Brent Seabrook penalty

[GoldenBearHockey]

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.

BS,

No way that puck is "inside" his equipment, if it was, from that position, with his actions, he wouldn't have been able to get at the puck, unless he bent his legs, which he refused to do.

 

[JWells16]

Terrible call.

Seabrook doesn't have to get up there. In fact, he shouldn't. He was checked onto the puck. This happens plenty of times, and I've never once heard people say that he should have gotten up.

The ref should have blown the whistle here. He wasn't putting his hand the puck to conceal the puck. He simply moved the puck with his hand, which is exactly what I'm imagining the ref wanted him to do.

 

[Ducks DVM]

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



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.

Agree to disagree. There was a healthy dose of "unintentionally on purpose" going on here IMO, and I think the official felt the same way. The official is only under an obligation to blow the play dead if it's an accidental fall on the puck. If he felt that Seabrook did it intentionally then he was doing Seabrook a favor by telling him to move it rather than immediately giving him a delay of game penalty. Seabrook knew EXACTLY where the puck was when he finally decided to move it.

 

[Raspewtin]

Call was bad because Seabrook had no choice but to use his hand. The ref not blowing the whistle, and pretty much telling him he had to move it, made it terrible.

 

[Bandit]

Call was bad because Seabrook had no choice but to use his hand. The ref not blowing the whistle, and pretty much telling him he had to move it, made it terrible.

Or he could have, you know, just stood up.

 

[nwofoxhound]

The ref waited to see what Seabrook would do. Instead of standing up, or playing the puck legally, Seabrook decided to close his hand on it.

That's against the rule. By the way, those of you citing the rule need to understand that the ref isn't obligated to blow the whistle unless they lose sight of it. Based on the ref's actions, he never lost sight of it.

Not exactly sure how you guys are arguing that it was a bad call. It was an easy call.

 

[tarheelhockey]

BS,

No way that puck is "inside" his equipment, if it was, from that position, with his actions, he wouldn't have been able to get at the puck, unless he bent his legs, which he refused to do.

No angle has been provided which shows the puck under him. All indications are that it was in his pants.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

No angle has been provided which shows the puck under him. All indications are that it was in his pants.

So you tell me, he's sitting down, legs straight in front of him, if the puck is "in" his pants like you claim, how in the hell does he get it lose without moving his leg at all?

 

[tarheelhockey]

So you tell me, he's sitting down, legs straight in front of him, if the puck is "in" his pants like you claim, how in the hell does he get it lose without moving his leg at all?

You mean other than the part where he rolls onto his hip, reaches back under his thigh and sweeps the puck out?

 

[kingsholygrail]

Seabrook could have just rolled over.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

You mean other than the part where he rolls onto his hip, reaches back under his thigh and sweeps the puck out?

Which indicates that the puck was underneath him, not inside his pants....

 

[tarheelhockey]

Which indicates that the puck was underneath him, not inside his pants....

Not really. You can easily reach into the leg of your hockey pants and pull a puck out. Or, as probably happened here, it could have been inside to begin with and slid out when he turned to the side.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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.

Actually in that situation Seabrook is required to do something, especially if being instructed by an official. He has an obligation to move the puck under rule 72.1 Refusing or Abstaining from playing the puck.

The ref's insistence didn't cause him to make that decision. Seabrook could've simply stood up, or better yet just knocked the puck with his glove. Instead he chose to sit there and put his hands in the air pretending he didn't know what was happening. Apparently it annoyed the ref enough to call a penalty.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Actually in that situation Seabrook is required to do something, especially if being instructed by an official. He has an obligation to move the puck under rule 72.1 Refusing or Abstaining from playing the puck.

72.1 is simply a preamble to Rule 72. That rule addresses:

- Refusing to play a hand-pass to avoid a stoppage
- Refusing to play a high-sticked puck to avoid a stoppage
- Refusing to touch up an icing
- Refusing to touch up during a delayed penalty

The rule has nothing to do with a player simply electing not to move the puck during regular play. Again -- the referee does not have the authority to order a player to play the puck if he doesn't want to.

In any case, the prescribed "penalty" for violating Rule 72 is... a whistle and a faceoff. So at least we agree on what the outcome should have been.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

72.1 is simply a preamble to Rule 72. That rule addresses:

- Refusing to play a hand-pass to avoid a stoppage
- Refusing to play a high-sticked puck to avoid a stoppage
- Refusing to touch up an icing
- Refusing to touch up during a delayed penalty

The rule has nothing to do with a player simply electing not to move the puck during regular play. Again -- the referee does not have the authority to order a player to play the puck if he doesn't want to.

In any case, the prescribed "penalty" for violating Rule 72 is... a whistle and a faceoff. So at least we agree on what the outcome should have been.

The referee doesn't have the authority to order a player to play the puck if he doesn't want to?? Officials do that in virtually every single hockey game played in the NHL.

And no, we don't agree on the outcome. No need to put words in my mouth. Seabrook wouldn't move the puck when instructed and took a penalty for it. It happens.

 

[STC]

Simply put, Seabrook needs to stand up.

As a Hawks fans I 100% agree. He could've gotten up at any time, but he didn't want to because the puck was in the slot and there were opponents in the immediate area who might claim the puck and turn it into a scoring chance. I'm sure the ref was telling him this as well, but he chose to try and shove the puck out from under him and in the process gained an unfair advantage. Easy call for the refs.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The referee doesn't have the authority to order a player to play the puck if he doesn't want to?? Officials do that in virtually every single hockey game played in the NHL.

The officials can say whatever they want, but their duties are not prescriptive. There is no penalty for "ignored my instructions to play the puck". The ref flat-out doesn't have the authority to enforce that sort of demand. The only thing he can do is refuse blow the whistle to stop play -- which is appropriate when it's a case of a player intentionally freezing the puck along the boards, but not when the puck drops out of the air and into a player's equipment and he falls down with a bunch of opponents jabbing at him.

This whole issue is a question of judgment, not legality. Nobody is arguing that Seabrook shouldn't have been penalized for grabbing the puck. The objection is to the referee's undue insistence on continuation of the play when the rules called for a whistle.

And no, we don't agree on the outcome. No need to put words in my mouth. Seabrook wouldn't move the puck when instructed and took a penalty for it. It happens.

I don't know what you mean. The penalty wasn't for refusing to move the puck, it was for closing his hand on the puck in an attempt to move it.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Looked to me like he put his hand over it to immediately move it into play, from it's previously concealed state.

I think the rule needs clarification if what he did was illegal.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Referee should have just blown play dead after a few seconds of it being stuck, but it was pretty damn funny

 

[zac]

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.

Maybe he didn't want to get up because he got crosschecked to the ice?

It's a brutal call, either for not calling the crossheck (which is what had him on the ice in the first place) or for not blowing it dead.

BTW, htf is he supposed to get up with guys jabbing at the puck in that position? Should have been blown dead.

 

[rockthered]

The only thing he can do is refuse blow the whistle to stop play -- which is appropriate when it's a case of a player intentionally freezing the puck along the boards, but not when the puck drops out of the air and into a player's equipment and he falls down with a bunch of opponents jabbing at him.

To me, it looks like the puck was still bouncing around after he fell, ending up under him (maybe with his help? I wish we could see the other angle), and then he stiffened his legs and looked for the whistle. When he didn't get it (maybe because the ref could still see the puck and was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't holding it under his leg on purpose? does that make sense?) he looked around, hesitated, and finally put his hand over it to get it out to a teammate.[/QUOTE]

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

The officials can say whatever they want, but their duties are not prescriptive. There is no penalty for "ignored my instructions to play the puck". The ref flat-out doesn't have the authority to enforce that sort of demand. The only thing he can do is refuse blow the whistle to stop play -- which is appropriate when it's a case of a player intentionally freezing the puck along the boards, but not when the puck drops out of the air and into a player's equipment and he falls down with a bunch of opponents jabbing at him.

This whole issue is a question of judgment, not legality. Nobody is arguing that Seabrook shouldn't have been penalized for grabbing the puck. The objection is to the referee's undue insistence on continuation of the play when the rules called for a whistle.



I don't know what you mean. The penalty wasn't for refusing to move the puck, it was for closing his hand on the puck in an attempt to move it.

Yes there is, it's called delay of game.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Maybe he didn't want to get up because he got crosschecked to the ice?

It's a brutal call, either for not calling the crossheck (which is what had him on the ice in the first place) or for not blowing it dead.

BTW, htf is he supposed to get up with guys jabbing at the puck in that position? Should have been blown dead.

Easy, roll over onto his knees, and....stand up...it's not hard for an NHL player, it really isn't.

 

[kingdok]

Insert ''Jack Edward's get up audio sound bite''