Rule question

[JohnHockey1798]

I have never been positive what interference is. I have seen plays that look like a guy was prevented from getting puck not called and where someone was barely touched and seen it called. What I am basically asking is what is interference.

John

Toga!! Toga!!

[DannyG]

As one of the nine guys who sat in the room in Colorado Springs (not that anybody listened to me, right Jeremy?) to make the current USAHIL rule book...

If a player alters his line of travel to coincide with, and impede the path of an opponent, while more than five feet from the puck, the referee has the right to call a penalty for interference.

Notice that you can easily "impede" somebody without touching them.

Notice all the "loopholes:"

If my path of progression was "cutting" you off all along, and I sped up or slowed down to just "happen" to be in your way when you wanted to go get that puck, I am definitely interfering with you, but I am probably going to get away with it.

If the puck was within five feet of us, the puck went away, and I am still impeding you, the ref might call it, or he might verbally tell me to break it off, then he might call it. If he doesn't think you are making any real attempt at that point and just crying for the penalty, he might not call it.

If I cause you to majorly alter your flight path, even if only indifferently, the ref might call me for the penalty...

Think of it this way...as long as the ref thinks you are trying to make a legitimate play on the puck, you are probably okay...as soon as the ref thinks, by what he is seeing, that you have abandoned any thought of the puck, and you are just strategically playing the opponent, with or without any contact, he will call you for a penalty if he feels that the effort by your opponent was sufficient to assess that you have deprived him of the right to make the play.

Italics for emphasis, key phrase and concept...hope that makes sense in context.

<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[Alvare71]

But there will never be an interference call in tournament play

Do you smell what the rock is cookin?

[JohnHockey1798]

Danny,

Thanks for the explanation. That explains why it is called or not called. Giving that there is so many loopholes to that rule, the governing bodies of hockey need the clearify and not have so many loopholes in the rules. Basically that need to make the rule a little simpler so that it is easier to call.

John

what is the email address for USA hockey inline that you can send in ideas for rule changes

Toga!! Toga!!

[DannyG]

your point of wanting standardization and clarity is, of course, valid.

However, keep in mind that it is one important task of the player to use his awareness and intelligence to observe the "tone and timber" of the referee(s) in every game.

What are they calling, what are they letting go? As the game intensifies or relaxes, how does the referee fare with this evolvement?

As much as we want standardization, every ref is different, every game is different in this respect. Each game is a new thing. That's just the way it is. The really good players figure this out as quickly as possible.

The player, and team, that is very good at playing with the ref, treating him as an important, legitimate part of the game, is waaaaaay ahead of an opponent who wants to know "What was that, Ref!?" on every call and non-call.

I know that John knows this, I was just throwing it out there...

<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[bobbradley]

I agree with Danny G completely. Interference, even though itis stated somewhat in the rule book, is a judgement call. To ask clarification causes all kind of refereee problems, dependant on the referee. Suck it up and carry on ..... Realize what and what not the referee is calling and adjust your gameplan if need be. I know for a fact this is one penalty the refs don't like to be called on because of the huge grey area involved. I remember one time looking up at the clock and received an interference penalty. There is no rhime or reason. Reading the rulebook, you would think it is cut and dry.... Think again.

[123456]

You will not get a definitive answer for this because of one thing called referee discretion and the variety of refs out there working games. Remain flexible and if he is not calling it then use it and be prepared to play against it, if he is calling it play accordingly. The faster you adapt the better your chances of turning it to your advantage.

[DannyG]

...at least I find it interesting...

In Australian football, within 15 yeards of the ball, you can continuously block off an opponent from reaching your teammate with the ball...you can even run down the field along side your teammate, shielding off opponents who might try to tackle him. This is a legitimate technique, and it is called "shepherding."

I'll bring it up at next years rules conference...(no, not really)...

<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[JohnHockey1798]

I have to agree that every ref calls it differently and will not call it if it is questionable. The big problem i have is when players pick off a defender to give the player with a puck a free lane to the goalie. The is the one that irks me and I only see it called if the guy gets knocked down. Even then it is not called. I was told once it was not called was because the guy was stationary and I hit him. There needs to be more ref training and certification like there is in ice hockey.

John

Toga!! Toga!!

[Defense1st]

Since July 5th, I have worked a scorekeeper's booth at Torhs Nationals calling over 75 games, coached 10 games in 12 AA and 14 AA, watched 4 days of Narch as a parent in 14 Silver, 12 Gold and 14 Gold, worked everyday of JO's, witnessing parts of over 800 games, coaching 5 teams in 12 Comp, 14 Comp, 14 Girls, 18 Girls and Women's Silver and 4 days of State Wars watching the 94's, 93's, and 91's.

To my amazement, interference was called many, many times, almost everytime the offending team or player gained an advantage (read control of the puck, or prevention of the player from attaining possession of a loose puck) from either a pick or the actual interference.

I was very impressed. The referees DID NOT make an interference call if the defender stood up a player who was in control of the puck and rode him off causing the possessing player to lose the puck nor did they make the intereference call one player attempted to attain possession of the puck while the defensive player held him off with his stick across the mid section of the player attempting to attain the puck.

Also after watching and participating in these 4 events, I will say IN MY OPINION, the game calling I saw at State Wars was much better than the other 3 tournaments, with Torhs and AAU a close 2nd and Narch absolutely awful. Again this is only my observations from the games I witnessed.

Phil Steur

[MDE3]

One of the issues not addressed on here yet, is the one which is most common to inline hockey. Where body contact is not really permitted, the use of the stick to slow down an opponent..whether with or without the puck..is the most common type of interference we see in this sport....If the refs only use the interference rule to help reduce these instances...then it would be a great boon to the game....

[MDE3]

In your "non calls" I would disagree with those instances where a defensive player uses either his/her stick or his/her body to prevent an opposing player from gaining access to the puck, while making no attempt to play the puck himself/herself.

The stick to the midsection type of interference is one that should be called all the time...it is not only interference but also hooking...and something the NHL has also been trying diligently to eliminate.

In the case where a defender turns with an opponent in the direction of the puck, and uses his/her body to shield access to the puck while also making an attempt to gain possession thereof....I see no interference call there...

However if a physical riding off of an opponent trying to gain access to the puck occurs where the defender makes no attempt to gain possession, or where he/she uses the stick to prevent access to the puck by an opponent, while not skating hard to get possession themselves...these instances should always be called in my opinion. Where skating hard with an opponent and in the direction of the puck, a defender uses a stick over over stick type check to maintain defensive control of an opponent....I see no penalty there either....just a battle for position.

[NLane]

I'll need to check again but I think in USA hockey rules the stick (upside down) over an opposing players stick is a type of hooking call. Just heard about this recently so it may be new or just new to me.

[MDE3]

That's an old USARS rule dating back to round stick...have seen it called in USARS tournaments as recently as nine years ago by refs who still skated on quads at USARS tournaments. I once challenged a ref who called this to find it in the USARS rule book back about 1997 and he could not, although he refused admit to this, or to even try to look it up while in front of me(off the rink between games) I did see him frantically looking through the book a few minutes later while thinking he was away from prying eyes lol...

Have never seen it in USAHIL rules. The only verbage in holding or interference refers to impeding the progress of a player with the stick..no mention to which direction it is turned....there may be some codicils within the ref training manuals that refer specifically to this, however I do not recall seeing any.

With the old round stick which was effectively shaped like a &quot;hook&quot; you could use it to literally pull the stick away from the ball..hence the rule

[DannyG]

I'll go look when I get to a rulebook again, but from my recollection...no, no such rule presently...

...this may be one of those that we went back and forth on, and I just don't remember what the outcome was...there's a lot of those...

The last rules conference debated for ninie hours over 78 rule proposals...I think we changed about three, and not much of real consequence for the player.

Some important chages were to "even out" the penalties for certain offenses, making more harsh the penaty for offenses that were deemd not to have a harsh enough penalty, when compared to lesser offenses.

The two "ref guys" at the conference really promoted these, especially in misconduct situations. It was important to them that harsh, deliberate offenders were penalized for their actions...and that distincions were made between the "accidental" transgressor and the guy that knows he is putting others in jeopardy, and doesn't care...

I look forward to next year's conference...we sure would like everybody to make all the suggestions they can, this will be advertised on the USA Hockey web site. Anybody can make a suggestion (oops..."rule proposal.")



<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[WestSide]

Having experienced the State Wars 2006 event, for which the officiating was very good and on par with 2005, I was a little surprised to see that the Inline community which is geared toward finesse and skill leaves the interference call to such a SEVERE level of commission before it is called. I had the opportunity to watch some 91's, 88's, 92's and 95's and was not pleased specifically regarding Interference. Based on all the discussion above, combined with rules 618,619, and 621 (Holding, Hooking, Interference)and the clarity with words like "impedes" that the rule is basically being ignored. Advantage certainly goes to the "smart", "experienced" player, but what about the player,who through good coaching and being taught the rules based on the "words actually written" looses out to the interfering defender who simply rides a player off (or impedes) from getting through to a puck that had gotten past him or the second attacker coming into the offensive zone and being impeeded by a second defender. My assessment is based on overall tournement application not one incident or two games that I saw this in. Most every game needed one of these calls. If we want to interpret this way, we need to change the wording in the rulebook to allow this.
I saw a few players trying to push through and thereby get physically rough only to receive the penalty frustrating the huslting hard skater thereby escalating situations (this basically has become a retaliation penalty).
I believe I saw a tighter application of this(these) rule(s) on State Wars 2005 than in 2006.
Remember, most everything about roller hockey is geared toward skill and finesse.

I do not watch NHL Hockey but have heard of their changes (saw part of two games as I am too busy coaching, reffing and DRIVING to/from hockey) and I believe if they (the NHL) can recognize this issue, I believe that USA Hockey Inline can.
Referee's judgement taken into account, the rules as written (618, 619, & 621) are definitely being ignored and I think it impedes us.

Looking forward to State Wars 2007 and USA Hockey Nationals,

Mike Jones

Mike Jones