Referees: Rules Question

[Prov1X]

Was at a QMJHL game last night and the following took place, and still thinking the wrong call was made, but I could possibly be wrong (more than likely I am).

Home team is on a penalty kill and get a short handed breakaway, player goes in and shoots, which looked like it was in but referree says no goal. The play continues, and the power play expires, but a new penalty is called on the home team. So during the stoppage, the play is reviewed and it is determined that it was indeed a goal.

So my thought was that the play goes back to the time of the goal, which would put the original penalty back into the box. This is where I disagree with the officials, the second penalty was still awarded, so now the home team was down 2 men. I always was under the impression that because they went back, the second penalty was not assessed because technically it did not happen.

What's the rule? Or everyone's opinion?

Click to read more...

 

[mbhhofr]

Was at a QMJHL game last night and the following took place, and still thinking the wrong call was made, but I could possibly be wrong (more than likely I am).

Home team is on a penalty kill and get a short handed breakaway, player goes in and shoots, which looked like it was in but referree says no goal. The play continues, and the power play expires, but a new penalty is called on the home team. So during the stoppage, the play is reviewed and it is determined that it was indeed a goal.

So my thought was that the play goes back to the time of the goal, which would put the original penalty back into the box. This is where I disagree with the officials, the second penalty was still awarded, so now the home team was down 2 men. I always was under the impression that because they went back, the second penalty was not assessed because technically it did not happen.

What's the rule? Or everyone's opinion?

The situation was handled correctly. Any penalty that is called between the time that the goal is awarded and the actual stopping of play shall still be served.

 

[Prov1X]

The situation was handled correctly. Any penalty that is called between the time that the goal is awarded and the actual stopping of play shall still be served.

Understand I guess, but just seemed wrong as they had to kill the same penalty twice.

 

[Renbarg]

Understand I guess, but just seemed wrong as they had to kill the same penalty twice.

Think about it this way. Say a guy straight up "bertuzzi jumps" another. Does his penalty go away just because the time is being moved back?

 

[cujoflutie]

Look at it this way (I don't have the game sheet so I'm just making up the times)

home team takes a minor penalty at 4:20 set to expire at 6:20
home team scores unnoticed at 5:20
at 6:30 play stops, the goal is awarded, the clock is reset to 5:20

at 5:20, that visiting team still had a minute left on their powerplay. Yes technically they did kill it off in the time which had to be erased but also keep in mind that any goals scored by that visiting team in that period would have been wiped out. So if you cancel the rest of the penalty it is unfair to the visiting team since that is 1 minute of PP time in which they could not possibly score on.

 

[Siamese Dream]

Think about it this way. Say a guy straight up "bertuzzi jumps" another. Does his penalty go away just because the time is being moved back?

That's an entirely different situation because doing something like that wouldn't be merely a minor penalty

 

[Prov1X]

Understand I guess, but just seemed wrong as they had to kill the same penalty twice.

Sorry, I said that wrong, I totally agree that they should have to go back and kill the remaining time of the original penalty, that I agree with. My issue would be with the second penalty, for example, a tripping at the 10:00 minute mark, but because of the allowed goal, time goes back to 11:30. What time does the official time keeper put for the penalty? What would have happened if a goal had of been scored before the review, would both goals have been allowed?

Not trying to argue, just curious. These are very unique situations which don't happen every day!

 

[mbhhofr]

Sorry, I said that wrong, I totally agree that they should have to go back and kill the remaining time of the original penalty, that I agree with. My issue would be with the second penalty, for example, a tripping at the 10:00 minute mark, but because of the allowed goal, time goes back to 11:30. What time does the official time keeper put for the penalty? What would have happened if a goal had of been scored before the review, would both goals have been allowed?

Not trying to argue, just curious. These are very unique situations which don't happen every day!

Timekeeper puts the penalty at 11:30.

If a second goal had been scored before the review, it would not have counted. Everything that happened after the first goal, except for penalties, didn't happen.

It did happen in an NHL game, before video review. No penalties were involved. The referee did not see St. Louis score. The puck went in and out very fast on a hard shot and the play quickly went back up the ice and Boston scored. The referee checked with both Linesmen after St. Louis complained. Both Linesmen had seen the puck enter the net on the St. Louis shot. St. Louis goal, Boston no goal.

 

[keysersoze98]

That's an entirely different situation because doing something like that wouldn't be merely a minor penalty

It's really not different. Say player #10 saw the puck go in and knows it will be called a goal on video review, so he goes up to a player and jumps to hit him. Then, they get up and he trips him. Tackles them when they're getting up. Then slashes them while their down. Then punches them in the chest. So, he has a charging, tripping, slashing, holding, and roughing penalties. They're all minor penalties so they shouldn't be assessed at all?

 

[cptjeff]

The idea is that the player still did something out of line and gets punished, even if they wind back the game. The game is wound back, but the penalty still exists. Rare thing to run into, but it was absolutely the correct call.

Imagine if that wasn't the case- you're a player, you see the puck go in, but play isn't called. You know you won't suffer any consequences for what you do after that moment, so why not rough someone up a bit? Why not take a two hander and break the arm of the opposing team's star player? If you know the clock is going to be rolled back and any penalties are void, that's a license to kill. The point of a penalty is to discourage dangerous behavior regardless of whether that behavior happened during game play or not- you can get penalties while the clock is stopped, too.

 

[Prov1X]

The idea is that the player still did something out of line and gets punished, even if they wind back the game. The game is wound back, but the penalty still exists. Rare thing to run into, but it was absolutely the correct call.

Imagine if that wasn't the case- you're a player, you see the puck go in, but play isn't called. You know you won't suffer any consequences for what you do after that moment, so why not rough someone up a bit? Why not take a two hander and break the arm of the opposing team's star player? If you know the clock is going to be rolled back and any penalties are void, that's a license to kill. The point of a penalty is to discourage dangerous behavior regardless of whether that behavior happened during game play or not- you can get penalties while the clock is stopped, too.

Understand the reasoning, but do you really think that the player thinks in that manner, what is to say the ruling will be overturned? How does he know it will be over turned? He could be still be assessed the penalty, but perhaps giving a misconduct so the team is not short handed. Thankfully it doesn't happen all that often..

 

[keysersoze98]

Related to this post situation: Several years ago, the Pens scored (I cant' remember against who) but the goal was not called on the ice. While play went on, Gonchar pulled down someone on a breakaway, which was obviously a penalty shot.

Once the Pens play was reviewed, it was called a goal but a 2 minute penalty on Gonchar instead of a penalty shot. Without looking up the exact phrasing of the rule, there can not be 2 goals called on the same stoppage of play so a penalty shot can not occur.

 

[Devil Dancer]

So penalties count but nothing else does? That's a terrible system. It should be all or nothing. Either count everything, including goals, penalties and expired time, or don't count anything after the sneaky goal.

 

[keysersoze98]

So penalties count but nothing else does? That's a terrible system. It should be all or nothing. Either count everything, including goals, penalties and expired time, or don't count anything after the sneaky goal.

Disagree. I think they have it right.

 

[FLYLine27*]

So penalties count but nothing else does? That's a terrible system. It should be all or nothing. Either count everything, including goals, penalties and expired time, or don't count anything after the sneaky goal.

Yes. And it is a good system and makes perfect sense. What if a player on the defending team (who just let the goal in that wasn't yet observed by review) noticed it went in, and he knows it will be reviewed in a minute..is he allowed to then go crazy and slash, hook, punch everyone? Because if they penalties wouldnt count then he could do that and get away with it, does that sound like a terrible system?