Penalty or not? Player is hit, said player that is hit high sticks opposing teams player?

[dire wolf]

That was a pretty crazy situation. A few thoughts on the play (I'm a Sabres fan, btw. Also an attorney, so I'm very familiar with reading and interpreting rules):

1. Possible head shot by Letang. I would have to go back and watch the replay a bunch more times, but it was pretty close.

2. The high-sticking was clearly caused by Letang's hit and not Peterka's fault. However, I just went back and read Rule 60.1, and it doesn't seem to matter in this situation:

60.1 High-sticking – For “high-sticking the puck”, refer to Rule 80.​

A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion, or accidental contact on the opposing center who is bent over during the course of a face-off. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.​

I believe the refs/Toronto got the call wrong according to Rule 60. The rule only discusses accidental contact in the context of a shot follow-through or a face-off. (In other words, stick-lift high stickings should also be penalties according to the letter of the rule.) That being said, because they interpret Rule 60 such that stick lifts are not penalties, then tonight's call makes sense. Seems like the text of the Rule and historical precedent are at odds with one another.

3. However, Rule 60.1 is completely stupid and should be re-written. This situation should not result in a penalty to Peterka in my opinion. Letang directly caused it. While we're at it, they should also re-write 60.3 (which says blood results in a double-minor). That shouldn't be the deciding factor. Bleeding mostly occurs when the stick hits the nose or lip. You can whack someone twice as hard on the cheek with more intention and not draw blood. To me, a double minor should only be called when the Ref believes the high-sticking was done intentionally or with undue recklessness.

4. I like Peterka, but I don't know what he was thinking trying to split the D there.

 

[JPeeper]

Officials and NHL got the play right in the Pitt game, guy gets hit and his stick clips someone, how the hell are you supposed to have control of your stick when you're getting smoked?

Pens didn't get screwed, stop playing.

 

[metalan2]

That was a pretty crazy situation. A few thoughts on the play (I'm a Sabres fan, btw. Also an attorney, so I'm very familiar with reading and interpreting rules):

1. Possible head shot by Letang. I would have to go back and watch the replay a bunch more times, but it was pretty close.

2. The high-sticking was clearly caused by Letang's hit and not Peterka's fault. However, I just went back and read Rule 60.1, and it doesn't seem to matter in this situation:

60.1 High-sticking – For “high-sticking the puck”, refer to Rule 80.​

A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion, or accidental contact on the opposing center who is bent over during the course of a face-off. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.​

I believe the refs/Toronto got the call wrong according to Rule 60. The rule only discusses accidental contact in the context of a shot follow-through or a face-off. (In other words, stick-lift high stickings should also be penalties according to the letter of the rule.) That being said, because they interpret Rule 60 such that stick lifts are not penalties, then tonight's call makes sense. Seems like the text of the Rule and historical precedent are at odds with one another.

3. However, Rule 60.1 is completely stupid and should be re-written. This situation should not result in a penalty to Peterka in my opinion. Letang directly caused it. While we're at it, they should also re-write 60.3 (which says blood results in a double-minor). That shouldn't be the deciding factor. Bleeding mostly occurs when the stick hits the nose or lip. You can whack someone twice as hard on the cheek with more intention and not draw blood. To me, a double minor should only be called when the Ref believes the high-sticking was done intentionally or with undue recklessness.

4. I like Peterka, but I don't know what he was thinking trying to split the D there.

Thank you. This is how I interpreted as well. By the letter of the law this was a penalty and should always be called, regardless if there was a head shot or whatever. There would be no reason to state " a player must be in control of their stick at all times" otherwise. "

I actually thought it was pretty clear.

However, I'm definitely not mad it wasn't called, since the Penguins wouldn't have scored anyway, but it was clear they didn't call it bc they thought it was caused by a bad check by Letang. In my mind the call was made based off of emotion, and if the hit was clearly clean, it would have been a penalty on the sabres.

 

[DickSmehlik]

What happens if the player gets knocked out and his stick cuts someone? Does he have to serve the penalty before you can take him to the hospital?

Someone else serves it.

It would be pretty ridiculous for a player to get a penalty for not controlling his stick in the scenario where he is getting knocked unconscious.

There has to be some discretion in plays like this as well as Peterka wasn’t even acting careless.

 

[Sabresruletheschool]

That was a pretty crazy situation. A few thoughts on the play (I'm a Sabres fan, btw. Also an attorney, so I'm very familiar with reading and interpreting rules):

1. Possible head shot by Letang. I would have to go back and watch the replay a bunch more times, but it was pretty close.

2. The high-sticking was clearly caused by Letang's hit and not Peterka's fault. However, I just went back and read Rule 60.1, and it doesn't seem to matter in this situation:

60.1 High-sticking – For “high-sticking the puck”, refer to Rule 80.​

A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion, or accidental contact on the opposing center who is bent over during the course of a face-off. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.​

I believe the refs/Toronto got the call wrong according to Rule 60. The rule only discusses accidental contact in the context of a shot follow-through or a face-off. (In other words, stick-lift high stickings should also be penalties according to the letter of the rule.) That being said, because they interpret Rule 60 such that stick lifts are not penalties, then tonight's call makes sense. Seems like the text of the Rule and historical precedent are at odds with one another.

3. However, Rule 60.1 is completely stupid and should be re-written. This situation should not result in a penalty to Peterka in my opinion. Letang directly caused it. While we're at it, they should also re-write 60.3 (which says blood results in a double-minor). That shouldn't be the deciding factor. Bleeding mostly occurs when the stick hits the nose or lip. You can whack someone twice as hard on the cheek with more intention and not draw blood. To me, a double minor should only be called when the Ref believes the high-sticking was done intentionally or with undue recklessness.

4. I like Peterka, but I don't know what he was thinking trying to split the D there.

Yeah, technically by the letter of the rules, it probably should have been called. But pretty dumb to get called a penalty in a situation like that. But by the rules, Letang should of gotten a penalty too.

 

[Rec T]

(I think the no call was the right decision here fwiw...)

The problem with stating in the rules that a player can hit another with his stick 'if he was checked/hit hard and it just flew up'. If such a thing was allowed, it would immediately become a "woops, I got hit, sorry to whack you in the head on the way down" sort of thing several times per game as players would swing away every time they got hit.

There's a reason that the players are required to be in control of their sticks at all times.

Letting the officials look at things and take the totality of the situation into account on the rare times that it happens like this isn't a bad thing.

 

[dire wolf]

Yeah, technically by the letter of the rules, it probably should have been called. But pretty dumb to get called a penalty in a situation like that. But by the rules, Letang should of gotten a penalty too.

The first problem is the rule. As a lawyer, I'd love to re-write it for them. It's dumb. The second problem is that there is historical precedent for ignoring the text of the rule in stick-lift situations. This should have been fixed a long time ago.

 

[Chips]

Player A must control his stick at all times.

Hard disagree when you look at the Pens game he was I assume referencing.


The dude got rocked. You can’t control anything let alone your stick in that situation lol. I would have been pissed as a Buffalo fan had they called that a high stick.


The point of the rule is to train players to keep their sticks down generally. 99% of the time it’s in their control but there are some extremes where the “high stick” would be entirely removed from the spirit of the rule. The Letang hit earlier was a prime example

 

[Atoyot]

Player A must control his stick at all times.

Unless it's a follow through. Which is a stupid, stupid rule.

 

[Djp]

If Peterka gets a double for that then letang gets a 5 for hit to head and a 10 game suspension.

 

[Sabresruletheschool]

The first problem is the rule. As a lawyer, I'd love to re-write it for them. It's dumb. The second problem is that there is historical precedent for ignoring the text of the rule in stick-lift situations. This should have been fixed a long time ago.

I agree. The only problem I see are players might use it to thier advantage. They get checked and "oops, my stick hit them in the head from the check".

 

[dire wolf]

I agree. The only problem I see are players might use it to thier advantage. They get checked and "oops, my stick hit them in the head from the check".

It's impossible to draft a rule that doesn't create some potential problem. IMO, the refs should have some latitude where the high stick is out of the player's control. They already have latitude for boarding, charging, holding, etc.

 

[tarheelhockey]

While I agree that the spirit of the rule is not intended to create a penalty in this situation, there’s no exception in the rules for a guy who’s getting hit. This is 100% a penalty by the book. To have waved it off on review, unless I’m missing something, means they just straight up violated the rules on purpose here.

 

[TT1]

Officials and NHL got the play right in the Pitt game, guy gets hit and his stick clips someone, how the hell are you supposed to have control of your stick when you're getting smoked?

Pens didn't get screwed, stop playing.

once you start adding exceptions thats when it opens a can of worms (in some scenarios it'll come down to personal interpretation of the rule by the refs etc) and players are insanely competitive so there's bound to be pests who abuse it

as long as the initial hit isn't a penalty it should be > stick hits face = instant penalty

 

[egelband]

I think it’s reasonable to let something like this go. It wasn’t like the buffalo guy whipped his stick up dangerously either. I assume there was no injury to the penguins player? Seems like letting it go is the right call but if they gave two mins I suppose I understand the reasoning.

 

[egelband]

The officials are making up rules as they go along anyhow. So at least, in this case, they’ve made a reasonable choice, for once.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Why do people keep saying that ‘the player must control their stick at all times’? The rules absolutely do not say that:

A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion, or accidental contact on the opposing center who is bent over during the course of a face-off. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

It’s not a penalty. It fails at ‘carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders’. This isn’t difficult.

 

[CowbellConray]

In the law of common sense, it’s not a penalty

In the law of the rulebook, it looks like it’s a penalty

I personally prefer the rule of common sense, so I’m a fan of the no call.

 

[gallagt01]

In the law of common sense, it’s not a penalty

In the law of the rulebook, it looks like it’s a penalty

I personally prefer the rule of common sense, so I’m a fan of the no call.

This essentially is the crux of the matter. Well said.

I'll call it karma for Letang being an absolute dirtbag all night.

 

[ijuka]

In the law of common sense, it’s not a penalty

In the law of the rulebook, it looks like it’s a penalty

I personally prefer the rule of common sense, so I’m a fan of the no call.

Or maybe NHL should just make the rulebook make sense instead of not making it make sense and then have the refs freestyle in their interpretation of it, how about that?

 

[Panthaz89]

Or maybe NHL should just make the rulebook make sense instead of not making it make sense and then have the refs freestyle in their interpretation of it, how about that?

To be fair if they called interference as per rules we'd have like 10 penalties a game for the guys who get away with a shove on a guy that chipped the puck passed them. Also the crosschecks constantly done in front of the net by Dmen on guys who don't have the puck.

 

[DearDiary]

A player must be in control of their stick at all times. That includes an opposing player lifting your stick or someone tripping you and your stick jumps forward. The refs made up a loophole on the spot to take that penalty away

 

[Seanaconda]

I'm not sure anymore I've seen it called both ways

Earlier this year Oilers game they called back a penalty that happened like this.

 

[CowbellConray]

Or maybe NHL should just make the rulebook make sense instead of not making it make sense and then have the refs freestyle in their interpretation of it, how about that?

I absolutely agree - the NHL needs a revamp of the rulebook. Unfortunately, that’s not coming anytime soon I fear

 

[Hennessy]

I saw this happen and was flabbergasted when they called a double minor on the play. Of course, after the review all was right with the world, but for a moment there I was about to rage.