Around the NHL: Part XIII – Lamie Benn Edition
- Thread starter Kakko
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Legal play, IMO.
Puck is allowed to be batted by a player with their open hand as long as a teammate doesn't gain possession of the puck either from the puck being batted directly to them, or indirectly off a player/official. Meier bats it, it hits open ice in the middle of a bunch of players, it bounces a few times, then Nyqvist, who was not close to where the puck is batted to, swoops in and picks it up.
In fact, the only Sharks player that was close to where the puck was batted to was Karlsson, and he didn't even make a move to get the puck.
Did the Sharks gain advantage? Yes. Did they gain advantage legally? Yes, IMO.
HOWEVER, that shit should be reviewable. It's OT in the playoffs. You can review for a skate being a millimeter offside, but not something as controversial as this? Bull.
Puck is allowed to be batted by a player with their open hand as long as a teammate doesn't gain possession of the puck either from the puck being batted directly to them, or indirectly off a player/official. Meier bats it, it hits open ice in the middle of a bunch of players, it bounces a few times, then Nyqvist, who was not close to where the puck is batted to, swoops in and picks it up.
In fact, the only Sharks player that was close to where the puck was batted to was Karlsson, and he didn't even make a move to get the puck.
Did the Sharks gain advantage? Yes. Did they gain advantage legally? Yes, IMO.
HOWEVER, that shit should be reviewable. It's OT in the playoffs. You can review for a skate being a millimeter offside, but not something as controversial as this? Bull.
Last edited:
Kaapo Cabana
Next name: Admiral Kakkbar
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Gresch04
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2009
- 2,127
- 1,939
When TWO teams can commiserate over different horrific calls in ONE playoff year you have failed as a league.
Kaapo Cabana
Next name: Admiral Kakkbar
Yeah going by the exact language, it seems like even more of a hand pass.
The ONLY malleable language in that rule is the "in the opinion of the on-ice officials"
was the puck directed by hand? check
did the offending team gain advantage by gaining possession? check
So no I cannot agree with your assessment.
We see hand-passes that are called all the time where a guy is just waiting to touch the puck because he knows a teammate happened to touch it with his hand. Those plays are much less "direct" than this one, yet are still called hand-passes.
It seems our disagreement is with our personal definition of what constitutes "possession" and "advantage" I believe the criteria for both were met. You don't
Last edited:
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Nope. Sharks did indeed get possession and advantage. I don't think it's possible to argue that.
However, Meier batted the puck basically to open ice and not to any player on the Sharks either directly or deflected off a body. That's a legal play, by the rules. Sharks didn't get possession/advantage because of the play. They got it after the play. The Blues had an equal opportunity to get possession as the Sharks did.
Being mad at ref inconsistency is something different.
Tomas Sandstrom 28
Registered User
- Aug 3, 2005
- 669
- 13
Jauffre
Registered Grandmaster
Toronto should review every playoff goal as the team is celebrating. Most goals are fine and won't take more than 30 seconds to conclude they're good goals. In rare cases an extended review would make sure everything's good.
Coaches can still challenge (once or twice per game) if they disagree with the official post-review ruling.
Right now we're reviewing and calling back great playoff goals because some guy who was changing was 2 cm inside the blue-line. But we can't even review things like this? Makes the NHL look like a complete joke. The people saying reviews will slow down the game will quickly change their minds when it happens to their team in a game 7 of the finals.
No matter what it's obvious that something has to be done here. These games are too close and too crucial.
Coaches can still challenge (once or twice per game) if they disagree with the official post-review ruling.
Right now we're reviewing and calling back great playoff goals because some guy who was changing was 2 cm inside the blue-line. But we can't even review things like this? Makes the NHL look like a complete joke. The people saying reviews will slow down the game will quickly change their minds when it happens to their team in a game 7 of the finals.
No matter what it's obvious that something has to be done here. These games are too close and too crucial.
Jackson Ranger
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 2,866
- 232
I think by him "batting" the puck, the puck moved from an area where there were at least two Blues defenders, to an area where there were Shark players. This, in my opinion, created an advantage for the Sharks and the play should have been blown dead.Legal play, IMO.
Puck is allowed to be batted by a player with their open hand as long as a teammate doesn't gain possession of the puck either from the puck being batted directly to them, or indirectly off a player/official. Meier bats it, it hits open ice in the middle of a bunch of players, it bounces a few times, then Nyqvist, who was not close to where the puck is batted to, swoops in and picks it up.
In fact, the only Sharks player that was close to where the puck was batted to was Karlsson, and he didn't even make a move to get the puck.
Did the Sharks gain advantage? Yes. Did they gain advantage legally? Yes, IMO.
HOWEVER, that **** should be reviewable. It's OT in the playoffs. You can review for a skate being a millimeter offside, but not something as controversial as this? Bull.
NYRFAN218
King
But that’s not what the rule says. It says “he has directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage” and it’s pretty indisputable they gained an advantage from batting the puck to open ice.
DutchShamrock
Registered User
The league missed Meirer batting the puck but at least he got credit for the assist. Good to know video review and 4 referees were successfully used for something.
Bob Richards
Mr. Mojo Risin'
Kaapo Cabana
Next name: Admiral Kakkbar
Thats a stretch.
I really don't know how you can come to this conclusion outside of wanting to be a contrarian.
the batting of the puck directly resulted in the sharks gaining possession.
DutchShamrock
Registered User
If a player touches the puck with his hand and the next player touching it is a teammate, its whistled for hand pass. No intent, no discretion, no judgement has ever been used. 1000 times out of 1000 it is called. You can't change interpretations now.
Fast game, chaos, angles... don't care. You can't botch that call in OT of the conference finals. They nail that call in their sleep every single game of the regular season. If the officials are that incompetent, video review needs to be used. Cut if off to the scoring play. Meirer to Nyquist to Karlsson. That needs to be reviewable. Not offsides from 30 seconds prior. The league will review who touched it determine credit, they give the secondary assist because they find that the play has as much value as scoring the goal. It won't kill the flow to look at 3 touches.
Fast game, chaos, angles... don't care. You can't botch that call in OT of the conference finals. They nail that call in their sleep every single game of the regular season. If the officials are that incompetent, video review needs to be used. Cut if off to the scoring play. Meirer to Nyquist to Karlsson. That needs to be reviewable. Not offsides from 30 seconds prior. The league will review who touched it determine credit, they give the secondary assist because they find that the play has as much value as scoring the goal. It won't kill the flow to look at 3 touches.
Definitely textbook definition of a hand pass. Even going by the rule book. Even if you don't think he passed it directly to a teammate you have to think it's advantageous to his team that 'by accident' he moved the puck to the most dangerous part of the ice for his team take advantage of...come on. Either case it doesn't matter since his team took possession of the puck which makes it a hand pass according to the rules.
- Status
