Nokelainen and Sauer ejected for fighting during another fight

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Section337

Registered User
Jul 7, 2007
5,372
757
Edmonton, AB
Did his second foot touch the ice before the hit? It was extremely close, but if it did not touch the ice he could be called for interference as he is considered to still be on the bench, as defined in the interference penalty.

However, the too many men on the ice does have a paragraph about that possibility. Not sure if both should be call in a too many men on the ice situation. It could be considered two fouls, but they both involved the same act.
 

HabsHockey*

Guest
Holy smokes Habs fans need to wake up. Too many men and Interference were both the right calls. Get over it.
 

Puckface NYR*

Guest
Not arguing the TMM at all. Just saying that it could have been avoided had Cole not stopped skating. Point being that if Cole was that close to getting off the ice, Dubs has to be responsible and keep his head up for players that might be coming off the bench.

That would be true, had Cole been close to getting of the ice, which he wasn't, hence the TMM call.

I understand the point you're trying to make but it has no place here since Cole wasn't close to the bench. The rule is 5 feet, Cole wasn't within that. So Dubinsky had no idea he was leaving the ice.
 

shao01

Registered User
Aug 25, 2008
1,665
175
Montreal
Yes the ref lifted his stick into his face........ bad ref.

Obvious you missed my last post. So I'll say it again, for the last time.

The 5-on-3 should have been a 5-on-5, plys AT LEAST one other missed call against the Ranger, as well as a couple of arguable hooking/tripping calls against the Canadiens.

There are like what, 7/8 more penalties called agains the Canadiens now? Did you not watch the game?
 

Saitama

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 20, 2010
8,569
6,258
Winnipeg
Obvious you missed my last post. So I'll say it again, for the last time.

The 5-on-3 should have been a 5-on-5, plys AT LEAST one other missed call against the Ranger, as well as a couple of arguable hooking/tripping calls against the Canadiens.

There are like what, 7/8 more penalties called agains the Canadiens now? Did you not watch the game?

I'm watching the game and I say you're mostly wrong. The Habs are playing undisciplined hockey and the refs did miss an instigator in my opinion on Cally. But try laying some blame on the Habs players.
 

Made Dan

Registered User
Jul 15, 2007
14,520
50
The Bronx, NY
The bench should have gotten a minor for too many men 100%.

If you can find me an NHL rule where it justifies that penalty i will delete my account.

Rule 74 - Too Many Men on the Ice

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.

If in the course of a substitution either the player(s) entering the play or the player(s) retiring is struck by the puck accidentally, the play will not be stopped and no penalty will be called.

During the play, the player retiring from the ice must do so at the players’ bench and not through any other exit leading from the rink. This is not a legal player change and therefore when a violation occurs, a bench minor penalty shall be imposed.

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.


:)
 

Stanley Foobrick

Clockwork Blue
Apr 2, 2007
14,044
0
Fooville, Ontario
Obvious you missed my last post. So I'll say it again, for the last time.

The 5-on-3 should have been a 5-on-5, plys AT LEAST one other missed call against the Ranger, as well as a couple of arguable hooking/tripping calls against the Canadiens.

There are like what, 7/8 more penalties called agains the Canadiens now? Did you not watch the game?

No your last post said one more call and I'm done. Well that was the one more, so see ya, have a good night now.
 

Puckface NYR*

Guest
Obvious you missed my last post. So I'll say it again, for the last time.

The 5-on-3 should have been a 5-on-5, plys AT LEAST one other missed call against the Ranger, as well as a couple of arguable hooking/tripping calls against the Canadiens.

There are like what, 7/8 more penalties called agains the Canadiens now? Did you not watch the game?

You must have missed the above post stating the rule. 5-3 was deserved.
 

Davebo*

Guest
Gee - look at that. Get PP - get goals.

I'm glad we got a chance at this.
 

Boom Boom Geoffrion*

Guest
And that obviously wasn't a high stick. Callahan's wearing his helmet on his pelvis today. Clean stick-check. :laugh: :dunce:
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad