Puzzling challenge by Jared Bednar and co.

[Shark Finn]

Indeed puzzling. The only explanation is that the Avs are clearly tanking.

Sharks should take note.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

I don't think that was a terrible challenge. These are judgement calls, and dubious challenges are successful all the time. As a coach / video analyst you weigh the odds of a succesful challenge against the risk of a goal against in a potential short handed situation.

This was probably a medium risk - high reward kind of decision.

 

[ToDavid]

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

I agree that’s how the rule is written, and personally I think the hand pass rule should be dropped altogether, but I can’t recall the refs ever calling it like that. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a deflection off the hand let go. Granted, my memory is not an ironclad benchmark to go off of.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

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.

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

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.

Edit to clarify: I left out that this is assuming Colorado kills the penalty, which I think they were pretty confident would, and did end up doing.

 

[clmetsfan]

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.

No, they also got assessed a bench minor for the failed challenge.

 

[Profet]

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.

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.

 

[HansonBro]

Is this what we're fighting about today? My god

 

[blundluntman]

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!

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 here

 

[Rodgerwilco]

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.

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.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

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.

 

[Profet]

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.

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.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

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.

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

...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...

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.

 

[TanguaySauce]

It literally took the first replay for me to look at the play and know for sure the goal would stand. Given the game context at the time; down 1, just gave up a PPG, if you lose the challenge, you're going back man down - really puzzling decision by JB and co overall.

 

[NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS]

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.

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.

It's a good challenge for the Aves but maybe not for some other teams. The rulebook isn't the same for all teams. Never has been. Never will be.

 

[Em etah Eh]

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!

 

[Oilslick941611]

Im surprised the refs had the gall to make the call against the Avalanche.

 

[Avsfan1921]

Frustrating game as an Avs fan. Neither team played poorly but there was no fluidity to most of the game and a lot of broken plays. The Avs haven’t had offensive chemistry for a couple games now and you can see their frustration.

The call, I wouldn’t have challenged that but in Bednars defence they recently had a goal against reversed due to a hand pass that was similar in nature so I’d guess that was still fresh in their mind and played a factor. They have a great record on challenges so to me this is no big deal.

In regard to the Avs announcers, I’ve been very vocal about their homerism in the past and that still stands true. However, as a Sportsnet app user not able to pick broadcasts, the vast majority of games are seen from opposition announcers and it open the eyes that all games are called blatantly in one teams favour. We need to realize this and get over it because it will never change. Listening to TSN call every generational shot block or routine save as a Stanley cup clincher gets just as old as Avd announcers incompetence imo.

 

[Muffin]

About the MacKinnon assist, you need to have control of the puck to be considered an own goal. I think you could argue that Lindgren never had control.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

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.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

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.

The way the rule is worded it leaves it open for interpretation. The way NHL works, a very similar play could be ruled the other way next time. I just really don't think making a decision to challenge in that situation with limited time is "puzzling". Feels more like opposing fans trying to dunk on the Avs.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I still don't interpret that to mean that it must be intentional

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.

I just really don't think making a decision to challenge in that situation with limited time is "puzzling".

Aside from the semantics above, the puck didn’t even get to Kreider from Trocheck’s glove. After deflecting off the glove, it then bounced off Trocheck’s pants at a 90 degree angle.

This would have been the first time that a play like this one was ever judged to be a “hand pass”. The chances of that happening are considerably lower than the chances of the Avs just going down the ice and scoring a goal in the next 2 minutes. Taking a penalty in order to attempt this obvious non-starter of a review is the puzzling part.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

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.

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.

 

[BrettHullsToe]

"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.

 

[Three On Zero]

"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.

Because of the bolded portion. The big UNLESS part, the refs have used this rule for closed hands puck movements also.

Where Bednar failed was this was a deflection and not purposely directed at his teammate, it’s no different than a kicking motion. You can deflect but you can’t propel the puck

 

[Brent Burns]

View attachment 843155

Avs PBP call is bonkers fast when opponents score. "Puck intercepted, in alone and......... scores."