has another flat on the ice and not wanting someone to get seriously hurt.

Next time I'll be a little better prepared and hopefully it will be less "instinct".  And the plan is certainly to stay back more.

Mark

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2021 at 2:08 AM, marka said:

Take-aways... In hindsight, clearly starting a parade to the box earlier would have been smarter. 

Yeah, this usually works. Before things were getting out of hand in one game I was playing, this one ref started even making questionable calls on interference and slashing calls just to get players to back off. It kind of worked as players on both sides were going to the bench in a steady stream.

Edited by caveman27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

Just took the USA Hockey level 1 test for 21/22.  Got one question wrong but I don't see why...

--------------------------
For the following question, the following simplified procedure determines which penalty if any terminates with the scoring of a goal:

·       Is the team that was scored upon below the on-ice numerical strength of the scoring team because of a penalty?

·       Is at least one penalty, which is then being served by the scored upon team a non-coincident minor or bench minor penalty (being displayed on the penalty clocks?)

If the answer to both questions is YES, then the minor penalty with the latest amount of time remaining on the penalty clock terminates.

 

 

In the following situation, determine which player, if any, returns to the ice once the goal is scored.

CLOCK TIME                     TEAM A                            TEAM B

3:00                                 X - 2 + 2                          B - 2 & C - 2           

4:00                                 Z - 2                                   

4:45                                                                        Goal Scored
----------------------

My understanding... At 3:00, X, B, and C get penalized.  X and B or X & C are coincedental, so Team A is on a 5v4 power play.  A minute later, Team A is penalized.  Now its 4v4.

Since its 4v4 when the goal is scored, I said that no player returns to the ice.  They say that's wrong and either X or Z returns (they don't say which answer is correct).

Can anyone explain that?

Mark

Edited by marka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the 3 minute mark team A takes 2 minor penalties and team B also takes 2 minor penalties. They should cancel each other out and the teams would still be playing 5 on 5 at that point. The team A player would have to sit 4 minutes and a whistle and the team B players would both sit 2 and a whistle, but no time would go on the clock.

Then, at 4:00 minutes team A gets another minor penalty. It's now 5 on 4 for team B. When team B scores at 4:45, they're on the PP. Player X still has to sit in the box for at least another 2:15 (they'll be out at the first whistle after the 7 minute mark). Player Z only has 1:15 left on their penalty. Player Z would come out of the box. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

19 minutes ago, althoma1 said:

At the 3 minute mark team A takes 2 minor penalties and team B also takes 2 minor penalties. They should cancel each other out and the teams would still be playing 5 on 5 at that point. The team A player would have to sit 4 minutes and a whistle and the team B players would both sit 2 and a whistle, but no time would go on the clock.

Then, at 4:00 minutes team A gets another minor penalty. It's now 5 on 4 for team B. When team B scores at 4:45, they're on the PP. Player X still has to sit in the box for at least another 2:15 (they'll be out at the first whistle after the 7 minute mark). Player Z only has 1:15 left on their penalty. Player Z would come out of the box. 

I think the first line in the scenario is the problem I'm having...

So the way I read that was that Player X on team A takes two minors... Like a first minor and then an unsportsmanlike for disputing it.  Then each of Team B's players also get a minor.  I assumed Player X would be consecutive and team A would be on a power play at that point.

So that's not right?  What you say makes total sense if both of Player X's penalties offset Team B's at 3:00.  I just didn't realize it worked that way.
 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might help.

Criteria for using both coincidental minors and majors - MOTO

1) M Cancel as Many penalties as possible.

2) O Cancel in a way to make them only One player short.

3) T Cancel in a way to avoid Taking an extra player off the ice.

4) O Cancel using the Order of occurrence, or the order that the penalties were reported by the Referee. Note: Start by cancelling majors, then do minors.

There are more details on this page (it's a Hockey Canada page. There are rule differences between USA Hockey and Hockey Canada, but in this case, I believe the rule would be the same) along with several examples: http://rulebook.hockeycanada.ca/english/section-4/rule-4-2/

There's even a specific example that's similar to the first part of your question:

iii)

A6 - 2 B11 - 2 + 2
A7 - 2  
Immediate Substitution - Full Strength.

So, each team takes 2 minors during the same stoppage. The difference is, with one team, it was the same player that took both penalties and on the other team it was two different penalties. I think that's what tripped you up, but using MOTO, you cancel as many penalties as possible and avoid taking extra players off the ice. You cancel all the penalties, nothing goes on the clock, play continues 5 on 5 and the players who got the minors sit 2 and a whistle and the player that received two minors sits for 4 and a whistle. 

Edited by althoma1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

Yes, what was tripping me up was not realizing that you could cancel the two penalties for one player across two different players on the other team.  Its straight forward after that.

I assume that also applies to a double minor, right?  In USA Hockey that looks to only be possible for Roughing, vs. the whole "bloody high stick" thing in the NHL.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the same applies to a double minor. On a game sheet, a double minor is actually recorded as two separate line items. A double minor to a player on team A can be cancelled out by minors committed by two different players on team B at the same stoppage. 

That could have been the situation in the original scenario. The player could have received a double minor for a single infraction or it could have been a minor for roughing and another for unsportsmanlike conduct. Either scenario would be recorded as 2+2.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

On 12/19/2018 at 10:01 AM, marka said:

So... My wife plays hockey too, but at a decently lower level than I do.  We've been playing together in a beginner league, but that makes me the "ringer guy" even if I don't play for real and give the other players chances, make sure to pass, don't shoot, etc. etc.  It also means I'm taking up a spot for another real beginner.

So instead it looks like I'll be a ref... That's something I've been interested in trying, the guy that runs the beginner league (who also refs it) is up for teaching me some basics, and it keeps me out there with my wife having fun.  I won't get paid or anything, but equally I don't need to worry about getting certified.  My only concern is that I started playing 3 years ago and while I have an ok grasp of the rules as a player, I'm certainly no expert.  Stuff like where faceoffs should be depending on what happened, etc. etc. isn't just built in knowledge for me.

Interesting to look back on this post from three years ago.  Things have definitely changed...  🙂

Looking back at my log sheet for this year and I ended up doing almost exactly the same number of "IRS games" as I did in 2019... 115 this year to 116 the year I started.  Of course, due to the virus I ended up doing those games from May to now vs. across the whole year so in actuality I was reffing a lot more often.  I don't track the one-off cash games, but I would guess that I did quite a few more of those this year vs. in 2019 as well.

Its pretty crazy the difference between the gross income vs. actual net income... This year I grossed ~$5700 across those 115 games, but netted less than half that at ~$2200.  Mileage and tolls were by far the biggest expense at ~$2500 (not helped that I ref a lot at a rink ~45 miles away), but a skate purchase, ref seminar, jerseys/pants, etc. etc. too... It all adds up.  Occasionally I talk to another ref that doesn't bother to track that stuff for whatever reason, but doing a Schedule C is pretty darned easy and keeping a log is not at all hard... Saving $1k+ or whatever tax wise is a good thing.

That's all just focusing on the financial side, of course.  Which certainly has an impact in why I ref, but I don't actually 'need' that money.  Still, its really nice to be able to pay for my beer league hockey (and glove, jersey, and sock) addiction and get paid to exercise.  

But there's non-financial incentives as well... I've seen some REALLY good hockey, both with adults in beer league and kids.  Its just impressive being on the ice with the A level beer league guys that used to play 'real' hockey and marvel at how they basically never have to look at the puck, fly around the ice, seem to already know where everyone is, and that any time the puck comes to withing 4' of them they control it regardless of whether its on the ice or not.  And then there's the elite kids... Nothing like reffing a 10U game with the 2nd and 3rd ranked teams in the country.  Its like seeing a half-sized NHL game.

The less skilled stuff is often fun for other reasons...  The kid stuff is great, seeing all different levels out there trying hard and having fun from ADM "cluster of kids all chasing the puck" on half ice (I don't do many of these though, since they're good games for young refs) to non-elite older players.  Those kids will probably never be superstars or whatever, but they're still out there doing a good job and having fun playing a game with their team.  Most of the coaches and parents, the overwhelming majority, seem to get it as well.  The less skilled adult games I ref are often people I know from playing, or just from reffing a lot.  Even if the hockey doesn't blow me away, its still fun to be out there skating, catching up with friends, etc.  Those slower games are also a great chance to work on some edgework.  🙂

The other refs have been good to get to know as well.  What a cross section of folks!  All income / professional levels, people that have been involved in hockey since they were 5, people that started just a few years ago, etc.  Its a little bit of a bummer that its literally all white guys, but it is what it is.  At least at the reffing seminars you see some diversity and its great to see women getting publicity reffing at some higher levels so I'm sure this will improve.  Still, that doesn't take away from me liking the folks I'm out there reffing with.

I didn't really start this out to be the long rambling thing its become, so I'll cut it off.  Reffing has been a real net positive for me.  It can be easy to listen to the problems and watch the youtube videos and forget that nearly everyone in the rink is there for the right reasons.  Not that its all been roses... This season I had to wash blood out of my jersey from a fight, I've been told in pretty explicit ways just how horrible I am as a ref and a person, I've made some really horrible calls / non-calls, etc. etc.  That stuff happens.  But its (by far) the minority.  Mostly people at the hockey rink are there to have fun playing hockey.  I like that.  I like being part of that.

Mark

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

Oh yeah... I was going to say... I started doing checking games this year.  Nothing super serious, relatively lower level Bantam stuff local to me and I filled in for a period of a high school game when there was a scheduling issue and I was at the rink for a previous game.

That wasn't nearly as big a jump as I thought it was going to be at least in the handful of games I've done so far.  In hindsight its not all that surprising... Its still the same game and there's lots of restrictions on how you hit someone.  The high school game I filled in for was one of the most fun games I've done so far... National anthem to start, being announced as an official, having penalty calls and goals announced, etc.  Kinda takes it to another level to know that they're going to announce what you called / who you gave that 2nd assist to!  🙂
 


Mark

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2021 at 12:31 PM, marka said:

Howdy,

Oh yeah... I was going to say... I started doing checking games this year.  Nothing super serious, relatively lower level Bantam stuff local to me and I filled in for a period of a high school game when there was a scheduling issue and I was at the rink for a previous game.

That wasn't nearly as big a jump as I thought it was going to be at least in the handful of games I've done so far.  In hindsight its not all that surprising... Its still the same game and there's lots of restrictions on how you hit someone.  The high school game I filled in for was one of the most fun games I've done so far... National anthem to start, being announced as an official, having penalty calls and goals announced, etc.  Kinda takes it to another level to know that they're going to announce what you called / who you gave that 2nd assist to!  🙂
 


Mark

Nice to see that you're willing and able to move up the ranks. It will make you both a better official and player. It has for me haha. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@marka  This has been a great read.  I officiated a bit in college, which was a LOOOONG time ago.  My sons (17 and 22 years old) are both level 4 USA Hockey officials.  Both have attended the local district's advanced officiating camp multiple times, and my younger son is seriously considering a pathway through to higher levels via the local district's ODP (Official Development Program).  It doesn't hurt that he's a reasonably good (though no one will call him fast) skater at 6'3" and has probably one of highest hockey IQ ratings of any defenseman in our area, much like his older brother was (though with better hands).  He's already officiated all levels of adult hockey this summer except for the "former pro / NCAA" level at one of our local rinks. 

 

This summer, I asked him if I should start officiating too, since we're always super short in this area (Dallas rinks are booked solid most days from 7AM to midnight), but also knowing he is one of those kids who won't want me embarrassing him.  Shockingly enough, he said to go for it, and I went and got certified in early August.  I would have started reffing right away, but I had to buy all new gear other than a helmet (had 1 for coaching) and skates, since my player shin guards / elbow pads / girdle don't fit under ref pants. 

 

I finally got my first games about 2 1/2 weeks ago and have already worked 18 games between house tournament, travel tournament, and adult games (mostly C to B- level, which is what I play at).  I've even worked about 5 games at various levels with my younger son, who of course chirped my positioning (which I know is rough still) but was otherwise not as hard on my as I would have expected.  I've worked some pretty high-level travel games at the 12U level, and have had decent feedback so far.  I definitely need to work on staying out of the way of play as the low official in the offensive zone, but so far, all the years of playing and coaching have given me a decent base of how to handle the calls during the game itself.  

Overall, your experiences match mine in a lot of ways, so I'll say again that this was a great thread.  Thanks for sharing your experiences.  

Edited by Chris Gent
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

Yet another dumb refereeing question for the group...

Where in the USAH book is the language around goalie interference and when that rises to penalty level vs. just "faceoff in the neutral zone"?

edit:  Because the way I'm reading the book, even incidental contact with the goalie is supposed to be penalized.  But in real life I know that I've seen there be no penalty, just a faceoff outside the zone.

Mark

Edited by marka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the USA Hockey reference is under Rule 625 Interference and the key difference between a faceoff outside and a penalty is physical contact:

(a) A minor penalty shall be assessed for interference. This includes the following actions which shall be penalized under this rule:

(8) Any player who makes physical contact, using their stick or body, in a manner that interferes with the movement of the goalkeeper, unless otherwise specified in the rules.

(b) A face-off shall be conducted at the nearest neutral zone face-off spot any time an attacking player stands, holds their stick, or skates through the goal crease provided the puck is in the attacking zone, the attacking team has possession of the puck and the goalkeeper is in contact with the crease.
     No goal may be scored with an attacking player in the goal crease unless the puck has preceded the player(s) into the goal crease or the goalkeeper is out of the goal crease area.
     However, if the attacking player has been physically interfered with by the actions of a defending player that causes them to be in the goal crease, play shall not be stopped and any legal goal scored shall be allowed.

(Note) The goal crease area shall include all the space outlined by the semi-circular crease lines (including crease lines) and extending vertically to the level of the top of the goal frame.

 

The interference section is in reference to minor penalties/taking the faceoff outside. For plays that may be majors or match penalties, see Rule 607 Charging:

(c) A minor plus a misconduct or a major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to a player who body checks or charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease or privileged area.

(d) A goalkeeper is NOT “fair game” because he is outside his privileged area. A penalty for interference or charging should be called in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. Likewise, Referees should be alert to penalize goalkeepers for any infractions they commit in the vicinity of the goal.

(Note 1) For the purpose of this rule, any accidental or unavoidable contact that occurs with the goalkeeper shall be penalized under the Interference rule. Any deliberate body contact or check that is delivered to the goalkeeper shall be penalized as Charging.

(Note 2) The goalkeeper’s “Privileged Area” is an area outlined by connecting the end zone face-off spots with an imaginary line and imaginary lines from each face-off spot running perpendicular to the end boards.

(e) A match penalty for reckless endangerment may also be assessed for charging.

 

Edited by althoma1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

Thanks.  That's what I found as well.  The way I read that is that if there's contact there must be a penalty.  So, for instance, scramble in the net and the goalie can't get to the puck because there's a defensive player in the way, the only two options are that its a good goal (if a defensive player knocked the offensive player into the goalie) or no goal and a penalty for interference.

It seems like in real life I've seen there just be no goal, no penalty, and a faceoff in the neutral zone.  But perhaps that's not actually in the rules.

Mark

Edited by marka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, marka said:

Howdy,

Thanks.  That's what I found as well.  The way I read that is that if there's contact there must be a penalty.  So, for instance, scramble in the net and the goalie can't get to the puck because there's a defensive player in the way, the only two options are that its a good goal (if a defensive player knocked the offensive player into the goalie) or no goal and a penalty for interference.

It seems like in real life I've seen there just be no goal, no penalty, and a faceoff in the neutral zone.  But perhaps that's not actually in the rules.

Mark

If there's a scramble at the net and the goalie can't get to the puck because there's a player in the crease, but that player doesn't initiate contact (say, the goalie tries to slide over and makes contact with the player), then it's no goal and the faceoff comes outside, but there's no penalty. If the player initiates the contact with the goalie (or could have reasonably avoided the contact and chooses not to), then there's a penalty. 

In general if there's accidental, incidental contact that's very light, I'm not calling a penalty. I'll yell at the player to watch the goalie and if a goal is scored at the point or right after the point of that contact, it's going to be washed out. If there's any intentional contact or more than very mild contact initiated by the player, then they're getting a minor, major or match penalty depending on the exact scenario. 

I officiate under the Hockey Canada rules and there are some differences vs. what I'm reading in the USA Hockey rules. So, you may be better off getting advice from a USA Hockey official, but I suspect that you're not seeing penalties called when the officials feel that the contact is light/incidental or when the attacking player doesn't initiate the contact.

For my frame of reference, here's the Hockey Canada Goalie Interference section:

Rule 8.5

Interference with the Goaltender

Goaltender interference refers to any attacking player who, by means of their stick or body, interferes with or impedes the movements of the goaltender by actual physical contact. While incidental contact with the goaltender may occur, attacking players must make an effort to avoid contact in all circumstances. The onus is always on the attacking player and players who do not make an effort to avoid the goaltender must be penalized.

Protection of the Goaltender: A Goaltender is not ‘fair game’ just because they are outside their goal crease. A penalty under this rule will be called where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with the goaltender anywhere on the ice. Likewise, Referees should be alert to penalize goaltenders for infractions they commit within the vicinity of their goal.

Goal Crease Area: Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking team may not stand in the goal crease. If the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the goal will NOT BE ALLOWED. However, if an attacking player is in the goal crease but does not interfere with the Goaltender and another attacking player (who is outside the goal crease) scores, the goal WILL BE ALLOWED provided that the player who was in the goal crease does not attempt to play the puck, interfere with the play or obstruct the Goaltender’s view or movements. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a Referee to judge that a situation may warrant disallowing a goal under this rule without assessing an attacking player a penalty.

The penalty should be announced as “Interference with the Goaltender”.

8.5 (a) A Minor penalty will be assessed to any player who commits interference with goaltender.

8.5 (b) A Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the referee, based on the degree of violence of impact, may be assessed to any player who commits interference with the goaltender. A Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty will be assessed to any player who charges the goaltender. Note 1: See Rule 7.4 (b)(Interpretation 2) – Charging, for the definition of “charging”. A Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty will be assessed to any player who injures an opponent by an Interference with the Goaltender infraction that would otherwise call for a Minor penalty.

8.5 (c) A Match penalty will be assessed to any player who attempts to injure or deliberately injures a goaltender by Interference.

8.5 (d) No Misconduct penalty may be assessed for interference with the goaltender.

8.5 (e) A Game Misconduct penalty must be assessed any time a Major penalty is assessed for interference with the goaltender, as detailed under Rule 8.5 (b).

INTERPRETATIONS

Interpretation 1 Rule 8.5 (a) Any goal scored on a play where an attacking player initiates contact with the goaltender will be disallowed, regardless of whether the contact occurs inside or outside of the goal crease. The only exception to this is where the attacking player is fouled by a defending player and, as a result, is unable to avoid contact with the goaltender.

Interpretation 2 Rule 8.5 (a) Where an attacking player is tripped, hooked, cross-checked, or otherwise interfered with, falls, and makes contact with the goaltender, there must be an effort by the attacking player to avoid making contact with the goaltender. If the player does not make an effort to avoid contact with the goaltender, then they must be penalized for interference with the goaltender. The referee should also penalize the defending player who committed the initial foul under the appropriate rule.

Interpretation 3 Rule 8.5 (a) An attacking player is NOT committing a foul by simply standing in the goal crease. However, if while standing in the crease, the attacking player attempts to play the puck, interfere with the play, or impede the goaltender’s vision or movements, then no goal may be scored. If the puck enters the net in this situation, the goal must be disallowed. Note 1: No penalty would be assessed unless the attacking player’s body or stick makes actual physical contact with the goaltender.

Interpretation 4 Rule 8.5 (a) An attacking player is standing in the goal crease. The puck is shot, hitting the player in the crease, and drops down in the crease. The attacking player gets out of the crease, then shoots the puck into the goal. GOAL. The puck did not enter the goal while the attacking player was actually in the crease.

Edited by althoma1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...