Nokelainen and Sauer ejected for fighting during another fight

[Fueren]

Just so I get this straight.
In the following video Colorado had 7 players on the ice for the last 12 seconds of the game (start watching from 3:50). Every time the extra player engaged a Vancouver player (or I assume touched the puck) he should have got an interference penalty, on top of the too many men on the ice penalty?

 

[JustAHabFan]

The ref made a mistake on the 5 on 3. There is no interference on Dubinsky. You can penalize the Habs for two many men on the ice (the Habs almost get 1/2 of these penalties per game). But the interference is really bogus.

 

[Mike8]

Nah, the quote is the rule for interference. should have put that

Still not sure I get your perspective here.

If one interferes in a play, and they are not supposed to be on the ice, then that is the definition of the 'too many men' penalty. Essentially, if one implicates oneself in the play when they're in the vicinity of their bench during a line change, then that's too many men. That's precisely what Blunden did. Had he stood idly by while Dubinsky passed him, then that would not have been too many men. So his interference was what the 'too many men' penalty was for.

To add an interference penalty on top of that is penalizing the individual (Blunden, in this case) twice for the same penalty. The 'interference' was covered by the too many men call. Does that make sense? (I ask that genuinely; it may come across as condescending in text)

 

[Saitama]

Not sure why you're saying this. Did you not read the bolded and underlined portion of the post you quoted?

I did, however, did you realize that multiple penalties can be called on the same play? Two infractions occurred, therefore two penalties were merited.

He interfered with the play. There were too many men on the ice.

 

[Mike8]

I did, however, did you realize that multiple penalties can be called on the same play? Two infractions occurred, therefore two penalties were merited.

He interfered with the play. There were too many men on the ice.

No, I don't believe this to be true. Please read the post just above yours, and point out where I've gone wrong.

 

[Saitama]

No, I don't believe this to be true. Please read the post just above yours, and point out where I've gone wrong.

Someone mentioned earlier that if the only penalty for this type of infraction was the TMM, then every breakaway someone would be jumping over the boards knowing that they were only going to get the TMM. It is plain and simple interference. If the player is sitting on the bench and swings his stick into play or bumps the player going by, this is interference, because he shouldn't have been there. In this case, he's come off the bench and done the same thing, causing the interference as well as the TMM.

Edit: Actually, I retract the breakaway scenario now that I think about it, it would cause a penalty shot, but the rest I still believe to be true.

 

[Mike8]

Someone mentioned earlier that if the only penalty for this type of infraction was the TMM, then every breakaway someone would be jumping over the boards knowing that they were only going to get the TMM. It is plain and simple interference. If the player is sitting on the bench and swings his stick into play or bumps the player going by, this is interference, because he shouldn't have been there. In this case, he's come off the bench and done the same thing, causing the interference as well as the TMM.

Edit: Actually, I retract the breakaway scenario now that I think about it, it would cause a penalty shot, but the rest I still believe to be true.

In your examples, there exists some malice and intent. That would lead to additional penalties. In the same way that Subban's snowing of Lundqvist had intent behind it, those scenarios would require additional penalisation. (Of note, Plekanec snowed Lundqvist later on in the game, but the same amount of intent did not seem to be there and, consequently, he was not assessed a penalty)

The simple fact here is that Blunden was right in front of his bench. He was within five feet, which is a legit range to be when coming on the ice for a line change. He was only assessed the too-many-men because he implicated himself in the play. One penalty. That level of interference is even in the definition of 'too-many-men.'

Anyway, I'm not trying to change your mind on this. I now understand your vantage point and think it's reasonable, and hopefully you understand mine, so it's all good.

 

[Shabutie]

That penalty was warranted. Maybe not interference, but something. You can't just jump onto the ice and level someone way before the guy you are replacing gets anywhere near the bench, man.

That's called too many men on the ice...

 

[Playmaker09]

Two different calls

1: An unarguable Too many men

2:

Technically, Blunden was an extra man, and therefore a bench player. Hence, both penalties apply

No he's not. His skates were on the ice.

If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of “too many men on the ice” will be called.

A player coming onto the ice as a substitute player is considered on the ice once both of his skates are on the ice. If he plays the puck or interferes with an opponent while still on the players’ bench, he shall be penalized under Rule 56 – Interference.

Those two paragraphs right there could not possibly make this more clear.

 

[Kingbobert]

for all you people that think the interference call was warranted, here is what the nhl rules have to say about the an the extra man

Rule 74 - Too Many Men on the Ice
[...]
If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of “too many men on the ice” will be called.

[...]

TMM is 100% legit no argument there
By the nhl rule book definition, thats a TMM penalty only

its as if you call a tripping and an interference call on the same play.
yes a player might have interfered with the player by tripping him, but it was a tripping call.
all penalties are interference at the end of the day. They interfere with a player scoring or making a play to gain advantage
the "interference" penalty is there when an usual a non puck carrying player is not allowed to gain an advantage illegal and its not covered by other rules. If you trip or highstick or crosscheck a noncarrier, you will get one of those penalties, however if you push, block or clean check a non carrier you will get an interference call cause all those are usually legal on a puck carrier.

if i recall dubinsky did have the puck at the moment of contact (i could be mistaken though)

 

[Saitama]

In your examples, there exists some malice and intent. That would lead to additional penalties. In the same way that Subban's snowing of Lundqvist had intent behind it, those scenarios would require additional penalisation. (Of note, Plekanec snowed Lundqvist later on in the game, but the same amount of intent did not seem to be there and, consequently, he was not assessed a penalty)

The simple fact here is that Blunden was right in front of his bench. He was within five feet, which is a legit range to be when coming on the ice for a line change. He was only assessed the too-many-men because he implicated himself in the play. One penalty. That level of interference is even in the definition of 'too-many-men.'

Anyway, I'm not trying to change your mind on this. I now understand your vantage point and think it's reasonable, and hopefully you understand mine, so it's all good.

I do, and it's nice to have a civilized debate for once!

 

[Jumbo*]

Habs were given a free-bee 5 on 3 when Gionta stepped on the puck and McD was called for holding, and then someone went into Lundqvist in his crease and Lundqvist was called for Holding somehow when they got tangled up.

The better team won tonight.

That's called too many men on the ice...

It was a dangerous blindside hit because he jumped out on the ice illegally. That is two penalties. I dont know why they called it interference . Like i said in my above post, Rangers were called for a 5 on 3 in the 2nd period which one call was because Gionta stepped on the puck and fell down, and the other got tangled with Lundqvist in his crease and they gave Lundqvist a holding call. Habs scored on that, it evened out.

Callahan should have got an instigator though.

 

[Rhiessan71]

It was a dangerous blindside hit because he jumped out on the ice illegally. That is two penalties. I dont know why they called it interference . Like i said in my above post, Rangers were called for a 5 on 3 in the 2nd period which one call was because Gionta stepped on the puck and fell down, and the other got tangled with Lundqvist in his crease and they gave Lundqvist a holding call. Habs scored on that, it evened out.

Callahan should have got an instigator though.

Blindside? Not even close, he hit him square in the chest, didn't even make contact with his head. Try watching the video.

It was a TMM penalty, that's it end of story and yes Cal most definitely should of gotten an instigator.

Evened out? Are you kidding me? What about tiny little DD getting called for tripping when the Ranger weighing 30lbs more than him tried to get out of the way and left his hips and legs out there.
What about Plek's hooking call when the Ranger let go of his own stick, grabbed Pleks' stick and tucked it under his arm?

Evened out my ass! The Habs played shorthanded for almost an entire 10 minute stretch in the first period. When did the Rangers play half a period shorthended consecutively???

...and best team won...really? After the ref's stopped being douchebags and let the two teams play in the second and third periods, the Habs scored 3 goals to the Rangers 1 and out shot them 25-13. Best team won my ass!

 

[Jumbo*]

Blindside? Not even close, he hit him square in the chest, didn't even make contact with his head. Try watching the video.

It was a TMM penalty, that's it end of story and yes Cal most definitely should of gotten an instigator.

Evened out? Are you kidding me? What about tiny little DD getting called for tripping when the Ranger weighing 30lbs more than him tried to get out of the way and left his hips and legs out there.
What about Plek's hooking call when the Ranger let go of his own stick, grabbed Pleks' stick and tucked it under his arm?

Evened out my ass! The Habs played shorthanded for almost an entire 10 minute stretch in the first period. When did the Rangers play half a period shorthended consecutively???

...and best team won...really? After the ref's stopped being douchebags and let the two teams play in the second and third periods, the Habs scored 3 goals to the Rangers 1 and out shot them 25-13. Best team won my ass!

Its a blindside because he shouldnt have been on the ice and Dubinsky did not expect him to be there, hence a blindside.

Im sorry your Habs were down a man so much, maybe they need to control their sticks more? How many easy high sticking and hooking calls did they take? Those are cut and dry easy penalties that any 12 year old kid could make.

And yes, best team won. Im sorry if you disagree, we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[hototogisu]

It was a dangerous blindside hit because he jumped out on the ice illegally. That is two penalties. I dont know why they called it interference . Like i said in my above post, Rangers were called for a 5 on 3 in the 2nd period which one call was because Gionta stepped on the puck and fell down, and the other got tangled with Lundqvist in his crease and they gave Lundqvist a holding call. Habs scored on that, it evened out.

Callahan should have got an instigator though.

I'll give you the Gionta call but the Lundqvist penalty was 100% deserved.

 

[Jumbo*]

I'll give you the Gionta call but the Lundqvist penalty was 100% deserved.

I dunno, its pretty easy to get caught with the blocker/stick since the whole thing sticks out like an anchor, Lundqvist wasn't even paying attention to that man. I thought it was just them getting tangled up, but it is what it is.

 

[Corncob]

Its a blindside because he shouldnt have been on the ice and Dubinsky did not expect him to be there, hence a blindside.

Are you saying there's a rule against hitting someone from the blindside?

 

[Jumbo*]

Are you saying there's a rule against hitting someone from the blindside?

When done illegally, yes.

 

[Kakko]

Blindside? Not even close, he hit him square in the chest, didn't even make contact with his head. Try watching the video.

It was a TMM penalty, that's it end of story and yes Cal most definitely should of gotten an instigator.

Evened out? Are you kidding me? What about tiny little DD getting called for tripping when the Ranger weighing 30lbs more than him tried to get out of the way and left his hips and legs out there.
What about Plek's hooking call when the Ranger let go of his own stick, grabbed Pleks' stick and tucked it under his arm?

Evened out my ass! The Habs played shorthanded for almost an entire 10 minute stretch in the first period. When did the Rangers play half a period shorthended consecutively???

...and best team won...really? After the ref's stopped being douchebags and let the two teams play in the second and third periods, the Habs scored 3 goals to the Rangers 1 and out shot them 25-13. Best team won my ass!

I remember that. Plekanec stuck out his stick at Callahan's side. Callahan went to play the puck, thereby putting his right arm against his body. Plekanec has his stick there illegally, hence the call.

 

[Corncob]

When done illegally, yes.

Well, yes, clearly anything done 'illegally' is against the rules. That's what illegal means. I was curious as to what relevance the hit being from the blindside (leaving aside the fact that it wasn't...) would have.

 

[Lshap]

Rangers and Habs fans have a lot to learn when it comes to having childish, insulting arguments.

Seriously, the play on the ice was pretty clean, and the post-game debate in here even cleaner. Somebody should call Boston or Toronto and straighten out this awful display of civilization.

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

IMO the game misconducts were uncalled for.

Usually those auto ejections are saved for fights that break out when everyone is standing around and watching another fight. It stops the "hey, you want to go?" Yea, why not.

This all seemed heat of the moment, not planned. Refs flexing their muscles.

 

[Natey]

That penalty was warranted. Maybe not interference, but something. You can't just jump onto the ice and level someone way before the guy you are replacing gets anywhere near the bench, man.

First of all, watch the ****ing play. Cole was basically at the bench, it wasn't THAT far off. But yes, it was TMM. If you watch the video, Cole was, by rules, retired (off) the ice. But because Blunden made contact before he was off the ice officially, there is a call. Obviously Blunden got over zealous and hit the guy about a second or two early, but it wasn't anything crazy like you're suggesting. It was, simply put, a Too Many Men penalty.

But read the rule book before you stat spewing out crap like it's a fact. If it was a too many men penalty, that takes care of the hit or anything of that nature. It can't be both.

He was the 6th man on the ice and interfered with the play. He had no right to join the play, let alone level someone who wasn't expecting it. Pretty sure that's going to be the rational that you hear from the league, too. I don't see how you think someone should just be allowed to jump onto the ice and clock someone and only have a too many men call be the end result.

Maybe because that's what the rule book says?

Here you go;

74.1 Too Many Men on the Ice - Players may be changed at any time during the play from the players’ bench provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall be within five feet (5') of his players’ bench and out of the play before the change is made. Refer also to Rule 71 – Premature Substitution. At the discretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5’) limit of the players’ bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed.

When a player is retiring from the ice surface and is within the five foot (5’) limit of his players’ bench, and his substitute is on the ice, then the retiring player shall be considered off the ice for the purpose of Rule 70 – Leaving Bench.

If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of “too many men on the ice” will be called.

So really, the 5 on 3, should have been a 4 on 4, since Callahan should have got an instigator.

Just so I get this straight.
In the following video Colorado had 7 players on the ice for the last 12 seconds of the game (start watching from 3:50). Every time the extra player engaged a Vancouver player (or I assume touched the puck) he should have got an interference penalty, on top of the too many men on the ice penalty?

No.

The only other penalties that should be called during that time is illegal plays (hooking, boarding, etc).

Oh the penalties that lead to the five on 3 for the habs, you can easily see that the initial penalty came when a Habs player stepped on the puck and fell, and i suppose if you wanna call holding on Lundqvist, you can make an arguement for that call, but it was a pretty meh call to me. Soft calls went both way. Stop collecting injustices, nobody's getting special treatment.

Soft calls went both ways, yes. But NY got so many more PP chances. And don't tell me they were a perfect team besides one (legit) call all game. There were plenty of calls that the refs let go for NY (including the horrific slash on Spacek in the dying minutes when we scored).

 

[Boom Boom Geoffrion*]

If Pacs is skating on a breakaway and Chara jumps on the ice as the 6th man, and takes him out, I doubt any Habs fans here would be copacetic with just a 2 minute minor.

Blunden's a fool. Habs had no discipline all game and it's the main reason why they lost.

Richards boarding should not have been a minor. The little hook on Anisimov shouldn't have been one either, imo. Callahan should have probably gotten an instigator too. There were some weak calls, and most Rangers fans are not denying this.

But Blunden's blunder was well worthy of 2 minors.

 

[Black Tank]

If Blunden doesn't get an additional penalty, then every team will wait until a player like Ovechkin is flying down the ice by the benches and have someone jump out right in front of him and hit him shoulder to chest - a clean hit - and take only the 2 min TMM penalty. It's worth it too be able to level a fast moving player when he's not expecting it. Imagine how awesome the games would be... .