What's The Call ? ? ?

[InlineMBA]

OK - we were watching the NHL Winter Classic on New Year's Day and an odd thing happened. While the Red Wings were on the penalty kill, one of their players got knocked, heels-over-head, into the Blackhawk's bench. He was upside down for a short period of time, and in his absence the Red Wings put in another player, so they wouldn't be playing down 2 men. I mean, I understand why the Red Wings put another player on the ice, cause you never know if their player who got knocked into the Blackhawk's bench was hurt or what.

However, as soon as the Red Wing's player righted himself on the Blackhawk's bench, he went out on the ice - and the Red Wings got a penalty for too many men on the ice.

QUESTION - Should the Red Wing's player, that got knocked "arse over tea kettle", have stayed on the Blackhawks bench? If so, can he legally stay there until a whistle? If not, should he have faked an injury and hoped for a stoppage in play?

I guess there's two sides to this question too - from a RULES perspective and a STRATEGY perspective.

I'm damn curious.

Steve Inge - ROXBURY 8

[longboarderj]

In the U.S.A. Hockey rule book under rule 205 " Players may be changed at any time from the players' bench, provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall always be at the players' bench and out of the play before any change is made." This is the rule from the 2007-2009 U.S.A. Hockey (ice hockey) rule book. This would be penalized as too many players on the ice because the player who left the ice did not due so at his teams bench or by choice, he is still considered to be in play.

[rhhof]

Sure Mr Inge - he could have faked an injury and the play would have been called dead...If his team had possesion the whistle would blow but if the Hawks maintain posession and score, it would count

By rule...if a player is in any bench (player or penalty) and does not return to the ice and someone substitutes for him, he is still legally on the ice and it would be considered too many men

[Puckdropper1]

Mr. Inge...

Adam is correct with his understanding of the rule. Under the NHL's rule book, rule 74 - Too Many Men on the Ice indicates that the change of player's (either players or goalkeepers) must be made within 5' of HIS players bench. So once the extra player stepped onto the surface the officials should have singled a delay call and once the Red Wings took possession of the puck the whistle should have been blown and a bench minor penalty should have been called.

Bill Taggart

[PGHhockey]

I could be crazy, but to me, it looked like the Hawks tried to keep him on the bench???

Did they want to punch him in the face? Were they being nice (unknowing of the rule) and trying to keep him from taking a penalty? Were they trying to draw the penalty?

Interesting stuff...

[InlineMBA]

I could be crazy, but to me, it looked like the Hawks tried to keep him on the bench???

Did they want to punch him in the face? Were they being nice (unknowing of the rule) and trying to keep him from taking a penalty? Were they trying to draw the penalty?

Interesting stuff...

I know what you're saying. I DVR'd the game and it sure looks like the Blackhawk's players where trying to grab him. Were the Blackhawk's players being nice? I doubt it. Were the Blackhawk's players smart enough to try to grab him to draw the penalty? I doubt it. Or, were the Blackhawk's players trying to hold him back from getting back on the rink and giving the Blackhawks a 5 on 3 advantage? Who knows.

What's the call if the Blackhawks were holding, sitting on, standing on, whatever - to not let the Red Wings player back on the ice.

I'm curious what the "Jelcic" or "Mackie" strategies would have been for this scenario. Both, from the Blackhawks point of view and the Red Wings point of view.

Thanks for the info guys.

Steve Inge - ROXBURY 8

[Drexel63]

My understanding is that the penalty occurs when the Red Wings put a 6th player onto the surface, not when the player returns from the opponents bench. Is this correct? If so, Mike Babcock was at fault, not Dan Cleary (or whoever it was that got destroyed) and nothing the Blackhawks could have done to stop him from returning to the ice would have mattered, the arm should have been in the air already...

[ianmackie]

I'm curious what the "Jelcic" or "Mackie" strategies would have been for this scenario. Both, from the Blackhawks point of view and the Red Wings point of view.

Thanks for the info guys.

Steve Inge - ROXBURY 8

As a Blues fan I think the Red Wings player would have probably injured 2 or 3 of our players. Considering we lost our best defenseman for the season in a golf cart accident.

As a coach, I would have sent like 4 guys in...I mean if you're gonna get a too many men penalty then you might as well earn it.

Make the trip to Pittsburgh for the NCRHA event Steve so we can have lunch.

Ian

[RINKRAT]

I don't think that there should've been a penalty called because the Red Wings are my favorite team...:D

RAT

[ACCCT2]

I don't think that there should've been a penalty called because the Red Wings are my favorite team...:D

RAT

DITTO-that (and I didn't even read the whole thread, just "the Red Wings are my favorite team" part -- how could anyone find fault with "RINKRAT's" fine and well-stated logic on that one?)...!!!;)

[MBurke]

I know what you're saying. I DVR'd the game and it sure looks like the Blackhawk's players where trying to grab him. Were the Blackhawk's players being nice? I doubt it. Were the Blackhawk's players smart enough to try to grab him to draw the penalty? I doubt it. Or, were the Blackhawk's players trying to hold him back from getting back on the rink and giving the Blackhawks a 5 on 3 advantage? Who knows.

What's the call if the Blackhawks were holding, sitting on, standing on, whatever - to not let the Red Wings player back on the ice.


Regardless of whether the Wings were trying to put another player on the ice, I think it's pretty much an unwritten rule that when an opponent is checked into your bench, you should make it as difficult as possible for him to return to play.

If the Hawks were caught intentionally impeding the player from returning to the rink, I think the officials have two options:

If an individual player could not be identified as responsible, a bench minor could be assessed.
If an individual player could be singled out, I'd probably bank on a minor for unsportsmanlike conduct and a 10-minute misconduct.


In the "you'll never see this again" department, I remember a penalty assessed once to a very husky player who stood in front of the door of the box (while on the floor) to prevent the other team's star player from returning to the surface following a penalty.

[RINKRAT]

DITTO-that (and I didn't even read the whole thread, just "the Red Wings are my favorite team" part -- how could anyone find fault with "RINKRAT's" fine and well-stated logic on that one?)...!!!;)

That's right! Infact, I think the Official NHL Rule Book states that if you are the best team in the league, then your fans have the right to over rule any and all calls made by a referee during games played on an outdoor rink on News Years Day as long as the rink is temporarily affixed to a baseball field within the State of Illinois......or something like that. I don't remember the exact wording but it was something of that nature. Also, for this rule to be enforced, your team's goaltender must have played in an NHL outdoor game in the previous year but for another team...I'm serious, check it out for yourself if you don't believe me. :D

RAT