Jack Johnson

[oilers9799]

I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, but he played unreal today. It seemed like he never came off the ice, drew that penalty from Letang (you could see him rubbing his face trying to draw more blood too). BTW why wasen't that a 4 minute penalty? As a Canadian i was worried, they were gonna be down for 4 minutes in OT. Also scored two goals in the shootout. This kid is going to be a force.

Click to read more...

 

[crashlanding]

BTW why wasen't that a 4 minute penalty? As a Canadian i was worried, they were gonna be down for 4 minutes in OT.

It's because the rules change when you're in overtime I suppose. There isn't any other explanation.

 

[oilers9799]

It's because the rules change when you're in overtime I suppose. There isn't any other explanation.

Yea its weird, even as a canadian fan that seemed kinda iffy.

 

[CapsWolverinesUSA]

The strange thing about it was that the TSN announcers were talking about how Johnson was begging for a major, when it was quite obvious he was asking why in the heck it wasn't a double minor, since it drew blood.

And yes, Jack played a great game. Plus, he was a stud in the shootout, staring down elimination twice and scoring both times.

 

[Sideline]

It's because the rules change when you're in overtime I suppose. There isn't any other explanation.

IIHF rules don't have the automatic double minor for drawing blood.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

IIHF rules don't have the automatic double minor for drawing blood.

Ahhhhh. Did TSN mention that?

I don't remember them saying that.

 

[LeafDangler]

In IIHF rules a penalty which results in an injury can become a 5 minute major. Thats why TSN said Johnson was asking the ref for one. He had his hand up asking for 5 minutes.

 

[Bill McNeal]

From the IIHF site

530 - High Sticking

a) A player who carries or holds his stick or any part of it above the height of his shoulders that makes contact with an opponent shall be assessed, at the discretion of the Referee, a:
-->Minor penalty (2')
or
-->Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct (5'+GM)
or
-->Match penalty (MP)

b) A player who carries or holds his stick or any part of it above the height of his shoulders that makes contact with an opponent and causes an injury with his stick or any part of it to an opponent shall be assessed, at the discretion of the Referee, a:
-->Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct (5'+GM)
or
-->Match penalty (MP)

c) However, if the high sticking action that caused the injury was judged accidental, the offending player shall be assessed a:
-->Double Minor penalty (2'+2')

I highlighted the seemingly relevant portions. Now, it was clearly accidental, so at worst it should have been 4 minutes. Where it gets hazy is in part b), where it does not define what exactly constitutes an injury and seemingly leaves that up to the discretion of the ref.

If that play had happened in regulation, we probably would have seen a double-minor called. I get the feeling the ref was not willing to give one team such an advantage in OT. I think it's a case of following the letter of the law but not the spirit.

 

[OntOilFan]

Yes, Jack Johnson is good.

 

[bling]

From the IIHF site

530 - High Sticking

a) A player who carries or holds his stick or any part of it above the height of his shoulders that makes contact with an opponent shall be assessed, at the discretion of the Referee, a:
-->Minor penalty (2')
or
-->Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct (5'+GM)
or
-->Match penalty (MP)

b) A player who carries or holds his stick or any part of it above the height of his shoulders that makes contact with an opponent and causes an injury with his stick or any part of it to an opponent shall be assessed, at the discretion of the Referee, a:
-->Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct (5'+GM)
or
-->Match penalty (MP)

c) However, if the high sticking action that caused the injury was judged accidental, the offending player shall be assessed a:
-->Double Minor penalty (2'+2')

I highlighted the seemingly relevant portions. Now, it was clearly accidental, so at worst it should have been 4 minutes. Where it gets hazy is in part b), where it does not define what exactly constitutes an injury and seemingly leaves that up to the discretion of the ref.

If that play had happened in regulation, we probably would have seen a double-minor called. I get the feeling the ref was not willing to give one team such an advantage in OT. I think it's a case of following the letter of the law but not the spirit.

You watch enough hockey and you know damn well that it is almost automatic that at least a 4 minute penalty is called when blood is drawn. Yes I agree that the ref weenied out on the call because it was in OT. Just because the ref was gutless does not make it right.

 

[crashlanding]

Where it gets hazy is in part b), where it does not define what exactly constitutes an injury and seemingly leaves that up to the discretion of the ref.

The only discretion the ref has in part b) is whether to give a 5 and game misconduct or a match penalty. It has nothing to do with c).

 

[Bill McNeal]

The only discretion the ref has in part b) is whether to give a 5 and game misconduct or a match penalty. It has nothing to do with c).

Using the word "however" to connect the two sections would seem to indicate that they are very much related. Rule b applies if the player is injured, unless the ref deems it accidental, and then rule c applies.

And considering there is no definition of what an injury is, that would be at the ref's discretion considering it's not written.

 

[CapsWolverinesUSA]

It's sort of pointless to parse words and engage in shady statutory interpretation of IIHF rules. Basically, there is a clear policy, but the ref is protected by discretion. In today's game, the ref elected to ignore traditional practice because of the timing of the play. He neither broke rules, nor followed standard operating procedures. Some will think that is a fair thing to do. Others won't.

 

[Bill McNeal]

It's sort of pointless to parse words and engage in shady statutory interpretation of IIHF rules. Basically, there is a clear policy, but the ref is protected by discretion. In today's game, the ref elected to ignore traditional practice because of the timing of the play. He neither broke rules, nor followed standard operating procedures. Some will think that is a fair thing to do. Others won't.

Exactly.

 

[bling]

Exactly.

Spoken by a follower of the team that benifitted from a poor call. If it was the other way around you Canadian fans would be screaming and ranting all over this board.

Whatever spin you want to put on this, it was a poor call by the ref at a definitive time in a very important game.

 

[Bill McNeal]

Spoken by a follower of the team that benifitted from a poor call. If it was the other way around you Canadian fans would be screaming and ranting all over this board.

Whatever spin you want to put on this, it was a poor call by the ref at a definitive time in a very important game.

Jesus Christ, get your panties out of a knot.

Please indicate in any of my posts on the subject where I said it was the right call. Somebody asks a question, I provide the written text of the IIHF's rule, and try to figure out what the ref was thinking. End of story.

Whatever else you see is because you're still crying bloody murder about a botched call.

 

[CapsWolverinesUSA]

Spoken by a follower of the team that benifitted from a poor call. If it was the other way around you Canadian fans would be screaming and ranting all over this board.

Whatever spin you want to put on this, it was a poor call by the ref at a definitive time in a very important game.

He was just agreeing with my comment. And I'm red white and blue through and through. So take that for what it's worth.

It's not like the ref made an unprecedented move. You see the rules change in overtime all the time. And as I said, some people like that and some don't. Yes, it sucks that we got hurt by the refs fudging of the rules. Yes, I agree that Canada would be in an uproar if it happened the other way and then they lost. But I'd be saying the same thing to them in that case: The rules are intentionally 'loose'. If the IIHF wanted to make the rules explicit, they could have. But they didn't. And they've kept them fudge-able for 3 decades even though this is hardly the first time something like this has happened.

 

[bling]

He was just agreeing with my comment. And I'm red white and blue through and through. So take that for what it's worth.

It's not like the ref made an unprecedented move. You see the rules change in overtime all the time. And as I said, some people like that and some don't. Yes, it sucks that we got hurt by the refs fudging of the rules. Yes, I agree that Canada would be in an uproar if it happened the other way and then they lost. But I'd be saying the same thing to them in that case: The rules are intentionally 'loose'. If the IIHF wanted to make the rules explicit, they could have. But they didn't. And they've kept them fudge-able for 3 decades even though this is hardly the first time something like this has happened.

Yes I agree with your assessment of the IIHF's rules stance. And, yes, I know he was agreeing with your make-nice statement.

I guess I am just tired of USA hockey fans lack of passion in bending over backwards to not anger or upset the Canadian fans. It is as if we expect to get beat everytime and accept it way too passively. Team USA was cheated today and I am not going to passively accept that and pretend like it is okay, because it is not.

 

[bling]

Jesus Christ, get your panties out of a knot.

Please indicate in any of my posts on the subject where I said it was the right call. Somebody asks a question, I provide the written text of the IIHF's rule, and try to figure out what the ref was thinking. End of story.

Whatever else you see is because you're still crying bloody murder about a botched call.

Hmm, much like you yourself would be doing if the tables were turned..OMG! I am acting like a hockey fan!

 

[nags]

Yes I agree with your assessment of the IIHF's rules stance. And, yes, I know he was agreeing with your make-nice statement.

I guess I am just tired of USA hockey fans lack of passion in bending over backwards to not anger or upset the Canadian fans. It is as if we expect to get beat everytime and accept it way too passively. Team USA was cheated today and I am not going to passively accept that and pretend like it is okay, because it is not.

Your team lost, get over it. You didn't have Toews on your side which says it all. Just be thankful Crosby, Brule and Staal weren't available.

 

[allin4466]

If you are going to ***** and moan about the only assessing a two minute penalty on the letang highstick, you need to question only assessing a two minute penalty on whoever it was that elbowed Downie in the head.

540 – CHECKING TO THE HEAD AND NECK AREA.
a) A player who directs a check or blow, with any part of his body, to the head and
neck area of an opposing player or â€drives†or â€forces†the head of an opposing
player into the protective glass on boards, shall be assessed, at the discretion of
the Referee, a:
➤ Minor penalty + Automatic Misconduct penalty (2’+10’)
or
➤ Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct penalty (5’+GM)
or
➤ Match Penalty (MP)
b) A player who injures an opponent as a result of checking to the head and neck
area shall be assessed a
➤ Match Penalty (MP)

Downie was injured, you can't argue he wasn't as it was why the whistle was blown when Canada had the puck. So if you are going to argue that the referee should have given Letang a 4 or 5 when the highstick wasnt as malicious(he was trying to avoid the goalie stick, and his stick hit johnson in the lips, where as whoever it was that hit Downie(Geoffrion?) got away witha 2 minute minor for elbowing him directly in the grill. Refs are allowed to use their discretion, and he did in both situations. It may not have made it to OT if Canada gets a 5 minute powerplay.

Both subjective calls, both blown, get over it.

 

[bling]

If you are going to ***** and moan about the only assessing a two minute penalty on the letang highstick, you need to question only assessing a two minute penalty on whoever it was that elbowed Downie in the head.



Downie was injured, you can't argue he wasn't as it was why the whistle was blown when Canada had the puck. So if you are going to argue that the referee should have given Letang a 4 or 5 when the highstick wasnt as malicious(he was trying to avoid the goalie stick, and his stick hit johnson in the lips, where as whoever it was that hit Downie(Geoffrion?) got away witha 2 minute minor for elbowing him directly in the grill. Refs are allowed to use their discretion, and he did in both situations. It may not have made it to OT if Canada gets a 5 minute powerplay.

Both subjective calls, both blown, get over it.

Yes I saw how very seriously injured Downie was. As soon as he got the call he jumped right up with a smirk on his face and prodeeded to go to work on the Power play.

The one and only for certain immediate indication of injury is the drawing of blood and that was present in the injury to Johnson and not in the supposed injury to Downie.

 

[allin4466]

He went directly to the bench and got looked at. he probably sat out more time than JJ did after he received a shave

 

[thenextone]

He is obviously a very talented player but it makes you wonder what's going on in his head if his NHL team traded him away.

He's a franchise player (moreso than Gleason will ever be at this point) and refused to join a teams Stanley Cup run in a year everyone knew they were favourites.

He will be worth the wait for the Kings but hopefully he's as hungry to win a Cup as he is to win the NCAA title.

 

[Panopticon]

c) However, if the high sticking action that caused the injury was judged accidental, the offending player shall be assessed a:
-->Double Minor penalty (2'+2')

OT: This is why I think Lahti's 5+20 in the Fin-USA game was harsh. There's no way that wasn't an accident.

Although I admit that it wouldn't have made much difference since there was only 3 minutes left, but just made the ref seem more incompetent and gave another reason/excuse to complain.

Or does accidental mean more like an opponent skating right into your stick, while you don't even move the stick?


On Johnson: Like Erik, I think Jack really improved his game in the later games and I'm beginning to see why he was such a high pick. He still made some stupid decisions, but not as stupid and not as much as in the earlier games.