High-sticking • Double-minor penalty

[burana800]

Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent so that injury results, the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty for all contact that causes an injury, whether accidental or careless, in the opinion of the Referee.

So, (some) NHL players are willing to play through broken ribs and block shots with their face but small cut in your cheek with two drops of blood is an injury? Am I the only one who thinks this is just utter horseshit?

Also, why do people still talk about "drawing blood" like it's engraved into the rulebook? We should be talking about loosing teeth or something.

When Eakin cross checked and injured (accidentally) Pavelski, people were saying that a major penalty was called only because Pavelski got injured. And I agree that it was a bad call and poor reasoning. Why should high-sticking be any different? You call the penalty based on the action not the result.

And yes, you can count 20% of this rant on the double-minor called on Clutterbuck last night by the LINESMAN for gods sake.
</end rant/>

 

[Seanaconda]

Cuz refs don't have xray vision for broken bones and whatever if you cut skin then it's just an easy red flag that they call. ( blood let's the linesman tell the ref what they saw too )

Idk just don't slash people in the face and you won't have the problem of the refs having the easiest call possible other than shooting the puck over the glass or dropping your mitts

 

[BlueDream]

I don’t mind the double minor because if anything, I think it’s just there as a safety measure. The threat of possibly receiving 4 minutes maybe prevents more guys from getting their sticks up? I don’t really know, it’s just a guess. But when people’s eyes are at stake, it’s a dangerous thing that you have to try and control somehow.

 

[LongWayDown37]

Ever take a stick to the face? Hurts like a mofo. I’m good with 4min for blood.

 

[tucker3434]

Personally, I think this is one of those awesome “only in hockey” rules. I hope it never changes.

 

[StoneHands]

To start, hitting someone in the fact with your stick is incredibly dangerous. It can easily destroy a person's vision without a lot of force so the NHL decided to make the punishment strict and I agree with it. Make these guys aware that if you get your stick up high for absolutely no reason, you might pay a steep price. Also, there is the fact that when a guy gets cut he often has to get stitched up. Whether it's a serious injury or not, that's keeping him out of the game for a few shifts so it doesn't seem right if the offending player is serving 2 minutes for a high stick and the guy he hit sits on the bench for 5 minutes while he gets stitched up.

The idea that you think it's no big deal to stick someone in the face and bleed all over the ice is kind of sad. You think making someone bleeding all over the ice should receive the same punishment as a tripping penalty?

It's always a disgruntled fans who brings these things up when they hurt his own team. Why weren't you starting these threads all season or the last 9 years any time a guy on your team took a stick to the face and your team got a 4 minute PP? I'm sure you weren't complaining then.

 

[Sensmileletsgo]

I can't stand the rule. It's so frustrating to watch. Every game players far worse hits and the opponent is only penalized for 2 minutes. Those are far worse then the majority of 4 minute high sticking penalties where there's a small cut.

Some of the arguments in this thread are already hilariously bad.

 

[Advanced stats]

Blocked shots? Playing through injury? That's something you do to yourself and you only have yourself to blame. You're at fault.


Getting high sticked? Someone else fault, harming you, slowing you down and not being in control of themselves.

Seems very cut and dry to me.

Imagine if there was no additional penalty for injuring someone with your stick? Some a-holes would be running around wild, you can count on that.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So, (some) NHL players are willing to play through broken ribs and block shots with their face but small cut in your cheek with two drops of blood is an injury? Am I the only one who thinks this is just utter horse****?

High sticking isn't the only call that works this way.

Clipping
44.3 Major Penalty - If an injury occurs as a result of this “clipping” check, the player must be assessed a major penalty

Elbowing
45.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on any player who uses his elbow to foul an opponent. A major penalty must be imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent

Hooking
55.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty shall be imposed on any player who injures an opponent by “hooking”

Butt-ending
58.4 Match Penalty - A match penalty shall be imposed on a player who injures an opponent as a result of a butt-end.

Spearing
62.4 Match Penalty - A match penalty shall be imposed on a player who injures an opponent as a result of a spear.


In all these cases, it's a simply Y/N as to whether injury resulted. If so, the penalty is upgraded. Note that for the most part, this rationale applies to actions that are considered overly-dangerous and not part of a "hockey play". So keep your stick down, elbows down, knees in, etc.

 

[StoneHands]

When Eakin cross checked and injured (accidentally) Pavelski, people were saying that a major penalty was called only because Pavelski got injured. And I agree that it was a bad call and poor reasoning. Why should high-sticking be any different? You call the penalty based on the action not the result.

What you're missing here is that there is a massive difference between a 5 minute major and a double minor. If anything, you're complaining about a less dangerous play which resulted in a more strict penalty.

 

[DickSmehlik]

I am almost certain there was a 5 minute major for high sticking that wasn't a match penalty (intent to injure) in the rule book at one point.

I think they should bring that back for really careless incidents of high sticks that aren't intentional but cause an injury, because 4 minutes doesn't seem enough time for someone who accidentally knocks a row of teeth out.

 

[StoneHands]

I can't stand the rule. It's so frustrating to watch. Every game players far worse hits and the opponent is only penalized for 2 minutes. Those are far worse then the majority of 4 minute high sticking penalties where there's a small cut.

Some of the arguments in this thread are already hilariously bad.

Wait, you think there are penalties every game that are more dangerous than hitting someone in the face with your stick? Just because a ref occasionally makes a bad call where it should have been a 5 for a dangerous hit doesn't mean it happens every game and it doesn't make a double minor for cutting someone's face with your stick the wrong call. That's like saying assault shouldn't be a crime because sometimes murderers aren't caught.

Maybe instead of complaining about this rule where they actually get it right, you should be complaining about the other rules where they don't get it right and there should be a more strict penalty. The idea that a violent penalty like a crosscheck or elbow can result in the same penalty time as falling on the puck after a faceoff or the goalie touching the puck in the wrong place is what we should be complaining about.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I am almost certain there was a 5 minute major for high sticking that wasn't a match penalty (intent to injure) in the rule book at one point.

That's correct, and it's why the missed high-sticking call on Gretzky in the 1993 semifinals was such a big deal. If Kerry Fraser notices that high stick on Doug Gilmour, it's an automatic 5-minute major and a game misconduct on Gretzky. Not only did the Leafs not get a major PP, but also Gretzky stayed in the game and scored the GWG seconds later.

IMO that rule was much too harsh. A double-minor is a serious enough punishment for dangrous-but-accidental recklessness, and the match penalty covers intentional incidents.

 

[GoldiFox]

...
And yes, you can count 20% of this rant on the double-minor called on Clutterbuck last night by the LINESMAN for gods sake.
</end rant/>

Do you have the video of Clutterbuck injuring Van Riemsdyk? It was a dangerous and stupid play. Clutterbuck slashed TVR's neck on the faceoff with his stick and cause a 2-3" gash. I didn't see any reason for Clutterbuck to do it, he went from a standstill to spearing his stick into TVR's neck in one motion.

 

[tny760]

keep your f***in stick down then.

i do think 4 and 5 minute penalties are a bit harsh with the way the game is played nowadays but we're venturing into "changing the integrity of the game" territory

i'd like to see minor penalties at 60 or 90 seconds personally

 

[Sojourn]

Yeah, I don’t have an issue with this, and there are other penalties from injuries that have an even harsher punishment. Not seeing the problem.

 

[tony d]

I'm fine with it being a double minor. A stick in the face is not needed and pretty dangerous as well.

 

[1865]

Thought I’d bump this instead of making a new thread. This rule is random nonsense.

Konecny catches Hedman and as there’s a spot of blood and the Flyers are hit with a 4 minute penalty. Konecny takes one himself later in the game that breaks his damn tooth and it’s only 2 minutes.

The rule needs amending. Blood is no indication of severity but that’s how it’s called. The league needs to remove the double minor situation or preferably, make it at the ref’s discretion.

 

[KCbus]

Thought I’d bump this instead of making a new thread. This rule is random nonsense.

Konecny catches Hedman and as there’s a spot of blood and the Flyers are hit with a 4 minute penalty. Konecny takes one himself later in the game that breaks his damn tooth and it’s only 2 minutes.

The rule needs amending. Blood is no indication of severity but that’s how it’s called. The league needs to remove the double minor situation or preferably, make it at the ref’s discretion.

I disagree. If it draws blood, it should be a double minor.

That's not the problem. The problem is that damaging someone's tooth DIDN'T qualify for one, or wasn't called that way. The broken tooth shouldn't be used as justification for having lighter penalties on the other ones.

 

[Menzinger]

I actually appreciate how clear cut this rule is.

Far too much of nhl officiating when it comes to penalties comes down to subjective views of the ref - which becomes even worse in games that officals are pressured to keep things "even".

 

[Anglesmith]

I actually appreciate how clear cut this rule is.

Far too much of nhl officiating when it comes to penalties comes down to subjective views of the ref - which becomes even worse in games that officals are pressured to keep things "even".

The disparity in level of discretion among the different penalties actually poses a problem with how much game management goes on in big games. Referees will tend to ignore the more discretionary calls, but then all that does is make these black-and-white penalties end up as a way bigger factor than they should be.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I am almost certain there was a 5 minute major for high sticking that wasn't a match penalty (intent to injure) in the rule book at one point.

I think at that time it was 5:00 penalty and a game misconduct if you high sticked another player and they were bleeding. The best example was when Wayne Gretzky did that to Doug Gilmour in Game 6 of the 1993 Western Conference Final, however Kerry Fraser never saw him do that so no penalty was called and we know what happened after that.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Thought I’d bump this instead of making a new thread. This rule is random nonsense.

Konecny catches Hedman and as there’s a spot of blood and the Flyers are hit with a 4 minute penalty. Konecny takes one himself later in the game that breaks his damn tooth and it’s only 2 minutes.

The rule needs amending. Blood is no indication of severity but that’s how it’s called. The league needs to remove the double minor situation or preferably, make it at the ref’s discretion.

1) agreed.
2) nhl needs a seamless way to review these sorts of things, I think that comes first. It shouldn’t be that tough, and it can be silly- a bloody lip from a lifted stick can get 4 minutes while a cracked jaw from a baseball swing can be 2.

 

[1865]

I disagree. If it draws blood, it should be a double minor.

That's not the problem. The problem is that damaging someone's tooth DIDN'T qualify for one, or wasn't called that way. The broken tooth shouldn't be used as justification for having lighter penalties on the other ones.

I don’t think there’s any correlation between severity of the high stick and whether blood is drawn. A slight nick can give a stream of blood but blunt force trauma could just leave a bruise.

 

[KCbus]

I think at that time it was 5:00 penalty and a game misconduct if you high sticked another player and they were bleeding. The best example was when Wayne Gretzky did that to Doug Gilmour in Game 6 of the 1993 Western Conference Final, however Kerry Fraser never saw him do that so no penalty was called and we know what happened after that.

That rule may not have come into play until the following season. I'm not sure.

I remember Pavel Bure getting dismissed from a Finals game early for committing that penalty. I also remember it being new. But I'm not positive.