Brent Seabrook penalty

[Breezer12]

Last night Seabrook received a penalty for closing his hand on the puck. The play looked a bit comical, he sat on the ice for quite a bit while the puck was under him and players kept poking for it. Finally he pushed the puck away with his hand and got called for it. I'm not an expert on the rules so I'd like to ask you if that was a good call. The Blackhawks were outraged by the call, Seabrook especially.

If someone has a gif or a video to link, great.

Click to read more...

 

[Ryp37]

The Blackhawks should read the new rule book

- Anytime a player places his hand over the puck while it is on the ice in order to conceal if from or prevent an opponent from playing the puck, a minor penalty shall be assessed for "closing his hand on the puck."

 

[thesaadfather]

 

[CanadienShark]

If the ref could see it, I guess that's fine, but it looked like the puck was under Seabrook. Should have been called in that case.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Oof, I don't like that call. Technically he did close his hand on it rather than "scooping" it which would be fully legal, but under those circumstances I'm not sure what the ref was expecting him to do.

Of course the X-factor is that the ref was probably saying something to him that we can't hear. So there may be a little more to the story than we know.

 

[thesaadfather]

The Blackhawks should read the new rule book

- Anytime a player places his hand over the puck while it is on the ice in order to conceal if from or prevent an opponent from playing the puck, a minor penalty shall be assessed for "closing his hand on the puck."

Thing is, he wasn't closing his hand on it to prevent anyone from playing it. Quite the opposite, in fact. The puck was stuck under him, and he was forced to dig out with his hand while being hacked and whacked.

Honestly, I hate being that guy, but that's all on the official. If he would just blow that play dead after Seabrook was on the ground and the puck was out of sight for a good ten seconds, there's no problem.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

The Blackhawks should read the new rule book

- Anytime a player places his hand over the puck while it is on the ice in order to conceal if from or prevent an opponent from playing the puck, a minor penalty shall be assessed for "closing his hand on the puck."

From the rulebook:

85.3 Puck Out of Sight - Should a scramble take place or a player
accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sight of the
Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play. The
puck shall then be faced-off at the nearest face-off spot in the zone
where the play was stopped unless otherwise provided for in the rules.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2014-2015-rulebook.pdf

 

[Space Herpe]

Thing is, he wasn't closing his hand on it to prevent anyone from playing it. Quite the opposite, in fact. The puck was stuck under him, and he was forced to dig out with his hand while being hacked and whacked.

Honestly, I hate being that guy, but that's all on the official. If he would just blow that play dead after Seabrook was on the ground and the puck was out of sight for a good ten seconds, there's no problem.

I agree. It didn't look as if Seabrook was attempting to conceal the puck - but, he could've gotten up off of his butt a tad bit quicker.

 

[LarKing]

Terrible call. Looks like he was just trying to get the puck out of there...

 

[thesaadfather]

I agree. It didn't look as if Seabrook was attempting to conceal the puck - but, he could've gotten up off of his butt a tad bit quicker.

Maybe it was stuck in his pants? Not sure, I missed the replay last night. After that call was made, everything went red.

 

[Biggs111]

Good call...

 

[Cursed Lemon]

From the rulebook:

85.3 Puck Out of Sight - Should a scramble take place or a player
accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sight of the
Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play. The
puck shall then be faced-off at the nearest face-off spot in the zone
where the play was stopped unless otherwise provided for in the rules.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2014-2015-rulebook.pdf

This is precisely why it's a terrible call.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

It was the correct call, Seabrook didn't want to get up off the puck because it was in the slot, anywhere else on the ice, he turns and gets to his knees etc,

Absolutely the correct call.

 

[KenM]

if he could skate better he might have not fallen on the puck and lost his team the game

 

[Esq]

if he could skate better he might have not fallen on the puck and lost his team the game

You're so right. What a stupid Olympian/All-star/Cup winner.

 

[Dave is a killer]

So the moral of the story, just sit on the puck until the play is blown dead

 

[Cursed Lemon]

You're so right. What a stupid Olympian/All-star/Cup winner.

Literally worse than Ovechkin

 

[BobbyJet]

Thing is, he wasn't closing his hand on it to prevent anyone from playing it. Quite the opposite, in fact. The puck was stuck under him, and he was forced to dig out with his hand while being hacked and whacked.

Honestly, I hate being that guy, but that's all on the official. If he would just blow that play dead after Seabrook was on the ground and the puck was out of sight for a good ten seconds, there's no problem.

The referee would then likely have cited Seabrook for delay of game. He was looking to call something, as Kings had taken 3 minors in a row in the first period. Brutal call in a night of missed calls and amateurish officiating.

 

[Slot]

That should have been whistled dead a long time before it got to the point of a penalty.

 

[ComixZone]

That's an awful call. The play should have been whistled dead long before that ever happened.

 

[hatterson]

Oof, I don't like that call. Technically he did close his hand on it rather than "scooping" it which would be fully legal, but under those circumstances I'm not sure what the ref was expecting him to do.

Of course the X-factor is that the ref was probably saying something to him that we can't hear. So there may be a little more to the story than we know.

My guess is that the ref was telling him the entire time to get up.

 

[RedWingsForPresident]

The whistle should have been blown

Seabrook can't put his hand over the puck like that when it's on the ice

So, it was a penalty, but the proper whistle would have prevented it

 

[Bloumeister]

 

[bleedblue1223]

The whistle should have been blown

Seabrook can't put his hand over the puck like that when it's on the ice

So, it was a penalty, but the proper whistle would have prevented it

Yep. The call wasn't wrong, but it shouldn't have gotten to that point.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

The referee would then likely have cited Seabrook for delay of game. He was looking to call something, as Kings had taken 3 minors in a row in the first period. Brutal call in a night of missed calls and amateurish officiating.

Bingo.