Know your NHL rule book!

[PASabreFan]

30 it is.

[Taro T]

How long is a timeout in hockey? :)

100 seconds. They occur after the 1st (non-situational) faceoff after the 6:00, 10:00, and 14:00 mark in each period.

 

If you are at the game, there is a red light between the penalty boxes that goes on during the TV timeout. This tells you it is time to hit the can, hit the beerline, or if you are very good, hit both.

[Mbossy]

100 seconds. They occur after the 1st (non-situational) faceoff after the 6:00, 10:00, and 14:00 mark in each period.

 

If you are at the game, there is a red light between the penalty boxes that goes on during the TV timeout. This tells you it is time to hit the can, hit the beerline, or if you are very good, hit both.

The light is awesome. If I time it right I can get from my seat, to the concessions, grab a beer :beer: and pretzel and be back before the ushers cut people off. :thumbsup:

[PASabreFan]

So Gaustad gets thrown out of a big draw late in the third period. Everything changes. Lindy wants to talk about a new set play. Can he call a timeout?

[Eleven]

So Gaustad gets thrown out of a big draw late in the third period. Everything changes. Lindy wants to talk about a new set play. Can he call a timeout?

 

He can call one, but he won't get it.

[mercury]

It was a blown offside call. Local boy Todd Krygier scored a game winner on it, if I remember correctly. He then had to speak at my high school a couple days later since he was a graduate.

 

Indeed.

[Sabre Dance]

I can't stand Kerry Frazier. He always made the games about him and he's a horrible ref. I was at game three against Ottawa in 06. There was an icing call and I watched him pick up the puck, do an axel, then skate backwards at full speed all the way back to the opposite end for the faceoff. Don't get me wrong, it was an impressive piece of skating, it just didn't belong in an NHL game by an NHL ref. It would have been more suited in Brian Boitono's Christmas Jubilee Special. It was such a poorly officiated game that I don't think we saw him ref another game in those playoffs.

 

I fully believe that referees to hold grudges against certain teams (and players). At one of the last games I saw at the Aud, the referee (still just one at the time) was Dave Newell. When that was announced, the crowd groaned. Sure enough, upon checking my program, they had a list of referees and the Sabres'won-loss record that season when that ref had officiated the game. The records for all of the other refs were within a game or two of .500, but with Newell in charge, the Sabres had lost all but one game. That was a pretty telling statistic AND explained the crowd's groan succinctly.

 

BTW, I used to think Kerry Frasier was a good ref when he first broke into the NHL, but I think his ego grew faster than his hairspray bill....

[PASabreFan]

He can call one, but he won't get it.

 

:D

[PASabreFan]

A Flame gets high-sticked right across the beak tonight. The referee skates over -- no blood. It's right on the Jumbotron for all to see. Dude's trying to bleed, but as he's dry as a bone.

 

The ref skates to the side, turns on his mic and announces a double-minor for high-sticking.

 

The crowd goes beserk.

 

How is the penalty justified?

[LabattBlue]

A Flame gets high-sticked right across the beak tonight. The referee skates over -- no blood. It's right on the Jumbotron for all to see. Dude's trying to bleed, but as he's dry as a bone.

 

The ref skates to the side, turns on his mic and announces a double-minor for high-sticking.

 

The crowd goes beserk.

 

How is the penalty justified?

Ref's descretion...accidental or intentional?

[Mbossy]

A Flame gets high-sticked right across the beak tonight. The referee skates over -- no blood. It's right on the Jumbotron for all to see. Dude's trying to bleed, but as he's dry as a bone.

 

The ref skates to the side, turns on his mic and announces a double-minor for high-sticking.

 

The crowd goes beserk.

 

How is the penalty justified?

Double minors can be called if the stick doesn't draw blood but hits in spots like the ears, throat, eyes, nose, etc. For example, a guy gets high-sticked in the eye could be a double minor (even though the eye really won't bleed).

 

Or, of course, it's Kerry Frasier.

[PASabreFan]

You guys are close. I was thinking a broken nose that doesn't bleed. There has to be injury; bleeding is not necessary, but there seems to be a big focus on it among the media and fans.

 

60.2 Minor Penalty - Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above

the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed.

60.3 Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part of

his stick above the shoulders of the opponent so that injury results,

the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty for all contact that

causes an injury, whether accidental or careless, in the opinion of the

Referee.

60.4 Match Penalty – When, in the opinion of the Referee, a player

attempts to or deliberately injures an opponent while carrying or

holding any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent, the

Referee shall assess a match penalty to the offending player.

[shrader]

You guys are close. I was thinking a broken nose that doesn't bleed. There has to be injury; bleeding is not necessary, but there seems to be a big focus on it among the media and fans.

 

60.2 Minor Penalty - Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above

the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed.

60.3 Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part of

his stick above the shoulders of the opponent so that injury results,

the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty for all contact that

causes an injury, whether accidental or careless, in the opinion of the

Referee.

60.4 Match Penalty – When, in the opinion of the Referee, a player

attempts to or deliberately injures an opponent while carrying or

holding any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent, the

Referee shall assess a match penalty to the offending player.

 

I'd give the guy a double minor for unsportsmanlike conduct for trying to bleed. You made it seem like he was a bit over the top with your comment. Maybe he screws up and gets caught twice or something.

[PASabreFan]

This situation is pretty wild. Of course the puck has to completely cross the goal line, but what about when it's on end and it's touching all white beyond the goal line?

 

[Eleven]

This situation is pretty wild. Of course the puck has to completely cross the goal line, but what about when it's on end and it's touching all white beyond the goal line?

 

 

From what I saw on the overhead shot, no goal. And good for the CBC crew for really knowing the rules, even while play flowed back towards the Calgary end.

 

BTW, how old is the clip, and was it under the same rules as today? (I assume it was.)

[sweeper]

That clip was probably from last year, Bryzgalof (forgive the spelling, I don't feel like looking it up) hasn't been in Phoenix more than 2 seasons now I don't think.

[wjag]

What happens if a team shoots and scores, the red light doesn't come on and the play continues to the next stoppage which is the other team scoring a confirmed goal? Review of the first one shows it crossed the line and bounced out. Do both goals count?

[PASabreFan]

What happens if a team shoots and scores, the red light doesn't come on and the play continues to the next stoppage which is the other team scoring a confirmed goal? Review of the first one shows it crossed the line and bounced out. Do both goals count?

 

No.

 

"Only one goal can be awarded at any stoppage of play. If the

apparent goal was scored by Team A, and is subsequently confirmed

as a goal by the Video Goal Judge, any goal scored by Team B during

the period of time between the apparent goal By Team A and the

stoppage of play (Team B’s goal), the Team B goal would not be

awarded. However, if the apparent goal by Team A is deemed to have

entered the goal, albeit illegally (i.e. distinct kicking motion), the goal

shall be disallowed by the Video Goal Judge and since the play

should have stopped for this disallowed goal, no goal can be awarded

to Team B on the same play. The clock (including penalty time clocks,

if applicable) must be re-set to the time of the disallowed Team A goal

and play resumed."

[PASabreFan]

Reading the rule book can be fun. Isn't there a problem here?

 

"78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the

Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public

Address Announcer for the following reasons:

(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an

attacking player other than with a stick."

 

The rule book really seems to have been cobbled together over the years. For a league that always seems to be talking about winning new fans, it's a real problem.

[shrader]

This situation is pretty wild. Of course the puck has to completely cross the goal line, but what about when it's on end and it's touching all white beyond the goal line?

 

 

Plays like that one show how they need to somehow find a way to put a camera on the bottom side of the crossbar. That's the only way to get a true overhead look that isn't at a slight angle.

 

Anyway, that video brought a different question to mind. At one point the announcers were saying that Calgary should just throw the puck over the glass to get a whistle. So, if they do that and are given a delay of game penalty, does the penalty still happen if the review awards the earlier goal to the Flames? What if any other type of penalty was taken to cause that first whistle?

[PASabreFan]

Plays like that one show how they need to somehow find a way to put a camera on the bottom side of the crossbar. That's the only way to get a true overhead look that isn't at a slight angle.

 

Anyway, that video brought a different question to mind. At one point the announcers were saying that Calgary should just throw the puck over the glass to get a whistle. So, if they do that and are given a delay of game penalty, does the penalty still happen if the review awards the earlier goal to the Flames? What if any other type of penalty was taken to cause that first whistle?

 

Yes. But the team scored upon is off the hook, which seems really odd -- that a penalty called after the scoring of a goal can be wiped out by the goal. Doesn't this give the team scored upon a free pass, so to speak. Maybe I should check out rules 16.2 and 18.2.

 

Are all of the intervening stats also wiped out?

 

"Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the

apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the

normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the

team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.

Refer to Rules 16.2 and 18.2. If an infraction happens after the first

stoppage of play following an apparent goal (infraction after the

whistle) by either team, it is assessed and served in the normal

manner regardless as to the decision rendered by the Video Goal

Judge."

[shrader]

Yes. But the team scored upon is off the hook, which seems really odd -- that a penalty called after the scoring of a goal can be wiped out by the goal. Doesn't this give the team scored upon a free pass, so to speak. Maybe I should check out rules 16.2 and 18.2.

 

Are all of the intervening stats also wiped out?

 

"Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the

apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the

normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the

team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.

Refer to Rules 16.2 and 18.2. If an infraction happens after the first

stoppage of play following an apparent goal (infraction after the

whistle) by either team, it is assessed and served in the normal

manner regardless as to the decision rendered by the Video Goal

Judge."

 

I was under the impression that the penalty is served regardless of the decision on the reviewed goal. That explanation there is confusing though. Maybe I just can't read, but it seems to be contradicting itself. Anyway, this whole thing reminds me of a delay of game penalty that Kalinin had to serve a few years back where he flipped the puck up over the glass AFTER the whistle blew.

 

I love when little quirks like this happen because it's the true test of whether or not the broadcasters know some of the finer points of the rulebook. Guys like RJ would be all over it, but then announcers like Jack Edwards would be whining about the refs screwing over Boston.

[Taro T]

Yes. But the team scored upon is off the hook, which seems really odd -- that a penalty called after the scoring of a goal can be wiped out by the goal. Doesn't this give the team scored upon a free pass, so to speak. Maybe I should check out rules 16.2 and 18.2.

 

Are all of the intervening stats also wiped out?

 

"Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the

apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the

normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the

team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.

Refer to Rules 16.2 and 18.2. If an infraction happens after the first

stoppage of play following an apparent goal (infraction after the

whistle) by either team, it is assessed and served in the normal

manner regardless as to the decision rendered by the Video Goal

Judge."

Yes.

 

I wouldn't really consider the defending team to have "gotten a free pass." The team just had a goal put up on the board for the opponent. Is it right that the team should not only come out of the play being a goal down, but also have to play shorthanded for the next 2 minutes?

 

If it were obvious to all that the puck were in the net, then presumably the ref would have blown the play dead. And the scored upon team would not be put in the position of gaining a "freebie."

[PASabreFan]

An intentional offside call on the Sabres immediately preceded the Panthers' first goal tonight.

 

A really bizarre call. Here's the rule:

 

83.6 Intentional Off-Side - An intentional off-side is one which is made for

the purpose of securing a stoppage of play regardless of the reason,

whether either team is short-handed.

If in the opinion of the Linesman, an intentional off-side play has

been made, the puck shall be faced-off at the end face-off spot in the

defending zone of the offending team.

If, while an off-side call is delayed, a player of the offending team

deliberately touches the puck to create a stoppage of play, the

Linesman will signal an intentional off-side.

If, in the judgement of the Linesman, the attacking player(s) are

making an effort to exit the attacking zone and are in close proximity

to the blue line at the time the puck is shot into the zone, the play will

not be deemed to be an intentional off-side.

[carpandean]

I was under the impression that the penalty is served regardless of the decision on the reviewed goal. That explanation there is confusing though. Maybe I just can't read, but it seems to be contradicting itself.

It doesn't contradict itself. It basically says:

- Any minor by the scored upon team between the apparent goal and the whistle to stop play shall not be assessed.

- Any minor by the scored upon team after the whistle to stop play shall be assessed.

- Any other penalty by the scored up team shall be assessed.

- Any penalty by the scoring team shall be assessed.