I don’t think the NHL or the refs understand what’s in the rule book
This post, when I ran it originally on 10/15, referred to that night’s Kings/Rangers game. I am reposting it because, in light of the Red Wings non-goal scandal, I wanted to vent a little on the subject, then remembered I already had.
The noteworthy difference between the Kings/Rangers “goal” and the Wings/Stars “goal” is that the circumstances were the same but with exactly opposite outcomes. The original title of the post:
Last night’s disputed goal and (gasp)
what the actual official rule book has to say about it
The play in question: the second goal in last night’s Kings/Rangers game. The Rangers scored; the ref blew the whistle after the puck crossed the line; the ref waived off the goal; they reviewed it “upstairs”; they ruled it was a goal; the ref reported to Terry Murray that it was ruled a goal by the off-ice officials. Subsequently, everyone on earth noted that, supposedly, when the ref waives off a goal, it’s not reviewable with respect to when the puck crossed the line, since the ref’s decision is “final.” Now…
…usually when people talk about the rules saying the ref’s decision is final, they are referring to rule 32.2, which states:
32.2 Disputes – The Referees shall have general supervision of the game and shall have full control of all game officials and players during the game, including stoppages; and in case of any dispute, their decision shall be final.
[now the controversial and/or annoying clause:]
As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the Referee may deem the play to be stopped slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown. The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening.
Clearly, the intent of this rule, and the thing that annoys a lot of people (including me), is that the ref’s state of mind regarding when he intended to blow the whistle becomes the determining factor in the ending of every play. Thus, video review is not necessarily relevant in terms of showing that the whistle blew first or didn’t. Because it might have blown first in the referee’s mind. And the rules clearly state that the referee is the final arbiter of when the play really ended. Ref trumps video review. To wit, 32.2 continues:
In the event of any dispute regarding time or the expiration of penalties, the matter shall be referred to the Referee for adjustment and his decision shall be final. He may use the Video Goal Judge to assist in rendering the final decision.
However, the part of the rule I put in bold above is written in a horrible, fucked up and ambiguous manner. “The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening.” The key phrase is “if the referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening.” “Has ruled” when?
Does this refer to the initial call?
Or after further rumination by the ref during the stoppage of play?
The rule does NOT say, “if the referee rules that” (present tense) but “if the referee has ruled that.” “Has ruled” is past tense. One reasonable interpretation of the rule as written is that, once the referee “has ruled” that there is no goal, he cannot overrule himself. As in, “sorry, too late! If only we could go back in time, but we can’t!” The rule does in fact literally say that whether or not the puck crossed the goal line before the whistle HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT IT’S A GOOD GOAL IF THE REFEREE HAS RULED that the play had been stopped. And he obviously ruled that the play had been stopped before the puck crossed the line, or else he wouldn’t have blown the whistle in the first place, and given the “no goal” signal.
However, the “has ruled” wording makes no sense if you take it literally, because of “In the event of any dispute regarding time or the expiration of penalties, the matter shall be referred to the Referee for adjustment and his decision shall be final. He may use the Video Goal Judge to assist in rendering the final decision.”
The matter shall be referred to the referee for adjustment. Therefore, there can be adjustment of the ref’s initial call, at the ref’s discretion. And we’re unambiguously talking about potential goals here, since the rules specifically refer to the ref being able to consult with the VIDEO GOAL JUDGE before rendering “THE FINAL DECISION” [caps mine]. Again, no other way to interpret this. There can be an adjustment of the initial call, leading to the ref’s final decision. And that’s supported by this:
Rule 39.4 (viii) The video review process shall be permitted to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”).
So, in sum, it seems this whole “not reviewable” thing with regards to the refs blowing the whistle before the puck crosses the line … is only true if the ref wants it to be. He has the discretion, according to the rules, to choose to review it and change his mind. Is there any other way to interpret this?
[in the original comments section was this exchange:]
dbushik said, on October 15, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The only thing missing is that the ref claims he had not waived off the goal and had made no ruling on the ice regarding goal/no-goal.
How that fits in here, I can’t say with confidence…
I’m currently interpreting this as the ref blowing the play dead but being unsure of whether the puck crossed the goal line, with the presumption on his part being at the time he blew the play dead the puck had already crossed the goal line, assuming it had actually done so, which is what was reviewed.
quisp said, on October 15, 2009 at Well, if he’s unsure, he would simply make no signal at all and skate to the scorer’s table to initiate a review. The “no-goal” signal only makes sense in the context of a response to a play that appears to be a possible goal or to a player or players who think a goal has been scored. You don’t just make the “no goal” signal willy-nilly. In a sense, it’s an answer to a question. The question is “goal?” The answer: “NO!”
The ref clearly believed he had to pretend later that he didn’t signal no goal, which suggests to me that NO ONE understands what the words in the rule book actually say. Based on the ref’s reaction to his own obvious and really not disputable “no goal” signal, I must conclude that the ref thinks the rule is that if he waives it off, it makes it non-reviewable. But the rules don’t say this. As far as I can tell, the discretion is entirely the ref’s.
*****
Now, I ask you: is it really possible that these people haven’t read their own rule book, or don’t understand what they’ve read? Because the words on the page don’t mean what they think they mean.
What the Rules Actually Say About Charging and Boarding
Of interest is what the OHL rule book says about boarding (which it borrows word-for-word from the NHL rule book):
A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.”
The wording there is interesting. Most hockey fans are familiar with the “two full strides” rule of thumb for charging, but the rule book doesn’t say that either; it simply says that “Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner.”
via Hockey Or Die! – The Score.
Got it? That’s why an otherwise clean hit might be illegal. There is such a thing as too hard where body checks are concerned. As a former defenseman, I find this interesting, since when I played meaningful games years ago, equipment and the size and strength of players were such that it would be nearly impossible to seriously hurt someone with a clean open ice hit, to the extent that I saw players knocked out maybe once every couple of years, rather than every week, as it seems to happen now.
How About This for “Settling” Tie Games?
Five minute OT. Two points for a win. Zero points for a loss. AND ZERO POINTS FOR EITHER TEAM IF THE GAME ENDS IN A TIE. That would get rid of the “protecting the tie” strategy. And it would be really fun to watch games between your rivals, rooting for the tie. The closing minutes of a tie game would be a f-ing frenzy!
From ESPN: National Football League goes after big game in landmark American Needle antitrust case
Fast forward to a high-definition picture of sports late in 2010. Here is the news of the day, scrawling across the bottom of your TV screen or mobile Web device:
• LeBron James, who had been expecting a free-agency bonanza when his contract with the Cleveland Cavaliers expired after the 2009-2010 season, opens the 2010-11 season with … the Cavs, the only team with the right to sign him. Cleveland retains the NBA MVP by slotting his salary into the new league-wide scale.
• Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier, the hottest commodity for every opening in the NFL over the past six months, signs on to be the new head coach of the Dallas Cowboys … at a league-determined salary that will pay him far less than he’d have made if the Denver Broncos had chosen him over Josh McDaniels in 2009.
• The Ricketts family, new owner of the Chicago Cubs, scraps plans for its own cable channel because Major League Baseball has barred all such broadcasts, as well as webcasts, by individual teams.
• A young Detroit Red Wings fan who has saved his pennies for months shells out $300 to buy a replica sweater that would have cost him $80 in 2009.
The deciders of the future of sports? These nine Supreme Court Justices (minus David Souter, front right, and plus Sonia Sotomayor, who has yet to be confirmed) could dramatically change the landscape.
• Lockouts and strikes loom large in all four major team sports as an era of relative peace on the sports labor front ends and owners begin to exercise their new power over player unions.
Unlikely?
Discouraging?
It could happen.
All of those scenarios, in fact, could become realities if the NFL triumphs in a case now under consideration in the U.S. Supreme Court. Experts agree that the case known as American Needle vs. NFL could easily be the most significant legal turning point in the history of American sports.
read the whole mildly terrifying article at National Football League goes after big game in landmark American Needle antitrust case – ESPN.
My only comment: the NFL may have, as the article says, done a headcount of the justices and determined that the conservatives will rule in their favor. But do Scalia, Thomas et al really want to rule against the nation’s sports heroes? I don’t think they do.
Some Draftee Contract Issues Explained Not By Me
Once a player is drafted by an NHL team, he must sign a contract with that organization within two years. The exception is when a college player is drafted. Unlike the NBA, the NHL allows a player to finish his college career. The NHL team holds the draft rights to a college player until 30 days after he has left school.
North American players becoming 18 by Sept. 15 and not older than 20 by Dec. 31 are eligible for the NHL draft. The 20-year-old age limit does not apply to European-born players; they must participate in the draft if they wish to play in the NHL. The same two-year signing period applies to Europeans.
A player who chooses not to sign, or is not signed by the team that drafted him within the time limit, is eligible to go through the draft process again. The unsigned player must be 20 or younger when the draft takes place to participate. Players older than 20 can become unrestricted restricted free agents.
A player cannot be drafted more than two times. A team that is unable to sign a first-round selection within two years is eligible to receive another draft pick as compensation.
via Al Cimaglia Blog – Blackhawks opt out of three draft picks – ESPN Chicago.
Information on the 50-contract roster limit and 90-player maximum reserve list
Teams have four different “roster” limits to balance under the league’s regulations; a 20-player “dressed list” for games, a 23-player active NHL roster, a 50-contract maximum, and a 90-player maximum reserve list.
Starting with the largest and working our way down, teams are only allowed to have up to 90 players on its reserve list, whether signed to a standard player contract (SPC) or unsigned. From there teams are only allowed to have up to 50 players signed to contracts for any given season, including those for the players on the active roster and injured reserve lists. The unsigned players are draft picks of the club who have not yet been signed. In most cases, an organization retains an unsigned drafted player’s rights for two seasons after his drafted year, with some extended timeframes provided for US College players and for European players, among others, but that’s for another topic later on.
Every player on the 23-person active NHL roster, plus any player on the injured reserve list, must be under contract (and count toward the 50 contract maximum) and every team must have at least 24 players and three goaltenders under an SPC. Beyond those parameters, a team has wide latitude to make up its 50 contracts. In actuality, most teams opt not to use the full 50-contract maximum to give the organization the flexibility to make roster moves – trades, waiver claims, or player signings – at any given time. Most teams carry a significant number of signed players at the minor professional level, AHL being the highest minor pro league in North America. Since these players are already signed to contracts, it’s easy for clubs to recall the player(s) to the NHL as needed.
Other players may be signed to contracts but returned to the player’s junior club – most often this takes place between an NHL club and Canadian Major Junior teams (teams that play in the Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, or Western Hockey League, collectively the CHL). But 18 and 19-year-old players assigned to their team in the CHL do not count against the 50-contract maximum, until they have played at least 11 NHL games in one season.
The 50-contract limit has an interesting distinction in that the limit pertains to the season(s) for which a contract is valid. All NHL player contracts expire on June 30. The year varies from contract to contract, but the day remains the same (as we’ll discuss more when we look at player contracts in later editions of the feature). Knowing it has expiring contracts coming off its 50-contract maximum, a team can sign players to contracts for the following season. By doing so a team may have more than 50 different players signed to valid SPCs, as long as 50 or fewer are signed to valid SPCs for that current season AND fewer than 50 SPCs on tap for the upcoming season.
The 23-man roster limit is in place from the conclusion of the preseason until 12:01 am on the day of the NHL’s Trade Deadline. After that teams are allowed to have an unlimited active roster at the NHL level, provided players are signed to one of their 50 contract slots. NHL teams are only allowed to dress a maximum of 20 players – 18 skaters and two goaltenders – for any given game, but those 20 must come from the 23-player active roster.
Both the 23-player active roster and 20-player game roster can change day-to-day and game-to-game. All changes to the team’s 23-player active roster must be cleared through the NHL’s Central Registry before the move is considered finalized (and before the player is eligible to play in a game). In most cases the clearance from Central Registry is simple and completed in a nominal time span. Changes to the 20 players on the game roster are even easier – the list is submitted to the NHL official (either referee or official scorer) by the team (usually the head coach) moments before the start of the game. Prior to submitting the list, the team can choose from any members of its 23-man active roster.
As for the 20-player game roster, according to Rule 5.2, “Only players and goalkeepers on the list submitted to the Official Scorer before the game may participate in the game.” The rule further states that any goals scored while ineligible players are on the ice are subject to be disallowed – at the time of the goal – and the ineligible player(s) removed from the game with the offending team not allowed to replace the ineligible player’s roster spot. However, the rule continues, “No additional penalties are to be assessed but a report of the incident must be submitted to the Commissioner.”
There is an exemption to the rule should both of the goaltenders on the game roster become “incapacitated” but that is an extremely specific rule that has very rarely come into play in the league’s long history.
RSS - Posts
5 comments