Refs stopping play when a player is injured question

[tarheelhockey]

This isn't just an NHL rule to allow the play to continue, this is a USA hockey rule too I believe. Back when I was playing hockey as a teenager, I remember 2 instances (video of 1), where a player got injured, was laying on the ice and the ref did not blow the whistle. The play went until the team with the injured player touched the puck. I was on the ice for one of the instances.

Heck, I'll go a step further than that -- about a month ago, my eight year old son was playing a roller hockey game and one of his teammates got injured and was laying at center "ice" (whatever they call it in roller) crying and rolling around. Play went on for a solid 10 seconds because the injury happened during a rush, and the other team had time to work the puck around and score. Finally after the goal the ref allowed the injured kid to get seen to.

Eight year olds in an elementary school league. Same standard applies as what we saw here. This is a basic standard in the hockey world.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Play continued because it's the Penguins and the league is severely biased.

Whereas when Roman Polak hurt his knee and nobody was anywhere near him and the Caps had the puck the play was stopped.

 

[Midnight Judges]

IMO the obvious common sense standard for "serious injury" is: does the player risk further or exacerbated injury if he doesn't receive immediate medical attention?

In this case there was no further risk. His cheek was going to end up just as broken regardless of when the whistle was blown. It wasn't going to get better or worse. Having it evaluated on the ice makes no difference compared to having it evaluated on the bench.

Is that your professional opinion as a medical doctor?

 

[Cherpak]

Play continued because it's the Penguins and the league is severely biased.

Whereas when Roman Polak hurt his knee and nobody was anywhere near him and the Caps had the puck the play was stopped.

Yeah the league is biased towards the Penguins. If that's the case then what's your analysis of when Bonino got hit? And please don't use the lame excuse of severity of injury because at the time of impact neither was relevant.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Play continued because it's the Penguins and the league is severely biased.

Whereas when Roman Polak hurt his knee and nobody was anywhere near him and the Caps had the puck the play was stopped.

Wait so uh... the refs got so confused on CBJ tying goal when the puck hit the inside of the open door, that they thought the Pens had just scored a goal?

Is that why they didn't stop play in an even more obvious situation?

I'll need your expert opinion on this.

 

[TorstenFrings]

I don't know if you saw that YT of Couture getting hit, but he got up immediately and started skating and the ref still blew the whistle.

If you had watched it yourself, you'd have seen that that was, because the Sharks had possesion of the puck.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Play continued because it's the Penguins and the league is severely biased.

Whereas when Roman Polak hurt his knee and nobody was anywhere near him and the Caps had the puck the play was stopped.

And earlier in the game when bonino got hit in the face with a shot? Why didn't they blow that one dead?

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I propose a 'tap out' rule.


When a player 'taps out', the play is whistled down.

But the player must leave the ice and can not return for the rest of the game.

 

[Syrinx]

I propose a 'tap out' rule.


When a player 'taps out', the play is whistled down.

But the player must leave the ice and can not return for the rest of the game.

They can have a safe word that he has to yell. Play stops when a player yells "Oklahoma".

 

[Sidgeni Malkby]

I think it should have been blown dead, maybe not immediately, as it is the playoffs, but after it was clear he was badly hurt.

Not to relate, but in the same game, the puck deflecting back off the open door directly resulted in a goal. That should have been blow down as well.

Sometimes refs mess up more than once. At least it worked out evenly in this case.

 

[Alwalys]

If you had watched it yourself, you'd have seen that that was, because the Sharks had possesion of the puck.

you better actually watch it before commenting. the puck turned over and josi has the puck very, very clearly.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is that your professional opinion as a medical doctor?

It's my common sense opinion based on the knowledge that once a bone is broken, it is in fact broken.

 

[mikeyp24]

Wait so uh... the refs got so confused on CBJ tying goal when the puck hit the inside of the open door, that they thought the Pens had just scored a goal?

Is that why they didn't stop play in an even more obvious situation?

I'll need your expert opinion on this.

They were still confused from kessel horse collaring Jones and pulling him to the ice right before and leading to the 2nd goal and then forgetting to blow it dead when Werenski might have been in danger of losing his eye or vision. Columbus already went through a similar situation this year when Calvert had a extremely bad cut from a shot to the face that was immidietly whistled dead. The puck hit the door sure but unlike my precious 2 examples that happened so fast and was so close to the boards it was likely not seen by anyone as opposed to a player being dragged to the ice.right.next to a ref and a guy in.front of everyone guy his face shattered and laid motionless for a good 3-5 seconds bleeding on the ice before he realized they aren't going to let them help me and scrambled for help trying to stop the blood.

 

[Lyons71]

Pretty much this: Is the player going to die or have a serious injury? If no, then they play till his team has the puck.

 

[mikeyp24]

And earlier in the game when bonino got hit in the face with a shot? Why didn't they blow that one dead?

Because he immediately skated off the ice and although cut wasn't gushing blood. Was also hit more on the side/back of his head/helmet. Werenski dropped laying motionless after a puck went under his visor and gushing. It has to be an obvious serious injury... a guy skating away while waving on a line change is different then a motionless body after being obviously hit in the eye with a puck and bleeding. If you couldn't see the blood.if a ref would have just skated towards him to look they would have seen it.

If the league truly cares about safety and bead injuries this is reckless and disturbing action from the refs. I've seen worse then this in the 2010 cup finals mason Raymond was crunched in the corner.and.broke his back and the refs refused to go check him out and being out a stretcher so his teammates had to do the.most dangerous thing you can do to a person with a spine injury and that's move them. All while the fans boo'd and chanted names. At least that play was blown dead before a goal was scored.

 

[mikeyp24]

Pretty much this: Is the player going to die or have a serious injury? If no, then they play till his team has the puck.

Losing an eye or going blind in that eye is serious. Which is why they blew it dead for many players hit in the face immidietly. I thinknthis same thing happened to Manny malholtra and he did almost go blind permanently.

 

[Lyons71]

Losing an eye or going blind in that eye is serious. Which is why they blew it dead for many players hit in the face immidietly. I thinknthis same thing happened to Manny malholtra and he did almost go blind permanently.

Yeah, i'm guessing the fact that he got up and tried to skate off was why they didn't blow it dead. Usually they do blow it dead for puck faces, and even opposing players often will stop playing. The difference maybe in this one was the fact that it was playoffs.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It's my common sense opinion based on the knowledge that once a bone is broken, it is in fact broken.

If we were talking about a toe or an ankle, I'd probably agree. But in this case it's a guy's head.
There are any number of problems associated with swelling in the head that could arise and may be time-sensitive.

I am not a doctor, so maybe there is danger or maybe there is not - I don't know. But you are apparently not a doctor, yet you seem to think you do know with certainty. I guess that's the difference in our opinions.

The other problem with your stance - and this is a big one - is that some players in the NHL could do something like this on purpose. In your opinion, it should gain them a competitive advantage when they hit someone in the face with the puck. IMO that is just not a proper result of a potentially dirty play.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

They were still confused from kessel horse collaring Jones and pulling him to the ice right before and leading to the 2nd goal and then forgetting to blow it dead when Werenski might have been in danger of losing his eye or vision. Columbus already went through a similar situation this year when Calvert had a extremely bad cut from a shot to the face that was immidietly whistled dead. The puck hit the door sure but unlike my precious 2 examples that happened so fast and was so close to the boards it was likely not seen by anyone as opposed to a player being dragged to the ice.right.next to a ref and a guy in.front of everyone guy his face shattered and laid motionless for a good 3-5 seconds bleeding on the ice before he realized they aren't going to let them help me and scrambled for help trying to stop the blood.

Sorry to be blunt, but your are delusional and exaggerating like hell.

Jones puts his shoulder into Kessel, and Kessel spins around and Jones arm is stuck and they both fall down. It happens dozens of times a game.

You obviously have no clue what horse collaring someone means.

Also, let's not make excuses and pretend CBJ didn't get a massive break on their tying goal.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The other problem with your stance - and this is a big one - is that some players in the NHL could do something like this on purpose. In your opinion, it should gain them a competitive advantage when they hit someone in the face with the puck. IMO that is just not a proper result of a potentially dirty play.

This is a total non-issue and a silly one at that.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Again, amazing how many fans of the game, don't know the rules of the game.

Play shouldn't have been blown dead, it wasn't. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I get it though, you are hurt that you got scored against, well, play better, that won't happen or....get possession, get the whistle, but seriously?

Some of you are acting like this is your first time watching the game...

 

[Hockey Joe]

So face masks can't be worn because they're dangerous except for injured players... because they're safer?

 

[swimmer77]

No problem with the lack of call. Have seen it before where a puck is deflected into a face and there is no stoppage.

 

[Forepar]

As CBJ fan, wish the play had been blown down, based on result of continuing play (a Pens goal). But that's the homer view.

Objectively, by rule, official "MAY" blow it down. So official used discretion as permitted. I'm fine with the call Sunday night.

What I don't quite understand is the difference in the exercise of discretion from one group of officials to another. I am not quibbling about the goal itself. It's done, it was within the officials' judgment to allow play to continue, and CBJ should have played to the whistle if they didn't.

But as one seemingly independent poster noted, 9 out of 10 times the very scenario with Werenski gets blown down. Bonino may or may not be the same, as Bonino didn't go down, waved to come off the ice and immediately exited the ice. On the other hand, had the official blown down the Bonino play, that would have been within the rules and no objection from me. I would have expected the same thing on Werenski - if the official had sensed some level of serious injury (blood) and stopped play, the official would also have made the correct call.

My point is not to reverse or bash the call or bash the Pens. They have played more efficiently and more dangerously (meaning scoring chances) and deserve to be up in the series. Rather than take a position, i am simply questioning how the rule is (and/or should be) applied across the league, not just in this one circumstance.

Some (like me) are just trying to understand the application of the rule - when should the "may" stop play discretion in fact be exercised. Regardless of whether a goal was scored or not.
I get the desire to avoid the "fake" injury argument and thus the leaning toward letting play continue, but that doesn't seem to be the trend for 82 games a year. Is this diving issue a big issue only for the playoffs? Was it simply the injury/blood wasn't readily seen by the official?

Putting a different spin on this, what if the official had used his discretion with Werenski, and blown the play down before the goal was scored-- would that have been a bad call? I would submit no, the rule says MAY and the official would have clearly been within his discretion to do so.

So is the rule a poor rule? Probably not. Leaves some discretion to official in hopes of not creating diving/fake injury as in soccer.
Was the rule poorly applied to this specific fact scenario? Probably not, but a judgment call the other way could also have been supported.
Was the rule applied consistently within this game? Yes.
Was the rule applied consistently with how it was applied throughout the season?
This is where I think there is a legitimate question - why not? Not to say the goal was a bad goal...very simply trying to learn the nuances of some of the discretionary rules, especially how those are applied in the playoffs differently from regular season. We haven't had a bunch of close discretionary calls during playoff hockey in Columbus - we've watched them for other teams, but not with the attention we are paying to the games NOW.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

As CBJ fan, wish the play had been blown down, based on result of continuing play (a Pens goal). But that's the homer view.

Objectively, by rule, official "MAY" blow it down. So official used discretion as permitted. I'm fine with the call Sunday night.

What I don't quite understand is the difference in the exercise of discretion from one group of officials to another. I am not quibbling about the goal itself. It's done, it was within the officials' judgment to allow play to continue, and CBJ should have played to the whistle if they didn't.

But as one seemingly independent poster noted, 9 out of 10 times the very scenario with Werenski gets blown down. Bonino may or may not be the same, as Bonino didn't go down, waved to come off the ice and immediately exited the ice. On the other hand, had the official blown down the Bonino play, that would have been within the rules and no objection from me. I would have expected the same thing on Werenski - if the official had sensed some level of serious injury (blood) and stopped play, the official would also have made the correct call.

My point is not to reverse or bash the call or bash the Pens. They have played more efficiently and more dangerously (meaning scoring chances) and deserve to be up in the series. Rather than take a position, i am simply questioning how the rule is (and/or should be) applied across the league, not just in this one circumstance.

Some (like me) are just trying to understand the application of the rule - when should the "may" stop play discretion in fact be exercised. Regardless of whether a goal was scored or not.
I get the desire to avoid the "fake" injury argument and thus the leaning toward letting play continue, but that doesn't seem to be the trend for 82 games a year. Is this diving issue a big issue only for the playoffs? Was it simply the injury/blood wasn't readily seen by the official?

Putting a different spin on this, what if the official had used his discretion with Werenski, and blown the play down before the goal was scored-- would that have been a bad call? I would submit no, the rule says MAY and the official would have clearly been within his discretion to do so.

So is the rule a poor rule? Probably not. Leaves some discretion to official in hopes of not creating diving/fake injury as in soccer.
Was the rule poorly applied to this specific fact scenario? Probably not, but a judgment call the other way could also have been supported.
Was the rule applied consistently within this game? Yes.
Was the rule applied consistently with how it was applied throughout the season?
This is where I think there is a legitimate question - why not? Not to say the goal was a bad goal...very simply trying to learn the nuances of some of the discretionary rules, especially how those are applied in the playoffs differently from regular season. We haven't had a bunch of close discretionary calls during playoff hockey in Columbus - we've watched them for other teams, but not with the attention we are paying to the games NOW.

The rule is written to give the officials the most leeway possible, no one wants to stop the game if it's a minor injury, just as no one wants to keep the game going if it's a major injury.

The officials get one chance if any to see what actually happened, then determine if they should blow it down immediately or wait for possession.

In this singular case, it could be no referee saw it, so when they saw him down, they are looking for obvious signs, writhing, blood, etc, there was none of that, and...bam, goal was in.

Keep in mind, this is all at full speed, high intensity and the game is still going on around them.

Each situation is different so there is no answer to your questions, it's literally on a case by case basis