Brent Seabrook penalty

[featherhawk]

the ref was baiting sea brook to do it for 10 seconds setting him up for a PIM instead of the ref blowing the play dead as he lost sight of the puck...

Atta Boy Bettman!

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

LOL really boys?

You don't get to cover the puck for a whistle, in the slot, at any time, he was trying not to give the delay of game call, which is why there was so much time given, if Seabrook would have TRIED to get to his feet, then there would be no penalty given,

He didn't.

It's not hard.

 

[bleedblue1223]

LOL really boys?

You don't get to cover the puck for a whistle, in the slot, at any time, he was trying not to give the delay of game call, which is why there was so much time given, if Seabrook would have TRIED to get to his feet, then there would be no penalty given,

He didn't.

It's not hard.

This is also valid, that type of thing is more of a judgment call and Gaborik did check him down, but it was pretty obvious gamesmanship.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

LOL really boys?

You don't get to cover the puck for a whistle, in the slot, at any time, he was trying not to give the delay of game call, which is why there was so much time given, if Seabrook would have TRIED to get to his feet, then there would be no penalty given,

He didn't.

It's not hard.

Pretty much. Plus there was one angle on the replay that showed the puck the entire time, even when it was under he thigh or knee. If the camera saw the puck the whole time, I'm pretty sure the refs never really lost sight of it which is part of why they didn't blow a stoppage in play.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

This is also valid, that type of thing is more of a judgment call and Gaborik did check him down, but it was pretty obvious gamesmanship.

Yes, he checked him down, but they also backed away knowing he couldn't sit on it, he chose to do that, and got penalized.

I maintain it was absolutely the correct call and every chance was given to him to avoid it.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Are you guys really suggesting players should be able to just sit on the puck to get a whistle? It's pretty much the same thing has putting your hand on the puck. And it's why they made the "hand over puck" rule to begin with.

 

[putridgasbag]

That was the right call. No one was stopping him standing up but he won't and then he puts his hand on the puck to throw it out of danger. That should be called every time.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Are you guys really suggesting players should be able to just sit on the puck to get a whistle? It's pretty much the same thing has putting your hand on the puck. And it's why they made the "hand over puck" rule to begin with.

Agreed.

Seabrook was making no attempt to move the puck, and it's not like he didn't know where it was or couldn't get up.

The officials were probably yelling for him to move the puck, or at least should've been. They could've called delay of game but went with closing the hand over the puck.

It's not called as much as it should be but when a guy is making no attempt to play the puck like that, the ref should warn him and give him a chance to move it, then call the penalty.

 

[fsanford]

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 part is open to interpretation I guess..
They let that play go on way too long, I am thinking he thought Seabrook should just try to get up, he did not, so you knew if he tried to move the puck with his hand it was going to get called.

Refs had issues on both sides last night so it evens out.

 

[The Red Line]

Technically the right call, but why on earth did they let the play last so long without blowing it dead?

Seabrook was in a pretty vulnerable position, kind of reckless by the refs to just let that go.

 

[DocWest]

Should have gotten extra for unsportsmanlike after the way he aggressively charged the ref. Hawks also got away with too many men in the game, so stop acting like the NHL was out to get you.

 

[TurdFerguson]

Technically the right call, but why on earth did they let the play last so long without blowing it dead?

Seabrook was in a pretty vulnerable position, kind of reckless by the refs to just let that go.

This is exactly what I thought. It seems dangerous for Seabrook to get up in that position, the very first thing you'd expect are sticks swinging near him, when he is low on the ice, to get a shot off. Its a completely different situation compared to along the boards.

 

[troyerlaw]

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.

Exactly. I had no dog in the fight, but it was stupid situation in every way. First the ref swallows his whistle even though he can't see the puck and it is obviously underneath Seabrook and Seabrook is getting jabbed at repeatedly and he was cross-checked down in the first place and the play is nowhere near the net, in an utterly harmless area. THEN, when Seabrook realizes with great annoyance that the ref isn't going to do his job, he tries to reach around under himself to find the puck and get rid of it. How exactly was he supposed to get the puck out from under his ass without covering it with his hand? It seemed like there was literally no good outcome for him there. The ref sucked and the rule sucks. I could see why Seabrook looked like he wanted to strangle the ref as he followed him to the box. Dumb-ass reffing, all the way around.

 

[troyerlaw]

Should have gotten extra for unsportsmanlike after the way he aggressively charged the ref.

Shouldn't have gotten a single minute, out of the whole thing. Ref blew that one bad.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

The refs had a bad game all around.

It happens.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Shouldn't have gotten a single minute, out of the whole thing. Ref blew that one bad.

If the officials were yelling at him to get off the puck, yes, he absolutely should've been penalized.

If Seabrook wasn't even warned first, then it was a pretty soft call.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Poorly handled by the officials to say the least. Should have been blown down earlier.

 

[troyerlaw]

That was the right call. No one was stopping him standing up but he won't and then he puts his hand on the puck to throw it out of danger. That should be called every time.

My guess is that if you took 10 guys who played the game well, and for any length of time, such as Messier, Shanahan, Iginla, Sakic, Scott Stevens, etc, and you showed them that play, they would all agree it was a stupid call.

The guy was crosschecked down, on top of the puck. He wasn't in the crease or near the crease. He was being jacked up by players trying to reach under him. When he finally did reach under himself to try to move the puck, it was absolutely not 'in an effort to conceal,' or whatever the rule says, but rather an effort to get the damn thing out from under him. That was piss-poor reffing. Not that it was crucial to game outcome. But I think most coaches, GMs, players watching that play would find fault first with the ref or the rule, not Seabrook.

But I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[quackquackquack]

That was a dumpster fire of a call. There's no difference between a hand pass and that. They should have blown the play dead about 10 seconds before that.

 

[troyerlaw]

If the officials were yelling at him to get off the puck, yes, he absolutely should've been penalized.

this is what the rulebook says. seems like the ref is the one who failed to follow the rule.

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.

 

[tarheelhockey]

LOL really boys?

You don't get to cover the puck for a whistle, in the slot, at any time, he was trying not to give the delay of game call, which is why there was so much time given, if Seabrook would have TRIED to get to his feet, then there would be no penalty given,

He didn't.

It's not hard.

The puck was inside his pants and he was in a sitting position. He's under no obligation to stand up at that point -- the play should have been blown dead in order to stop players trying to gouge the puck out from inside his equipment.

I agree that the ref was probably telling him to stand up, but the ref doesn't have the authority to order a player into a particular position like that. If the puck is out of sight, and there's a dangerous situation developing, the whistle should be blown.

It would be quite different if he had intentionally fallen on the puck, but that wasn't the case.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

this is what the rulebook says. seems like the ref is the one who failed to follow the rule.

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.

That may be the way the rule is written, but it's not always enforced that way. Lots of times when a guy falls down on the puck, it is technically out of sight but the ref won't blow the whistle if he thinks the player could move the puck.

If it's at all possible, the goal is generally to keep the play moving and not let guys freeze the puck for a faceoff that way.

Like I said, if they were yelling at him to move it and he just sat there, it's not that surprising they called it. He made no effort to continue the play and could've easily gotten up.

If the ref didn't warn him and just called a penalty, then that's bad game management.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If it's at all possible, the goal is generally to keep the play moving and not let guys freeze the puck for a faceoff that way.

That's the case when it comes to guys freezing the puck with their skates along the boards or falling onto it in a scrum, but in this case the puck was completely out of sight inside his equipment. I don't think I've ever seen a ref insist on a player standing up and shaking the puck out of his pants during play. That's a really dangerous demand considering the way he was being poked and the fact that he'd have to expose his face to those sticks in order to get his feet under him.

 

[Ducks DVM]

That's the case when it comes to guys freezing the puck with their skates along the boards or falling onto it in a scrum, but in this case the puck was completely out of sight inside his equipment. I don't think I've ever seen a ref insist on a player standing up and shaking the puck out of his pants during play. That's a really dangerous demand considering the way he was being poked and the fact that he'd have to expose his face to those sticks in order to get his feet under him.

I've never seen a player lock his legs in place like that and refuse to even bend a knee for that long a span of time when he wasn't trying to intentionally trap the puck under him - which is delay of game. He wasn't protecting himself by not moving his legs, he was actually inviting more stick work by doing that because the players kept digging away. Bending his left leg would have freed the puck up and done nothing to endanger his face. The ref isn't THAT stupid.

 

[LarKing]

Looking at it again, it was delay of game. No effort was made to move after he pretty clearly was being yelled at by the officials to move it.