Devils Vs MKL- Sun 16 Sept - CC

BostonBart22

Well-Known Member
#41
Yes he knew he had the puck, but didn't know where. If this had fallen through behind him he would be pretty annoyed i'm sure.
This call was incorrect on the day in my opinion.

Other than this everything you said is spot on.

This call is designed to keep the play moving, not to make goalies frantically look for a puck they've just saved "by chance" and don't know where it's gone as it's fallen into their pads.

Youtube link relevant:
MATCH BAN ...all day long, just taking a breather ...lol
 

Devil_Abroad

Well-Known Member
#42
Freezing the puck isn't jumping on it. Are you trying to say that Kileen didn't want the whistle? He did. He knew he had the puck somewhere, as soon as he moved it came free so he could've done that earlier and played it - he had no pressure at all. Did they have to dig the puck out of his pads? No they didnt. Playing dumb isn't an excuse, he knew he had the puck, if he didn't it would've either been a goal or play would've continued around him. IIHF have issued further guidance, and that has been made available to referees. I probably wouldn't of called it, but I completely see why it was called.

'Going to cause problems'? It isn't. As soon as the players and fans who don't know understand the rules properly get used to the change it'll be fine.
So you think a goalie who goes down to save a puck - on his goal line - saves it with his body - has no idea where it is - will then get up to find it and play it? Really?
 

Devil_Abroad

Well-Known Member
#43
Freezing the puck isn't jumping on it. Are you trying to say that Kileen didn't want the whistle? He did. He knew he had the puck somewhere, as soon as he moved it came free so he could've done that earlier and played it - he had no pressure at all. Did they have to dig the puck out of his pads? No they didnt. Playing dumb isn't an excuse, he knew he had the puck, if he didn't it would've either been a goal or play would've continued around him. IIHF have issued further guidance, and that has been made available to referees. I probably wouldn't of called it, but I completely see why it was called.

'Going to cause problems'? It isn't. As soon as the players and fans who don't know understand the rules properly get used to the change it'll be fine.
So you wouldn’t have called it but you can understand why it was called - yet as soon as the players and fans understand the rules ‘properly’ it will be fine? :oops:
 

Devil_Abroad

Well-Known Member
#44
Yes he knew he had the puck, but didn't know where. If this had fallen through behind him he would be pretty annoyed i'm sure.
This call was incorrect on the day in my opinion.

Other than this everything you said is spot on.

This call is designed to keep the play moving, not to make goalies frantically look for a puck they've just saved "by chance" and don't know where it's gone as it's fallen into their pads.

Youtube link relevant:
Exactly. A referee who is behind the goal as Darnell was on this occasion should not be calling a delay of game against a netminder when he can’t see where it is the netminder has it. If he was the other side of the goal (near side) he would have clearly seen that the netminder had saved the puck with his body - not his glove - and therefore would never move in case the puck could drop behind him and into the goal.

Bad call. And if referees are going to interpret the rule in this way then the players are going to be rightly confused and insensed in many games this season.
 
#45
So you wouldn’t have called it but you can understand why it was called - yet as soon as the players and fans understand the rules ‘properly’ it will be fine? :oops:
Yes. There’s always a grey area with rules in hockey and that is personal opinion of the referee or the fan watching. How can you not understand that I can see why it was called but wouldn’t call it myself. Did you not know that not every penalty in hockey is black and white?
 
#46
So you think a goalie who goes down to save a puck - on his goal line - saves it with his body - has no idea where it is - will then get up to find it and play it? Really?
Did you not read the rules you posted earlier?

Yes. If they are not pressured they have to get the puck and play it. Only if the puck is hidden within their pads and the NM has made ample effort to try to play or retrieve the puck will they get away with it. Standing there with no one around pressuring shouting I don’t know where it is isn’t good enough.

I take it you are wildly guessing and assuming he referee is wrong? Having seen the further guidance, he is correct - harsh considering it’s early on. But correct.

But I’m sure IIHF, EIHL and Tom Darnell would be happy to hear Devil_Abroad’s correct take rather than their own rulebook.
 

Devil_Abroad

Well-Known Member
#47
Yes. There’s always a grey area with rules in hockey and that is personal opinion of the referee or the fan watching. How can you not understand that I can see why it was called but wouldn’t call it myself. Did you not know that not every penalty in hockey is black and white?
Of course, especially another new addition which is the ‘late hit’.

However, if you can understand the difference between a netminder having ‘control’ of the puck and therefore in a position to play it and sitting on it having saved it and not knowing where it is? If you can understand that then surely so can the referee?
 

Devil_Abroad

Well-Known Member
#48
Did you not read the rules you posted earlier?

Yes. If they are not pressured they have to get the puck and play it. Only if the puck is hidden within their pads and the NM has made ample effort to try to play or retrieve the puck will they get away with it. Standing there with no one around pressuring shouting I don’t know where it is isn’t good enough.

I take it you are wildly guessing and assuming he referee is wrong? Having seen the further guidance, he is correct - harsh considering it’s early on. But correct.

But I’m sure IIHF, EIHL and Tom Darnell would be happy to hear Devil_Abroad’s correct take rather than their own rulebook.
Yes, I just posted them!

It was hidden.

He didn’t know where.

When he moved it eventually dropped out behind him, towards the goal.

He wasn’t standing. He’d just made a save.

I’m not wildly guessing or assuming the referee was wrong. He was wrong. Would like to hear his comments to the NM as approached him apologetically at the next face off.

I am baffled on how you can now conclude the call was correct yet think it to be harsh? If it’s correct then it’s fair?

And your last statement, though petty, taken together with your comments, the NM’s ironic laughter, the confusion of the players on the ice (including the Devils), and of course the commentators baffled thoughts just goes to show this rule will be troublesome this season.
 
#49
OK @Devil_Abroad you know better than the referee and the IIHF with regards to this rule. :rolleyes:

Why do you quote 'control'? It isn't in the rules so why do you quote it? You're making it up so you can try to feel right. The NM doesn't have to be in control, or sorry 'control', of it, he has to make an attempt to play the puck. He didn't. Are you implying Darnell was apologetic? A lip reader as well as an expert on the rule book!

You wont convince me otherwise. I have been at the EIHA meetings throughout the summer, have read the guidance (unlike you), so why are you intent on trying to convince me I am wrong? I am confident the rule is the right idea and will be implemented correctly rather than looking to blame referees for your lack of understanding.

If this rule will be troublesome this season; how many games thus far has it been troublesome in? And how many times has the penalty been called? We are over a month into the season, I would've expect a few more 'troublesome' incidents to stoke your fears - so how many?
 

Gazza272

Well-Known Member
#50
OK @Devil_Abroad you know better than the referee and the IIHF with regards to this rule. :rolleyes:

Why do you quote 'control'? It isn't in the rules so why do you quote it? You're making it up so you can try to feel right. The NM doesn't have to be in control, or sorry 'control', of it, he has to make an attempt to play the puck. He didn't. Are you implying Darnell was apologetic? A lip reader as well as an expert on the rule book!

there is no way Kileen can attempt to play that puck.

he's tight against his post, his stick is being used to balance himself, he knows the puck has hit him but doesn't know where. He has to feel if he stands up the puck has a chance of trickling behind him.

no doubt in my mind that play should have been whistled by the refs once it had hit him and stopped dead.

If the puck had nestled in his glove, then yes he could have played it, but the way this puck was lodged, made it impossible for him to make a play.
 

Devil_Abroad

Well-Known Member
#51
OK @Devil_Abroad you know better than the referee and the IIHF with regards to this rule. :rolleyes:

Why do you quote 'control'? It isn't in the rules so why do you quote it? You're making it up so you can try to feel right. The NM doesn't have to be in control, or sorry 'control', of it, he has to make an attempt to play the puck. He didn't. Are you implying Darnell was apologetic? A lip reader as well as an expert on the rule book!

You wont convince me otherwise. I have been at the EIHA meetings throughout the summer, have read the guidance (unlike you), so why are you intent on trying to convince me I am wrong? I am confident the rule is the right idea and will be implemented correctly rather than looking to blame referees for your lack of understanding.

If this rule will be troublesome this season; how many games thus far has it been troublesome in? And how many times has the penalty been called? We are over a month into the season, I would've expect a few more 'troublesome' incidents to stoke your fears - so how many?
Sounds like I’m not allowed to have a view that contradicts your view?

Have you been on this forum before under different names?

I’ll leave this with you - ‘the IIHF are looking to release more guidance on this in the future.’
 
Top