Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Your Montreal Canadiens @ Ottawa Senators | November 20th | 7:30pm Est


Bourne

Recommended Posts

Hey guys I just though I'd share this.. Turns out that Mr. Hockey himself Dean Brown from Sportsnet East was taking us for a LOOOOONG ride.

"When a referee signals that he is about to penalize a player, but will not stop play until the team to be penalized touches the puck." It doesn't say anything about actual puck possession. That no-goal by VanMassenhoven IS correct.

Source: http://www.icehockeyrules.8m.com/offsigs/delayed.html

Yup.....it's breaking up the play the other team had in progress at the time of the infraction ..... I don't know where this "possession" thing all started. :rolleyes: On Sportsnet, Gary Galley was having a myocardial infarction over the "early whistle" --- he is such a sad homer (suits he Sens though, I suppose :P ).

The original intent of the rule was not to "penalize" the team earning the PP; they are allowed to continue with the "in their favour" play until it is broken up -- the assessment of the penalty is simply delayed until the direct play towards the opposition's goal is stalled or otherwise intercepted. The intent is best demonstrated in the instance where an opposing team player gains a clear breakaway. If I am on the other team, at the other end of the rink, and there is a teammate of the guy on the breakaway standing beside me, well, I would just yell to the ref to gain his attention and then break my stick over the player's head -- end of breakaway, because a penalty has to be called. ;)

The centred puck clearly was not intended for Volchenkov (I am not sure who it was intended for, it was kinda just thrown in front of the net, but the only reason it went to Volchenkov was because Bouillon sent it there). Bouillon took a good swipe at the puck intending to clear the puck well away from the front of the net. Not surprisingly, the way the Habs have been playing of late, he "heeled it" and sent it straight to Volchenkov. But Bouillon had broken up the progressive play of the Sens, so that is the end of the delay of the penalty.

Put another way, if Bouillon's break-up of the play had soared past Volchenkov down the ice and into the empty Sens net would that maybe be a goal for the Habs? The Habs never had "possession", right? Gary Galley would have been eating his shorts (again) then. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is when the referee determines the penalized team has gained control of the puck, not possession, from my understanding. The difference is, possession implies that they own the puck uncontested. Controlling the puck, simply means that you have influenced the play of the puck. By controlling the direction of the puck, even though he barely did so, the call falls under the discretion of the referee, and the slight contact was enough for him to blow the whistle.
Yes, correct. Bouillon clearly redirected the puck from the Sens' intent. Put another way, he clearly broke up their control of the puck, thereby exhibiting 'control'. It's a separate matter that the puck just happened to go straight to Volchenkov, from Bouillon. The original pass could not have been intended for Volchenkov based on the angles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put another way, if Bouillon's break-up of the play had soared past Volchenkov down the ice and into the empty Sens net would that maybe be a goal for the Habs? The Habs never had "possession", right? Gary Galley would have been eating his shorts (again) then. :lol:

That would be the best reason for blowing the whistle so quickly in this situation. Off topic, I still want to see what happens if a player controls the puck in front of his empty net and the puck ends up in the net because of a check. :P

But if you take the play under discussion and put it in front of Ottawa's net, it is immediately the correct call. No question. So bring it back to our zone and it should be the same call that was made. We got lucky that Bouillon got a piece of the puck, but we did not get lucky that the ref blew the whistle. He did the only thing he could do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup.....it's breaking up the play the other team had in progress at the time of the infraction ..... I don't know where this "possession" thing all started. :rolleyes: On Sportsnet, Gary Galley was having a myocardial infarction over the "early whistle" --- he is such a sad homer (suits he Sens though, I suppose :P ).

The original intent of the rule was not to "penalize" the team earning the PP; they are allowed to continue with the "in their favour" play until it is broken up -- the assessment of the penalty is simply delayed until the direct play towards the opposition's goal is stalled or otherwise intercepted. The intent is best demonstrated in the instance where an opposing team player gains a clear breakaway. If I am on the other team, at the other end of the rink, and there is a teammate of the guy on the breakaway standing beside me, well, I would just yell to the ref to gain his attention and then break my stick over the player's head -- end of breakaway, because a penalty has to be called. ;)

The centred puck clearly was not intended for Volchenkov (I am not sure who it was intended for, it was kinda just thrown in front of the net, but the only reason it went to Volchenkov was because Bouillon sent it there). Bouillon took a good swipe at the puck intending to clear the puck well away from the front of the net. Not surprisingly, the way the Habs have been playing of late, he "heeled it" and sent it straight to Volchenkov. But Bouillon had broken up the progressive play of the Sens, so that is the end of the delay of the penalty.

Put another way, if Bouillon's break-up of the play had soared past Volchenkov down the ice and into the empty Sens net would that maybe be a goal for the Habs? The Habs never had "possession", right? Gary Galley would have been eating his shorts (again) then. :lol:

great argument - but its still a fine line. ref could have called it either way and justified it with an interpretation of the rule book. if that had been a Habs game tying goal disallowed- these posts would look a whole lot different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great argument - but its still a fine line. ref could have called it either way and justified it with an interpretation of the rule book. if that had been a Habs game tying goal disallowed- these posts would look a whole lot different.

If the situation had been reversed, I would most likely be arguing that the pass was originally intended to go to Volchenkov (right player?), so the touch didn't count as control, but it wouldn't take long before I would be proven wrong and have to accept the call. Though I still wouldn't like it.

The point is kind of moot, because if the situation had been reversed, we wouldn't have put the puck in the net anyway with the way things have been going. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the situation had been reversed, I would most likely be arguing that the pass was originally intended to go to Volchenkov (right player?), so the touch didn't count as control, but it wouldn't take long before I would be proven wrong and have to accept the call. Though I still wouldn't like it.

The point is kind of moot, because if the situation had been reversed, we wouldn't have put the puck in the net anyway with the way things have been going. :P

Yes, that is the crux of this instance .... and I am certain that the "pass" was not originally heading to Volchenkov; Bouillon re-directed it at least 45 degrees, and right onto Volchenkov's stick; not sure where the puck was going if Bouillon had not intercepted the "throw in front" -- it may very well have slid all the over to boards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same thing with me... I don't think I've EVER seen someone who HAD to have control of the puck, 90% of the time it's just when someones touches the puck the play is called dead.

hmmmm i've seen both. i've seen players touch the puck without having control and play continuing until someone had control of it (meaning had touched it for longer than a tip or a deflection). it all comes down to any given ref's interpretation of the rules.

the goal/nongoal aside, i only caught express and thought we looked pretty decent. how did the habs go from holding the sens to 4 shots in the first to being almost run out of the building by the third? in the clips that i saw it seemed the guys were hungry for a win...so what's still dogging our offense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T'was a fun game to be at! I was falling asleep in the 2nd period just cause I was up at 5am that day, and there was like, no action on the ice. By mid-3rd I looked up at the scoreboard and it said we had 11 shots..then the Habs finally started skating and the rest is history!! It was my girlfriend's birthday and first NHL game, so we were happy that we had such an exciting ending to the game.

Hab fans were soooo loud in the arena, easily overpowering the Sens fans there. The Ole chants in the hallway were awesome afterwards - I just hope I have my voice back in time for tomorrow night!!

Go Habs Go!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T'was a fun game to be at! I was falling asleep in the 2nd period just cause I was up at 5am that day, and there was like, no action on the ice. By mid-3rd I looked up at the scoreboard and it said we had 11 shots..then the Habs finally started skating and the rest is history!! It was my girlfriend's birthday and first NHL game, so we were happy that we had such an exciting ending to the game.

Hab fans were soooo loud in the arena, easily overpowering the Sens fans there. The Ole chants in the hallway were awesome afterwards - I just hope I have my voice back in time for tomorrow night!!

Go Habs Go!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup.....it's breaking up the play the other team had in progress at the time of the infraction ..... I don't know where this "possession" thing all started. :rolleyes: On Sportsnet, Gary Galley was having a myocardial infarction over the "early whistle" --- he is such a sad homer (suits he Sens though, I suppose :P ).

The original intent of the rule was not to "penalize" the team earning the PP; they are allowed to continue with the "in their favour" play until it is broken up -- the assessment of the penalty is simply delayed until the direct play towards the opposition's goal is stalled or otherwise intercepted. The intent is best demonstrated in the instance where an opposing team player gains a clear breakaway. If I am on the other team, at the other end of the rink, and there is a teammate of the guy on the breakaway standing beside me, well, I would just yell to the ref to gain his attention and then break my stick over the player's head -- end of breakaway, because a penalty has to be called. ;)

The centred puck clearly was not intended for Volchenkov (I am not sure who it was intended for, it was kinda just thrown in front of the net, but the only reason it went to Volchenkov was because Bouillon sent it there). Bouillon took a good swipe at the puck intending to clear the puck well away from the front of the net. Not surprisingly, the way the Habs have been playing of late, he "heeled it" and sent it straight to Volchenkov. But Bouillon had broken up the progressive play of the Sens, so that is the end of the delay of the penalty.

Put another way, if Bouillon's break-up of the play had soared past Volchenkov down the ice and into the empty Sens net would that maybe be a goal for the Habs? The Habs never had "possession", right? Gary Galley would have been eating his shorts (again) then. :lol:

Excellent points all around!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T'was a fun game to be at! I was falling asleep in the 2nd period just cause I was up at 5am that day, and there was like, no action on the ice. By mid-3rd I looked up at the scoreboard and it said we had 11 shots..then the Habs finally started skating and the rest is history!! It was my girlfriend's birthday and first NHL game, so we were happy that we had such an exciting ending to the game.

Hab fans were soooo loud in the arena, easily overpowering the Sens fans there. The Ole chants in the hallway were awesome afterwards - I just hope I have my voice back in time for tomorrow night!!

Go Habs Go!!

I was watching the camera scanning the crowd during many periods of the game and only for the Sens logo at Centre ice, you would think that the game was in Montreal. It was awesome to see. Todays newspaper had the crowd at 20 thousand plus. Since when do the Sens break the bank like that. :lol: Hab fans are totally awesome to see in these arena's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reference to an earlier post about the lucky breaks we got because of missed shots by the Sens, I would also say the Sens got some lucky breaks caused by the ice(which was terrible, a disgrace in this day and age). So many rushes were runied by the condition of the ice, it caused bad passes and bounces all night long. I know it's a what if situation but what if all those passes connected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup.....it's breaking up the play the other team had in progress at the time of the infraction ..... I don't know where this "possession" thing all started. :rolleyes: On Sportsnet, Gary Galley was having a myocardial infarction over the "early whistle" --- he is such a sad homer (suits he Sens though, I suppose :P ).
the thing I was trying to explain was that there is a difference between 'touching', 'controlling', and even 'possessing' the puck... that touching it is not enough -- unless it demonstrates control -- but some took that to mean I thought the standard was possession of the puck, which is not necessary...

I don't know what exactly the Sens broadcasters were arguing, but like I stated, their reading of the Rule, that simply 'touching' the puck is not enough to stop the play is correct (unless that touching demonstrates control)... if they were arguing that it took "possession & control", then they would be wrong as well...

Put another way, if Bouillon's break-up of the play had soared past Volchenkov down the ice and into the empty Sens net would that maybe be a goal for the Habs? The Habs never had "possession", right? Gary Galley would have been eating his shorts (again) then. :lol:
I hate to bring this up since some people here apparently don't like it when you try to explain things to them but... if the puck goes into a team's own goal when they're on a delayed penalty call -- even if their goalie is still in the net -- it is no goal if it hits a defending player regardless of any 'control' issue, e.g. if the Sens had fired the puck into the slot hard and it simply hit a Hab's leg before going into their own net...

the goal would be disallowed, not because the Habs had 'control' when it hit one of them, but because it is spelled out in a specific Rule:

78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:

...

(xi) During the delayed calling of a penalty, the offending team cannot score unless the non-offending team shoots the puck into their own net. This shall mean that a deflection off an offending player or goalkeeper, or any physical action by an offending player that may cause the puck to enter the non-offending team’s goal, shall not be considered a legal goal. Play shall be stopped before the puck enters the net (whenever possible) and the signaled penalty assessed to the offending team.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. if the puck goes into a team's own goal when they're on a delayed penalty call -- even if their goalie is still in the net -- it is no goal if it hits a defending player regardless of any 'control' issue, e.g. if the Sens had fired the puck into the slot hard and it simply hit a Hab's leg before going into their own net...

the goal would be disallowed, not because the Habs had 'control' when it hit one of them, but because it is spelled out in a specific Rule:

78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:

...

(xi) During the delayed calling of a penalty, the offending team cannot score unless the non-offending team shoots the puck into their own net. This shall mean that a deflection off an offending player or goalkeeper, or any physical action by an offending player that may cause the puck to enter the non-offending team’s goal, shall not be considered a legal goal. Play shall be stopped before the puck enters the net (whenever possible) and the signaled penalty assessed to the offending team.

...

Thanks, Wayne. That makes sense -- sad state of affairs (to some extent) that they have to "except for" through all the rules because things get so complicated. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...