Intent to blow the whistle..

[McBeastMode]

From the NHL rules...

"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."

I have watched Hockey for the past 30 years...Whistle blown..play stops..I have never seen this rule used,
until the last few Oilers games...

The pileup against Vancouver...No whistle..The Ref was busy holding the net on it's moorings...

"The Referee may deem the play to be stopped slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown"

So it is easier for a Ref to wave his arms back and forth ,than to blow a little whistle..

To me..A blown whistle stops play..Intent to blow the whistle....????


This rule needs some clarification...

Click to read more...

 

[Dave]

This thread has been on the main board recently. My idea would be for the ref to have a device that he could use in his hand, maybe like a jeopardy clicker that the contestants use. When the ref decides to blow the play dead, the first thing they do is click the clicker, which will stop the game clock. Then proceed to blow the whistle so the players are alerted that the play is over. All you do, is go upstairs and see where the game clock stopped and see where the play is at when the time stops.

 

[McDNicks17]

I don't think it's that confusing.

It basically just means that the play ends when the ref decides it does rather than the split second later when he blows the whistle.

 

[T-Funk]

It's a good way to allow refs to completely fabricate calls on a whim.

 

[ManofSteel55]

This thread has been on the main board recently. My idea would be for the ref to have a device that he could use in his hand, maybe like a jeopardy clicker that the contestants use. When the ref decides to blow the play dead, the first thing they do is click the clicker, which will stop the game clock. Then proceed to blow the whistle so the players are alerted that the play is over. All you do, is go upstairs and see where the game clock stopped and see where the play is at when the time stops.

We would end up with intent to click the clicker then.

 

[Aerchon]

I've seen this rule used on numerous occasions over the last few years.

Nothing new or controversial about it.

The only thing I don't understand is why they still review the goal if the ref had intent to whistle it down no matter what. I've never seen a goal awarded even if the whistle was blown well after the puck went in.

 

[Slats432]

Gents,

As a referee, I can try to clarify. The play is dead when in the mind of the ref, it is dead. The period of time to gain balance/move whistle to mouth/any other delay as to the actual sounding of the whistle should not have an effect on play.

It is the decision, not the whistle that ends play.

The time in the NHL that it gets most confusion is if the two are at the same time. (Standing still, whistle at mouth), The whistle is blown as the puck goes over the line. Then the determination is if the puck is in before the whistle.

Kind of nebulous I know.

 

[McDraekke]

I've seen this rule used on numerous occasions over the last few years.

Nothing new or controversial about it.

The only thing I don't understand is why they still review the goal if the ref had intent to whistle it down no matter what. I've never seen a goal awarded even if the whistle was blown well after the puck went in.

This times a thousand. I can get behind the idea that the ref was just slow to get the whistle out (takes a bit of time to raise your hand to your mouth). But if they go upstairs for any kind of review, yet still cal it on the decision of the ref, why go upstairs at all?

During that Oiler game, it honestly seemed to me like they wanted the concrete evidence of the whistle sounding before the puck crosses the line, didn't get it, so they said that the ref decided it was dead. Just seems bureaucratic and political... IMO, the ref probably did decide it was dead... but just wanted that extra bit of evidence so that it doesn't look like he's trying to manipulate the game on his own.. but if they are going to have that rule in there, stick with it, and be confident. If you call it dead, it's dead, that's all there is to it. People won't be happy, but it makes more sense than wasting the time of everyone involved and then just saying it anyways....

If that's the case, don't waste everyone's time by going to the war room. With all of the 'let's speed up the game' stuff that's been going on in the last decade or so, how is this allowed?

Honestly.

 

[Vagabond]

It's a good way to allow refs to completely fabricate calls on a whim.

Agreed.

The NHL should not have played with that rule. It was fine the ways its been for as long as my memory goes. If the whistle blows.. intent or not, it blows. Now; it leaves way too much discretion towards the refs. Major corruption can easily ensue as well.

I'm a major hater of this new rule tweak.

 

[McDNicks17]

Agreed.

The NHL should not have played with that rule. It was fine the ways its been for as long as my memory goes. If the whistle blows.. intent or not, it blows. Now; it leaves way too much discretion towards the refs. Major corruption can easily ensue as well.

I'm a major hater of this new rule tweak.

The intent to whistle rule was added because of a play back in 1995.

It isn't a new tweak.

 

[Vagabond]

The intent to whistle rule was added because of a play back in 1995.

It isn't a new tweak.

They sure are using it way the **** more than I've ever seen. TBH, I didn't see them ever use that rule until this season. Many people are talking about it so its not just a couple people 'just' noticing it. The NHL must be trying to enforce it more this season for some strange reason.

I'm still not a fan of it.

 

[McDraekke]

They sure are using it way the **** more than I've ever seen. TBH, I didn't see them ever use that rule until this season. Many people are talking about it so its not just a couple people 'just' noticing it. The NHL must be trying to enforce it more this season for some strange reason.

I'm still not a fan of it.

I just started seeing it last year, I believe... so honestly, I thought it was part of the new CBA... they must have talked about it recently and decided to bring it into action more, though, cause I don't remember seeing it happen prior to the lockout.

 

[dssource]

I've seen this rule played out many times in non-Oiler games as well over the years. It's def not new. The couple times we've seen it lately in the latest Oiler games, it was used properly. Both of those goals should not have counted b/c of this rule. I didn't get excited for either goal b/c i knew they would both be waived off (the one for and the one against).

 

[Oilton]

To me, this rule of intent to blow the whistle is the same as "You should know what I am thinking" It just does not belong in sports!!!

In sports you play till you hear the whistle, not when the ref intents to blow the whistle.

 

[scliff]

When a puck is tipped in with a high stick, people don't argue that the whistle should have to blow before the puck enters the net in order to call the goal off. This really isn't THAT much different.

 

[Oilton]

When a puck is tipped in with a high stick, people don't argue that the whistle should have to blow before the puck enters the net in order to call the goal off. This really isn't THAT much different.

When you review a goal that was tipped with a high stick you can actually see where the stick was when it made contact with the puck.

How can you review when the ref INTENDED on blowing the whistle?