Brent Seabrook penalty

[SenzZen]

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.

...and then when he did what they were yelling at him to do, they called a penalty for it.

Odd sequence, for sure.

 

[Bandit]

He was sitting on the puck. There was nothing to stop him from getting up, but he refused because it was in the slot. If someone belly flops on the puck with nobody around him, you can bet your ass the ref is going to tell him to get up or he's going to get a penalty. It was delay of game, pure and simple.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

...and then when he did what they were yelling at him to do, they called a penalty for it.

Odd sequence, for sure.

They were yelling at him to put his hand over the puck?

 

[bbfrc]

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.

This is the type of insight that cracks me up. Listen, Seabrook didn't have the puck "stuck" under him. He knew right where it was and he sat there. He could have got his lazy butt up to let play resume...ya know, free up the puck. But instead he sat there waiting for an option. When he decided to play it with his hand over the puck he got called. You wanna stop play and not help move the game along? You are gonna get called for the first infraction that happens within that play. Pure dumb move on Seabrook. He should have got up right away or not waited that long.

 

[hockeydoug]

Seabrook is obviously trying to gain an unfair advantage in my opinion, but the refs have to be very careful adding gray to a black and white rule when it comes to stopping play. They were absolutely correct about calling him for covering the puck, that was an easy one.

There are far fewer easy whistles on puck battles anymore so I was really disappointed in some of the whining, especially from Foley and some of the Hawks. Refs have been pretty consistent this year when it comes to keeping the play going on puck battles when players are trying to draw whistles while not being in any significant danger. Fewer whistles are a good thing, especially in a scenario like this even if it was a little extreme.

I think the best call in this scenario would have been to give Seabrook a delay of game. I think the worst would have been to give him an easy whistle. This is a difficult scenario and I think both sides have good points. I also think they have to adjust some of the language in the rule to eliminate some of the 'gamesmanship' b.s.

 

[tsujimoto74]

I can't figure out why the play wasn't blown dead as soon as it was evident that the puck was either stuck underneath him or lodged in his equipment somewhere.

 

[uncleben]

Such a brutal call... jeeze

 

[Bandit]

I can't figure out why the play wasn't blown dead as soon as it was evident that the puck was either stuck underneath him or lodged in his equipment somewhere.

Because it wasn't stuck? He didn't suddenly turn into a paraplegic.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Simply put, Seabrook needs to stand up.

 

[slappipappi]

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.

You need to read the rule book. Nowhere does it say that a player must make immediate eforts to get off the puck. The ref should have blown the call dead as soon as he lost sight of it. That's what the rule says.

 

[slappipappi]

He was sitting on the puck. There was nothing to stop him from getting up, but he refused because it was in the slot. If someone belly flops on the puck with nobody around him, you can bet your ass the ref is going to tell him to get up or he's going to get a penalty. It was delay of game, pure and simple.

But that's not what the rule says.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You need to read the rule book. Nowhere does it say that a player must make immediate eforts to get off the puck. The ref should have blown the call dead as soon as he lost sight of it. That's what the rule says.

Exactly. It might rub some people the wrong way, but a player isn't obligated to stand up when the puck goes under him. As long as he didn't intentionally cover it in the first place (and it's clear he didn't in this case) the ref has a very limited authority to tell him how to react.

In this case it's actually pretty obviously inside his equipment at first, which is even more reason for the ref to blow it dead rather than allow a scrum to develop around him.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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.

Most of the time that's because when a puck goes inside a players equipment they actually make an effort to find it.


And that's hardly a dangerous demand to expect him to do something other than sit there. If anything the Kings were being pretty nice about not ramming their sticks in there like players normally would.

The bottom line is if he had made any effort to do anything but sit on the puck, it very likely wouldn't have been a penalty.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

You need to read the rule book. Nowhere does it say that a player must make immediate eforts to get off the puck. The ref should have blown the call dead as soon as he lost sight of it. That's what the rule says.

How the rules are written and the standard to which they're enforced are two completely different things. The game would be absurd and painful to watch if they enforced the rules in the most literal interpretation of how they're written.

The ref clearly thought that Seabrook wasn't making a good enough effort to get up off the puck. If he had done that, no penalty.

My only question is if the refs were yelling at him to move it. Guys will often try to freeze the puck when it's "trapped" under them. The refs yell move it, then they magically are able to find it and make a play.

 

[Ducks DVM]

You need to read the rule book. Nowhere does it say that a player must make immediate eforts to get off the puck. The ref should have blown the call dead as soon as he lost sight of it. That's what the rule says.

63.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player including the goalkeeper, who holds, freezes or plays the puck with his stick, skates or body in such a manner as to deliberately cause a stoppage of play. With regard to a goalkeeper, this rule applies outside of his goal crease area.
A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately shoots or bats the puck outside the playing area during the play of after a stoppage of play.

Seabrook was, in the opinion of many, and clearly in the mind of the official (who's opinion is the only one who counts here) doing exactly this. He was given a chance to not get a penalty, and instead ignored the official for an extended period of time then finally relented and broke another rule instead.

 

[SenzZen]

They were yelling at him to put his hand over the puck?

Let me try to help you out...

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.

...and then when he did what they were yelling at him to do, they called a penalty for it.

Odd sequence, for sure.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Exactly. It might rub some people the wrong way, but a player isn't obligated to stand up when the puck goes under him. As long as he didn't intentionally cover it in the first place (and it's clear he didn't in this case) the ref has a very limited authority to tell him how to react.

In this case it's actually pretty obviously inside his equipment at first, which is even more reason for the ref to blow it dead rather than allow a scrum to develop around him.

Seabrook knew exactly where the puck was, and did nothing. That's the problem. It shouldn't matter if the player intentionally or accidentally fell on the puck or not.

 

[fsanford]

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.

I am guessing he was yelling move the puck, because he still saw it. How Seabrook chose to do that was up to him, but it is no different than what they are yelling when the puck is pinned on the boards. Move it, move it.. They don't blow the whistle for that anymore either.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Most of the time that's because when a puck goes inside a players equipment they actually make an effort to find it.


And that's hardly a dangerous demand to expect him to do something other than sit there. If anything the Kings were being pretty nice about not ramming their sticks in there like players normally would.

The bottom line is if he had made any effort to do anything but sit on the puck, it very likely wouldn't have been a penalty.

Seabrook knew exactly where the puck was, and did nothing. That's the problem. It shouldn't matter if the player intentionally or accidentally fell on the puck or not.

Basically it comes down to what the player "should" do in the interest of game flow, and what is obligated to do according to the rulebook.

In that situation, Seabrook is not required to do anything other than sit there and wait for a whistle. He hasn't intentionally covered the puck, and he has no compelling reason to give the other team a chance to score from the slot while he's out of the play. So it's perfectly rational and legal for him to just stay still and protect himself. The ref can yell at him and tell him to move the puck, but the ref doesn't have a basis to penalize him for remaining in place.

The fact that the ref refused to blow the play dead put Seabrook in a very awkward position. It really doesn't look like he knew where the puck was at first, and he couldn't have stood up in a way that would have been both safe and smart. So he resorted to grabbing at the puck, which was indeed an illegal play.

What makes the call so icky is that by the book Seabrook didn't have to grab at the puck, but the ref's insistence that he do something to get the puck moving caused him to make that decision. That doesn't seem like a particularly fair or safe way to manage the situation. IMO it's a case of poor judgment by the official, though not technically an incorrect penalty call. I would prefer to see an annoying whistle for a faceoff in that situation, rather than an annoying penalty that changed the outcome of the game.

 

[Yerk Toader]

On the replay they showed at Staples center you can see the puck come free after Gaborik knocks Seabrook down, then Seabrook deliberately pulls the puck underneath himself hoping to get a whistle.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Basically it comes down to what the player "should" do in the interest of game flow, and what is obligated to do according to the rulebook.

In that situation, Seabrook is not required to do anything other than sit there and wait for a whistle. He hasn't intentionally covered the puck, and he has no compelling reason to give the other team a chance to score from the slot while he's out of the play. So it's perfectly rational and legal for him to just stay still and protect himself. The ref can yell at him and tell him to move the puck, but the ref doesn't have a basis to penalize him for remaining in place.

The fact that the ref refused to blow the play dead put Seabrook in a very awkward position. It really doesn't look like he knew where the puck was at first, and he couldn't have stood up in a way that would have been both safe and smart. So he resorted to grabbing at the puck, which was indeed an illegal play.

What makes the call so icky is that by the book Seabrook didn't have to grab at the puck, but the ref's insistence that he do something to get the puck moving caused him to make that decision. That doesn't seem like a particularly fair or safe way to manage the situation. IMO it's a case of poor judgment by the official, though not technically an incorrect penalty call. I would prefer to see an annoying whistle for a faceoff in that situation, rather than an annoying penalty that changed the outcome of the game.

This is all rationalizing. Seabrook wasn't in a dangerous position. There was no reason to hold his legs rigidly like he did for the duration he did other than to deliberately make sure that the puck didn't get out from under him. Which is a penalty, I quoted the exact rule. The rule doesn't require that you wind up on top of the puck intentionally, however it does require that you don't intentionally keep the puck under you, and that's pretty obviously what he did. He doubled down when instead of just batting the puck out from underneath him after being yelled at he covered it to make absolutely certain it got to his guy. The ref gave him a break rather than call an entirely appropriate delay of game penalty and Seabrook pushed it too far.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

Let me try to help you out...

Thanks for trying but I didn't need help.

He didn't get penalized for moving the puck. He was penalized for putting his hand over the puck. There are other ways he could have moved it without putting it over the puck, say swiping at it with the back of his hand or his stick.

 

[Sacha Baron Corbin]

After watching the replay, I don't think it was worth a penalty, what did the refs expect him to do? A whistle and faceoff would've been fine.

I just think the crew last night was whistle happy, just let them play.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is all rationalizing. Seabrook wasn't in a dangerous position.

Having the puck under you, or inside your equipment, in the middle of a scrum is most certainly a dangerous position.

There was no reason to hold his legs rigidly like he did for the duration he did other than to deliberately make sure that the puck didn't get out from under him. Which is a penalty, I quoted the exact rule. The rule doesn't require that you wind up on top of the puck intentionally, however it does require that you don't intentionally keep the puck under you, and that's pretty obviously what he did.

The rule quoted upthread by hisgirlfriday specifically states that if a player accidentally falls on the puck and it is out of sight, the play is to be stopped.

Seabrook is not obligated to stand up and find the puck just to keep the play moving. Even if he didn't proactively help the situation, he also didn't proactively cover the puck. He has a right to simply be still and let the play die, because the conditions of a frozen puck have already occurred. No different than if the puck had hopped up onto the side of the goal and he had declined to knock it back into play.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

You need to read the rule book. Nowhere does it say that a player must make immediate eforts to get off the puck. The ref should have blown the call dead as soon as he lost sight of it. That's what the rule says.

Yea, Delay of Game doesn't exist....

really?