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.
Brent Seabrook penalty
- Thread starter Breezer12
- Start date
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
Registered User
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.
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
sowcufucakky
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.
Bandit
Registered User
nwofoxhound
Registered User
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.
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
Offside Review Specialist
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
Offside Review Specialist
You mean other than the part where he rolls onto his hip, reaches back under his thigh and sweeps the puck out?
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
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.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 29,773
- 29,464
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
Offside Review Specialist
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.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 29,773
- 29,464
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.
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
Offside Review Specialist
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.
FLYLine27*
BUCH
Referee should have just blown play dead after a few seconds of it being stuck, but it was pretty damn funny
zac
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2009
- 8,484
- 42
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.
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]
