A Carolina Hurricanes blog with occasional news about the rest of the NHL.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Rules #17b and #30a not enforced; Referees Angus and McCreary are a joke.

Alternate title: Canes lose in shootout, but gain standings point.

Adding injury to an already bad day for me, the Hurricanes lost their game in Dallas on the shootout.

The Canes did their thing, rallying from two goals down to tie it, and they sent it to the extra frame. I won't give a full recap here, but I will point out that Andrew Hutchinson had an assist two assists. He now has three four points on the season. I am now 37.5% 50% of the way to a free hot dog with cheese. Mmmmmm. That sure would make me feel good right about now.

Once again, the on-ice refs didn't know the rules, and it may have cost the Canes the game. It might should have never gone to shootout in the first place, and even then, the "game winner" might should have been disallowed.

There was something maybe fishy about Mike Modano's "sort of" hat trick. He scored two goals in regulation and he "got" a shootout goal, which was a matter of some debate. However, shootout goals don't count in the stats, so I think it has to go as a hat trick with an asterisk. The matter of debate is that Modano's shot hit Gerber's pad and skimmed along the goal line. The butt end of the Gerber's stick actually nudged it across the line. The rule, which I'm still searching for, should say something to the effect of "once the puck strikes the goal keeper or any part of his equipment and DOES NOT go directly in, the play is over". There is no opportunity for rebounds or playing the puck a second time. Maybe the play should have been whistled dead.

In my research of the NHL rules, I came upon one that was definitely overlooked. And it may have cost the Canes the game.

First, some background information. This is crucial. With :46 remaining in overtime, the Stars were assessed a penalty for too many men on the ice. The Canes had a four-on-three for the remainder of the period, but there was insufficient time for the penalty to be served in its entirety. If you're really sharp, or if you happen to have done some research on this, you'll know that referees Angus and McCreary screwed it up. Carolina should have been awarded a penalty shot rather than a man advantage.

From the NHL rulebook, Rule 17b:
If by reason of insufficient playing time remaining, or by reason of penalties already imposed, a bench minor penalty is imposed for deliberate illegal substitution (too many men on the ice) which cannot be served in its entirety within the legal playing time, or at any time in overtime, a penalty shot shall be awarded against the offending Team.


Got that? If there isn't enough time on the clock to serve the too many men on the ice penalty, there should be a penalty shot.
For the record, this provision also exists for the delay of the game (taking net off moorings variety) penalty.

Why did the refs mess this up? And actually, why didn't Lavi know this and bring it to the ref's attention?

Oh... and here it is. Rule 30a. If any of the referees in the league knew this rule, Marek Malik's jaw dropper the other day, and Mike Modano's "winner" tonight would have been disallowed.

Rule 30a (pertaining to penalty shots) reads, in part:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent's goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal)


When Malik made his fancy between the legs shot, the puck went into reverse briefly. As gorgeous as it was, it should have been wiped off. When Modano's shot was blockered away by Gerber, and the REBOUND was put in by Gerber himself, it should have been wiped off.

You ready for this?

You wanna know who refereed the Rangers/Caps game in which Malik scored that goal? Take a guess...

Angus and McCreary.

Two times in six days they've botched the rules and directly affected the outcome of games. When will the NHL, Bettman and/or the NHL Official's Association hold them accountable?

4 comments:

Bill Purdy said...

My god, dude, you are completely insane.

But I love it.

Maybe the NHL will take notice and move you to Toronto to review video replays for them. The league would be better off with someone who, you know, took the time to read the rulebook (and we'd all be better off if that someone was a Canes fan) before they enforced the rules.

greatwhitebear said...

Mike, you are 100% correct about the penalty shot that should have been awarded in overtime.

However, wrong about Modano's goal. The fact that the shot glanced of Gerber, went behind him and slid along the goal line means that at no time did the puck reverse direction, which is the definition of a rebound. You'll never get that call. At least, no one in my 45 year memory ever has.

But thats a great heads up on the delay of game rule!

d-lee said...

Okay, maybe there was no techical "rebound", but I always thought the interpretation of Penalty Shot/Shootout rules was that once the keeper changes the direction of it, the play is over. This was not a case of the puck glancing off his blocker or something. The puck hit Gerber's padding, took a right turn and would not have gone in on its own power. During live game action, none of this matters, but on a penalty shot/shootout it does.

Oh.... and as a point of clarification, my name isn't Mike.

tj said...

Nice blog and nice catch on the bench minor rule. I had no idea until I read your post. I think rule 30a should be clearer. I blogged about that myself here.

disclaimer

Red And Black Hockey is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Carolina Hurricanes Hockey Club, the National Hockey League or any of its other member clubs. The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of RBH. Any comments made are the opinion of the commenter, and not necessarily that of RBH.
Whenever possible, RBH uses its own photography. Any incidental use of copyrighted material including photography, logos or other brand markings will not interfere with the owner's profits.