Shark Finn
∀dministrator
Sharks should take note.Indeed puzzling. The only explanation is that the Avs are clearly tanking.
Sharks should take note.Indeed puzzling. The only explanation is that the Avs are clearly tanking.
When it’s a shot and the guy doesn’t make any kind of motion at the puck like he’s trying to purposefully direct the puck with his hand then I don’t think it’s any different than the puck deflecting off a players body
If Trochek had reached out while trying to deflect the puck and “punched” it, intentional or not, and it went to Kreider then yeah that’s a hand pass
The puck was definitely 'directed to a teammate' and 'allowed the team to gain an advantage' the puck hit Trocheck's hand and was directed straight to his teammate's stick in an empty net.This is the rule? I think
79.1 Hand Pass – A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage
I think Bednar was going for the angle described at the end of it, just with a closed hand instead of open
No, they also got assessed a bench minor for the failed challenge.If it doesn't get overturned then the team has basically just used a timeout that gives them a lot more time than a standard timeout would allow for.
A couple of things...It's really not that puzzling to me... For one, there is a part of the rule that could be interpreted to consider this a hand-pass as @Three On Zero described below.
The puck was definitely 'directed to a teammate' and 'allowed the team to gain an advantage' the puck hit Trocheck's hand and was directed straight to his teammate's stick in an empty net.
Now I know someone will jump on me, so let me be clear I'm not saying the ruling was right or wrong, but it's certainly open for interpretation. To say they 'don't know the hand-pass rule' glosses over the fact that the rule literally allows for the officials to rule based on their opinion.
For two, the challenge could be used as an extended timeout. If the goal gets overturned, great. If it doesn't get overturned then the team has basically just used a timeout that gives them a lot more time than a standard timeout would allow for.
They talked about it a decent amount, but they also talked about the challenge and how good of a hockey game the two teams played for like 75% of the segment. They're definitely not critical sports analysts but no need to be hyperbolic hereYou wouldn't even know this happened if you watched the Avs postgame, they spent 10 minutes crying about MacKinnon not getting an assist to continue the streak. They just, kept on going on about it. Even said they'd all "do their part" in petitioning the league to review it.
You'd never know the rest of an actual hockey game played out. The Avs PBP/color guys also thought this would be called back, shocker!
I dont get that implication at all. It's open for interpretation.A couple of things...
1) "directed to a teammate" implies intent to direct. The puck was not "directed" it happened to go to a teammate.
2) Challenges haven't been based on timeouts for a while. If the coach gets it wrong, then the team is assessed a penalty. So it's a not a long time out.. it's a penalty.
Words have meaning.I dont get that implication at all. It's open for interpretation.
Colorado is killing Penalties at 82% so they felt pretty confident if the call wasn't overturned they'd kill the penalty, it would seem to me this was their mentality, which would in effect make it a timeout. I guess I left that part out, so thanks for pointing it out.
ETA: Colorado killed the penalty, so it worked out for them just fine.
There are varying definitions of the word "direct".Words have meaning.
Direct:
To aim (something) in a particular direction or at a particular person.
That means that it has to be intentional. If it merely touches, bounces, contacts, etc... then that is what the rule would say.
If the officials deemed that the play off of the glove allowed the Rangers to gain an advantage it could have been overturned from this vague language at the opinion of the officials.Rule 79.1 said:...or has allowed his team to gain an advantage, and subsequently possession and control of the puck is obtained by a player of the offending team...
The Aves at home with Landeskog and MacGinnon on the ice sweet talking the refs while they review the call and its 50/50 in favour of the Aves. People forget how used the Aves are to favourable officiating.I like how the ref didn’t even go with “upon further review, the Rangers player didn’t play the puck with his hand etc…”
He just straight up said “Colorado has been assessed a bench minor for delay of game”
Just a ridiculous challenge.
You wouldn't even know this happened if you watched the Avs postgame, they spent 10 minutes crying about MacKinnon not getting an assist to continue the streak. They just, kept on going on about it. Even said they'd all "do their part" in petitioning the league to review it.
You'd never know the rest of an actual hockey game played out. The Avs PBP/color guys also thought this would be called back, shocker!
There are varying definitions of the word "direct".
A definition from Merriam-Webster says:
Direct: to cause to turn, move, or point undeviatingly or to follow a straight course.
Trocheck's glove caused the puck to "turn/move" in the direction which allowed Kreider to put it in the net. The word "intentional" never appears anywhere in the rule, which by default, leaves it up for interpretation.
I'd say that the part of your comment I bolded would also apply to the omission of the word "intentional". If it was meant to mean the direction of the puck must be intentional, then that is what the rule would say.
The rule also contains language saying
If the officials deemed that the play off of the glove allowed the Rangers to gain an advantage it could have been overturned from this vague language at the opinion of the officials.
Most professional sports rulebooks leave rules like this open for interpretation and officials' discretion on purpose.
To be clear: I am not saying the wrong call was made. I'm saying that there is so much gray area for interpretation that I really don't think it's that 'puzzling' for them to make the challenge here.
I still don't interpret that to mean that it must be intentional.All this emphasis on the definition of “directed” is missing the context surrounding it.
The rule reads: “he has directed”.
Trocheck did not direct the puck. The puck hit him on the way to the net, and bounced away on its own inertia. This is like the difference between kicking a puck into the net, and having it glance off your skate. The rule is clearly written so as not to suggest that any incidental touching with a skate or glove is illegal; if that were the intention, the rule would be 5 words long and crystal clear. Instead it is written to address cases where the player acts upon the puck.
Also, if I’m not mistaken the puck bounced off Trocheck’s body after hitting his glove, further invalidating any case for a hand pass.
I still don't interpret that to mean that it must be intentional
I just really don't think making a decision to challenge in that situation with limited time is "puzzling".
I don’t think many of us fans would accuse the NHL of always being reasonable (or consistent) in their decision making or application of the rules.If not intentional, then at least active in participation.
If someone gets hit by a car, who directed the car? The pedestrian cluelessly stepping in front of it, or the driver cluelessly texting behind the wheel?
No reasonable interpretation would have someone “directing” an object in context of being struck by it.
Because of the bolded portion. The big UNLESS part, the refs have used this rule for closed hands puck movements also."OPEN HAND"
79.1 Hand Pass – A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage
Why is everyone ignoring these incredibly important two words in the rule? You are allowed to punch the puck to a teammate with your hand on the stick (you just can't deflect the puck straight into the goal off your hand). It doesn't matter if it was directed to a teammate or not, his hand was on his stick, so it's legal.
Avs PBP call is bonkers fast when opponents score. "Puck intercepted, in alone and......... scores."