Everyone Loves the Big Screen

I know I've been absent. There's been a lot that's happened. Ovechkin getting suspended and skipping the All-Star Game. Another suspension (name escapes me at the moment).

But I saw this video from a jumbotron. For some reason, I always find it funny when people catch themselves on the big screen and start dancing around. I guess I'm used to it since it was part of my job. I mean, I get it. It's exciting. It's fun. It's something that doesn't happen a lot to a lot of people.

What I didn't expect to see was a video of a celebrity getting gitty when she sees herself on the videoboard. FYI: there's no sound in the video.


link to video

That's Rachel McAdams. From Sherlock Holmes, Mean Girls, Wedding in Paris, Wedding Crashers...

It's cute that she got so happy to see herself on the big board. Her eyes literally lit up. And she got all bouncy-bouncy. Just thought I'd share.

PS- That's one ticked off Vancouver fan, eh?

The Force Is Strong With This One

Do or do not, there is no try.

Or, use fishing line like this KHL All-Star.

Should This Be A Penalty Shot?

Is is possible to have a penalty shot called when the puck is not in the crease and player is not on a breakaway? Is it possible to call a penalty shot when there is really no immediate scoring opportunity?

Okay, so here's the play in question:


Link to video

It is very easy to say the Referees made a horrible, horrible mistake. But did they? There was clearly no immediate scoring chance on the play, but there's a little bit more to Rule 63 (Delay of Game). A penalty shot CAN be awarded if there is insufficent time left in regulation to serve a full minor penalty if the net is dislodged by its own player. The rule is in no way tied to an immediate scoring opportunity or the location of the puck. It just has to meet the qualifications for being a minor delay of game penalty AND have less than 2:00 to go in regulation. The net came off with just 1:24 left in the game.

So the time part is fulfilled. But was that a minor penalty for delay of game? That's the other part needed for a penalty shot here.

I don't think so. Let me quote the rule.

63.2:

"A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player who delays the game by deliberately displacing a goal post from its normal position...."

And here's the part about the penalty shot from 63.5:

"If by reason of insufficient time in the regular playing time or by reason of penalties already imposed, the minor penalty assessed to a player for deliberately displacing his own goal post cannot be served in its entirety within the regular playing time of the game or at anytime in overtime, a penalty shot shall be awarded against the offending team."

The key word here (that I intentionally avoided using in my descriptions above the quotes) is deliberately. The time has to be right AND a deliberate displacement.

I really do not see that play as a deliberate displacement of the goal post. He ran into it, but he made an effort to stop. He didn't lift up with his hands or hit it with a great deal of force where it was obvious the net was going off. The right call, in my mind, would have been nothing. Whistle the play dead because the net's loose and faceoff in the Islanders' defensive zone. Yes, he did kinda lift up with his shoulder, but still. That doesn't look like it would have been enough to knock the net off. There's not enough evidence to prove it was a deliberate move in my mind.

I know some people are more spirited on how a this play possibly could have been considered a penalty shot situation saying it is "absurb" or "horrible" and "you should be outraged". The puck wasn't in the crease. There wasn't a breakaway. Even the linesman #76 seems confused about the penalty shot as he appears to be gesturing towards the penalty box because of the call against Steit.

The Referee must have thought the net was intentionally displaced.

Bare with me. Ignore what you just watched and assume that a player did deliberately displace their net, even though the puck wasn't in a scoring opportunity whatsoever, in the final two minutes of play in regulation. Erase that video from your mind for a bit. Assume the net was intentionally displaced by random hockey player in the last two minutes. Assuming that's true, then a penalty shot is the correct thing to have happen.

That being said, again, I don't think that net was deliberately displaced in that above video you can now think about again. But the penalty shot seems a little less absurb in light of Rule 63.5. Still wrong, but more understandable. The Ref got one part right, but seemed to misinterperate the other part.

Just wanted to share that little tidbit in the rules. I know I must appear to be an apologist that sides with the officials a lot, but in general: a deep look at the rules tends to back the officials up. However, other times it leaves me yelling at my computer because the rules were ignored in a crucial way. This call leaves me scratching my head about the word "deliberate", but also opened the door for me to do some educating about penalty shots for anyone who didn't know it's not always about scoring chances and puck position.

More Suspensions to Repeat Offenders

Link to video


Link to video

Jean-Francois Jacques got three games for targetting the head. Brad Marchand got 5 for an illegal clip.

The Jacques video almost seems ho-hum for Shanahan. There's even an audible lip smack after his initial introduction. But the Marchand video goes from quite pleasent (he starts with an unexpected "Hi!"), then digs in with some fangs.

He seems pretty fired up about that clipping. As he should be. My favorite part of the video is showing the buildup which, as mentioned, literally had the same play on with a legal hit.

NHL Rescinds Game Misconduct

Link to video

This happened earlier today in a rematch of last year's Stanley Cup Finals.

Originally, Lucic was ordered off the ice for violating Rule 70, Leaving the Bench (to participate in a fight). After the game, it was rescinded.

Did you count the number of Bruins in the scrum? It was six. That doesn't include Thomas in goal, that's 7. How can one of them NOT be on ice illegally? Actually, it is possible. Fans are crying foul and favoritism towards the Bruins. But there actually is a possibility that everyone out there was legal because of a loophole in the rules.

The NHL issued the following statement:

The Game Misconduct penalty assessed to Boston Bruins forward Milan Lucic during NHL Game #598 this afternoon in Boston has been rescinded, National Hockey League Senior Vice President and Director of Officiating Terry Gregson announced today.

Lucic was assessed a Game Misconduct 3:54 into the first period for violating National Hockey League Rule 70.1 – Leaving the Bench. However, a video review of the incident revealed that Lucic did not leave the bench to join or start an altercation but rather had entered the ice legally over the boards and was about to step back onto the bench through the door when he changed course and joined a scrum.

"The referees reacted to what they saw," Gregson said. "The only player they saw coming from the bench area from either team was Lucic. But with the benefit of replay, we can see that Lucic had previously entered the ice over the boards legally to join the play and actually was contemplating stepping back onto the bench through the door when the altercation ensued.

"It should be further noted that a review of the video confirmed that all players on both teams involved in the altercation had entered the ice legally for the purpose of joining the play. None entered the ice for the purpose of joining or starting an altercation, which is prohibited by Rule 70."

NHL Rule 70.1 – Leaving the Bench reads: "No player may leave the players' or penalty bench at any time during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation."

Then who was not on the ice legally? If Lucic was on the ice legally, than the skater he replaced was on the ice illegally. Right? Again, there's six Bruins in that scrum.



Note: That fifth arrow is pointing to an official's helmet. I know that. But there's still a Bruin there. Look at the skates.

Something doesn't seem right. That's 6 B's.

Lucic was NOT listed as being on the ice according to the official play-by-play. By the official play-by-play, the Bruins on the ice during the time of the fight were Tim Thomas (G), David Krejci, Nathan Horton, Shawn Thornton, Joe Corvo, and Zdeno Chara.

So who was involved in the scrum?

As best I can tell (because I always have problems with buffering game clips for the first 24 hours), the Bruins in the scrum where Lucic, Chara, Thornton, Horton, Corvo and Krejci. That's six. That's too many. Lucic was not on the play-by-play count. So that's clearly an illegal move on his part.

Or is it?

Hockey is played with 5 skaters per side (duh). But don't forget that hockey lines changes are made on the fly. Players can legally leave the bench as long as the player they are replacing is within 5 feet of coming off. Exceptions apply, but that's basically it. It's Rule 74, Too Many Men on the Ice.

So, hypothetically, there could be 10 men on the ice legally if all 5 skaters were coming off in favor of fresh legs. As long as the five coming off were within 5 feet of the bench, then it is not illegal and 10 men can be on the ice.

If a whistle stops play while a change is happening, all players on the ice could be legal if they were in the middle making a line change.

We've seen a similar situation before. Remember Downie from Tampa Bay? He was involved in the fight in New York after Anisimov of the Rangers "shot" at the Lightning tender.

There was a debate in early December as to whether or not he was legally on the ice. Again, Downie was not listed on the play-by-play. I'm not ever sure he even stepped on the ice, though there were moves that made it obvious he was going to get on the ice legally. He was NOT assessed a game misconduct for leaving the bench and was never penalized further for that. He did receive a game misconduct for something else. Rangers coach John Tortorella even said officials told him they missed the call at the time. But Downie was not given a penalty for leaving the bench because the player he was replacing was within five feet. There is somewhat of a difference between the Lucic one and Downie's because that earlier fight took place after a goal. Still, there is possible precedence this season regarding "leaving the bench to participate in an altercation". Didn't see when Lucic entered the ice, but it could be similar to the Downie situation. Sorta.

I don't know what video the NHL saw, but I will say it is entirely possible that Lucic and the skater he was replacing were both on the ice as part of a legal line change which would account for there being more than five skaters on the ice. I do not know what actions have to happen for the change to be reflected in the official play-by-play. I also don't discredit the on-ice officials who issued the game misconduct for illegally entering the ice to join a fight. Lucic may very well have illegally entered the ice. It is entirely possible. Maybe even probable. I am also aware the NHL VP Colin Campbell's son plays for Boston and the chairman of the NHL Board of Governors is Jeremy Jacobs, owner of the Bruins. I know it would be an automatic 10 game suspension plus possible (actually likely) additional penalties for the Boston coach.

But there is a window within the rules that would allow Lucic and 5 additional Bruins to be on the ice, all legally. There is nothing in the rulebook that addresses what to do if a fight breaks out when more than 5 skaters are on the ice legally because of a line change. So to anyone that says it is impossible to have more than 5 skaters in an altercation: that is a false statement. That MAY be what happened in Boston. Again, I remind you that I haven't seen video confirming that is what happened and the video I have posted above has a buffering issue as I write this.

If nothing else, it shows that the rules are fuzzy in the area of legal line changes. Don't get me wrong: it is not right that the Bruins had 6 men on the ice for a fight, even if technically, by rule, they all could be. The rules should be rewritten to prevent this in the future. I would think that if two players are legally on the ice because of the 5-foot rule of substitution and a fight starts, the player who has just entered the ice cannot participate in the altercation.

If there is a whistle to stop play and there are more than five skaters on the ice because of a legal line change, then no player who was not on the ice at the last point when only five skaters were on the ice legally can join in any altercation.

That is just an example off the top of my head that would eliminate this hole in the rulebook. It's a little wordy, but it's a step in the right direction. There is a possibility that a string of line changes means a skater has been on the ice for a few seconds, well after his change, but gets caught up in this rule because there have been at least six men on the ice the whole time since his line change (all legally) because of changes and a whistle blows. So it might need some tinkering.

Maybe a two-second rule.

From the moment your skates touch the ice when you come on for a line change, you cannot participate in a fight for two seconds of the game clock. If you step on and a second later a whistle stops play for a fight, you can't go join.

Actually, I like that rule. Let's see that as a new addition. It would have penalized Lucic if he and the player he was changing with both were on the ice legally and both joined in the fight.

...Now that I'm thinking about it, I really like this change. Reduces the current gray area a lot.