Post-Game Talk: Game 55 - McAVOY SCORES IN OT - BRUINS 2 Chicago 1 F /OT

[Bergyesque]

Here is what I found from the NHL website:
Rule 79 – Hand Pass
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 on-ice officials, he has directed the puck to a teammate, 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, either directly or deflected off any player or official. A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed for “closing his hand on the puck” under Rule 67 – Handling Puck.

With this, one can easily argue that the officials made the right call.

 

[AngryMilkcrates]

Don't know how people are that blind to see it was a hand pass. He tries to hit it with the stick but doesn't, last point of contact was his hand. Good call for once.

The puck momentum slows as it goes by the blade, that is a clue it touched the stick. The NBC right side view they showed last night was conclusive to me as it showed the blade touching the puck lightly before it went forward into the Bruins zone.

However, that was in super slow-mo with a specific angle. There is no way a ref sees that outside of a call from Toronto. Can't blame the refs on that call.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

The puck momentum slows as it goes by the blade, that is a clue it touched the stick. The NBC right side view they showed last night was conclusive to me as it showed the blade touching the puck lightly before it went forward into the Bruins zone.

However, that was in super slow-mo with a specific angle. There is no way a ref sees that outside of a call from Toronto. Can't blame the refs on that call.

I still don't think it's conclusive, but as I pointed out before, "touching the puck lightly" does not nullify a hand pass. The puck must either be controlled and directed legally by the player batting the puck (I say it this way, because he could use his stick or his feet to direct the puck in a desired direction), or it must be controlled by the opposing team. Neither of those things happened, so it's still a hand pass.

 

[bbfan419]

Huuuge win.

2/2 thus far on this stretch of back to backs. Another set this weekend (what’s up with this schedule?!)

Charlie made a comment post game about the team wanting to play certain way heading out of the all star break. Imo- they do seem to be playing a lot more aggressive/physical.

Keep it rolling boys!

Montreal and Toronto fans are schedule makers

 

[TD Charlie]

It was a hand pass. Period. I guess people are still crying about it because nobody heard a whistle until after the puck went in the net.


Its like Boston goes in clearly offside, scores on the rush and the goal is waved off for an unknown reason. We wouldn’t cry about it because it was obviously offside.

 

[RoccoF14]

.........Its like Boston goes in clearly offside, scores on the rush and the goal is waved off for an unknown reason. We wouldn’t cry about it because it was obviously offside.

Nah, people would still cry about it.

Shitting on the officials is a special talent on this board and we'd find a way to blame them.

 

[BruinsBtn]

The only thing anyone should be crying about is how Krug was blatantly hooked there. I don't need an ultra-slow motion replay to see that.

 

[jgatie]

How refreshing to not see a 17 page main board thread bitching about the goal called back. Chicago fans really are a good bunch.

 

[WestCoastBruinsFan]

Justifiably most of the

Nah, people would still cry about it.

****ting on the officials is a special talent on this board and we'd find a way to blame them.

time. NHL Refs are quite bad at times.

 

[Spooner st]

Nah, people would still cry about it.

****ting on the officials is a special talent on this board and we'd find a way to blame them.

Officials brought that upon themselves by displaying their incompetence on a daily basis. But hey...fell free to ignore the obvious.

 

[Otherworld]

Nice to see Charlie finally get one!

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Nah, people would still cry about it.

****ting on the officials is a special talent on this board and we'd find a way to blame them.

I looked in on the Blackhawks board, and yeah, they were shitting on the officiating - not just for the (correct) hand pass call, but all night. Some were even bitching the their guy also got called when Pasta (incorrectly, IMO) was called for embellishment. As if their guy didn't have his stick between pasta's legs, causing him to fall.

I didn't see the first half of the game, but I didn't think it was terribly officiated, in fact, I thought the Bruins actually were on the short end more than the Hawks. but because the one call that they didn't like (I can't even say it went "against" them, because it was the correct call) came at such a critical points, a lot of fans project that one call onto the entire game. Some here would do the same if the tables were turned. I don't think it's just the Bruins board, or the Hawks board. It's fans in general.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

How refreshing to not see a 17 page main board thread *****ing about the goal called back. Chicago fans really are a good bunch.

I've seen Chicago fans in both Boston and Arizona. They are definitely passionate about their team, but (I know I'm generalizing here) they tend to be smug and overbearing. They're in the bottom half of fanbases for me.

 

[danpantz]

Not blaming Moore but here's an interesting split

8-6-5 with moore in the lineup (91 point pace)
25-4-7 without Moore in the lineup (130 point pace)

 

[DarrenBanks56]

The puck momentum slows as it goes by the blade, that is a clue it touched the stick. The NBC right side view they showed last night was conclusive to me as it showed the blade touching the puck lightly before it went forward into the Bruins zone.

However, that was in super slow-mo with a specific angle. There is no way a ref sees that outside of a call from Toronto. Can't blame the refs on that call.

so why didnt the ref blow it dead as soon as 91 touched it? then they dont give a reason for no goal again. its beyond frustrating.
i still think thevref only blew the whistle because he had no clue what was going on and i think krug and pasta was telling him to blow the whistle

 

[DarrenBanks56]

Not blaming Moore but here's an interesting split

8-6-5 with moore in the lineup (91 point pace)
25-4-7 without Moore in the lineup (130 point pace)

lol. i mentioned that before the break about how we started to struggle once moore got in the lineup. and there is the solid answer. no denying that.

 

[BMC]

I wonder if he was still feeling the effects of the concussion, maybe not so much the symptoms, but more he may of been gun shy to be aggressive. He may have been worried about getting another one.

Hope you are feeling better today

 

[AngryMilkcrates]

so why didnt the ref blow it dead as soon as 91 touched it? then they dont give a reason for no goal again. its beyond frustrating.
i still think thevref only blew the whistle because he had no clue what was going on and i think krug and pasta was telling him to blow the whistle

They did blow the whistle. The problem is no one heard it except the players. That's why some stopped skating just before the goal. They then got together to check and see if the whistle was blown before or after the goal. Toews says the ref told him they screwed up, but ironically they got the call right as Glove Malfunction notes. If the player throws the puck up and it touches his stick but he does not have control of the puck it is still a hand pass if a player on the same team touches it next. The puck barely touched his stick and that is very hard to see without slow-mo and several different angles. but the goal being waved off is the right call according to the books.

I get why that would be infuriating to Chicago fans though. Imagine if we scored in the final minute and had a 2nd goal called back in that game with it being so close.

 

[TD Charlie]

How refreshing to not see a 17 page main board thread *****ing about the goal called back. Chicago fans really are a good bunch.

i thought so too. Their gdt from last night is so sad though. Tears all game. They have a complaint for everything.

 

[jgatie]

i thought so too. Their gdt from last night is so sad though. Tears all game. They have a complaint for everything.

Yeah, but at least they keep it to themselves. If that happened against Hogtown, the main board would be exploding.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Does it touch the stick? The best I can come up with is a maybe. Even in super slo mo, it's still not even clear if it even grazed the stick. Which is beside the point. To nullify a hand pass, the player handling the puck must do more than graze the puck. They must direct the puck with their stick. It's the same thing, and even a case in our casebook, when a player bats the near the goal and puck glances off his stick into the net. It's not a good goal, because it was the action of batting the puck that caused the puck to enter the net. In this case, Maatta did not direct the puck with his stick, and therefore did not nullify a hand pass.

As for what the refs supposedly told Toews, I wasn't there, but I am curious why they thought they made a mistake. I tried looking for the reactions of the other officials, and really could only see the near linesman. I wonder if the back ref or far linesman saw the hand pass and blew it dead, but no one heard it because the crowd was load with Caggiula's rush. I only know that if they thought they made a mistake, it actually ended up being the correct call.

I'm comfortable with that explanation. It makes a good deal of sense. However there are also hockey journalists out there (and not just Chicago ones!) arguing the alternative - that even just a puck grazing a stick negates a hand pass. I've looked at the NHL rulebook - unless I've missed something it's silent on this point, so it really does become a question of interpretation.

Either way, it certainly looked like a hand pass in real time, so, while if it happened to the Bruins I'd be a little frustrated, I'd understand why the ref blew the play dead, even if it was the wrong call. Did the ref afterwards consider he'd made a mistake in this case? Who knows? There are precedents - refs have admitted mistakes to players and coaches in the past. No-one has refuted what Toews claimed, so I'm willing to take him at his word on this one, even if, as you say, the ref really was correct in the first place.

 

[Spooner st]

I wonder if he was still feeling the effects of the concussion, maybe not so much the symptoms, but more he may of been gun shy to be aggressive. He may have been worried about getting another one.

We need to realize DeBrusk will show up partly during the season, it is what it is. When he's on top if his game he can dominate. He has the potential to score 30 goals per year, while showing up on occasions. In the playoffs the sample size is too small as of yet.

 

[lopey]

Hope you are feeling better today

Home sick still. Thanks though. Stupid cold

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Does it touch the stick? The best I can come up with is a maybe. Even in super slo mo, it's still not even clear if it even grazed the stick. Which is beside the point. To nullify a hand pass, the player handling the puck must do more than graze the puck. They must direct the puck with their stick. It's the same thing, and even a case in our casebook, when a player bats the near the goal and puck glances off his stick into the net. It's not a good goal, because it was the action of batting the puck that caused the puck to enter the net. In this case, Maatta did not direct the puck with his stick, and therefore did not nullify a hand pass.

As for what the refs supposedly told Toews, I wasn't there, but I am curious why they thought they made a mistake. I tried looking for the reactions of the other officials, and really could only see the near linesman. I wonder if the back ref or far linesman saw the hand pass and blew it dead, but no one heard it because the crowd was load with Caggiula's rush. I only know that if they thought they made a mistake, it actually ended up being the correct call.

I’ve found the equivalent of the situation example that you were referring to. This is the Hockey Canada Referee’s Case Book/Rule Combination 2018-2020:

https://cdn.hockeycanada.ca/hockey-...Officiating/Downloads/rulebook_casebook_e.pdf

On page 112, under Situation 5, Rule 9.1 (e), it states that “If an attacking player bats the puck and it is deflected into the goal by any player…or goalkeeper the goal shall NOT be allowed. The key principle of this rule is that no goal can be scored when an attacking player bats the puck unless the puck is subsequently clearly ‘shot’ into the goal.”

“If it (the puck) is batted by an attacking player, and then deflects off his own stick into the net – no goal.”

So, as you said, the mere act of the puck subsequently making contact with the player’s stick or deflecting off it does not negate the hand pass – the player has to make a clear ‘shooting action’ with his stick to render the hand pass complete or void. Obviously this is not an NHL document but I’d be highly surprised if the NHL rules were any different, and it’s talking here about scoring a goal not merely making a pass. But I agree, I think the principles set out here are equally applicable to passes, since the same factors are in play – what is the primary means of motion by which a puck reaches its intended target, be it the net or a teammate? If it’s a hand, then it’s an illegal hand pass, whether or not the puck subsequently touches a stick. It’s only when the player clearly propels the puck intentionally with his stick that it becomes a legal pass, rather than just directing or deflecting it.

You certainly know your rules!

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I'm comfortable with that explanation. It makes a good deal of sense. However there are also hockey journalists out there (and not just Chicago ones!) arguing the alternative - that even just a puck grazing a stick negates a hand pass. I've looked at the NHL rulebook - unless I've missed something it's silent on this point, so it really does become a question of interpretation.

Either way, it certainly looked like a hand pass in real time, so, while if it happened to the Bruins I'd be a little frustrated, I'd understand why the ref blew the play dead, even if it was the wrong call. Did the ref afterwards consider he'd made a mistake in this case? Who knows? There are precedents - refs have admitted mistakes to players and coaches in the past. No-one has refuted what Toews claimed, so I'm willing to take him at his word on this one, even if, as you say, the ref really was correct in the first place.

I also looked at the NHL rule, wondering if it was different from the USA hockey rule that I know. Not surprisingly, it's pretty generic. I understand that the NHL also has a casebook, where different scenarios are used to help with interpreting these broadly worded rules, but it's not available to the general public.

I also believe that the ref told Toews that, especially since Colliton also said that. I also wish the NHL would offer an official explanation, though I'm sure I would just feel like it was them covering for their officials rather than an actual explanation...