Refs video review an Ian Cole interference penalty and change it to a Tyler Myers 5 minute major.

[Pablo El Perro]

I'm going with the linesman caught the elbow on Myers, talked to the refs, worked it out from there.

That’s not what they were reviewing, they were reviewing the Cole hit

Yes, but in that review, without mics we don't know, one of the linesmen could have brought up the elbow. Per the same rulebook, they are allowed to catch things the refs miss.

 

[Mattb124]

Gotta love HFB. When the refs get a call wrong, they bitch.

But when they get it right? They bitch.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Gotta love HFB. When the refs get a call wrong, they bitch.

But when they get it right? They bitch.

They got it right for the wrong reasons. Same thing happened when Florida challenged a hand pass last year, and the Bruins faithful were in disagreement with their coach.

 

[MikeyMike01]

This is Rule 21.5. The third prong isn’t in the version of the rulebook released at the beginning of the 2023-24 season. If they added it mid-season, it’s because the refs were rescinding penalties after review and the league wanted to retroactively make that consistent with the rules. And it doesn’t even cover what happened here. The NHL has been changing rules on the fly to cover officials since Brett Hull’s foot in the crease.

Bizarrely, the options in 21.5 are different than 20.6, despite being essentially the same thing.

 

[Three On Zero]

I'm going with the linesman caught the elbow on Myers, talked to the refs, worked it out from there.


Yes, but in that review, without mics we don't know, one of the linesmen could have brought up the elbow. Per the same rulebook, they are allowed to catch things the refs miss.

The only issue with that is the two refs were reviewing the play, the linesmen were not involved. And it was called for a review on Cole’s penalty.

It was a good call, but how they came to the outcome is something that needs to be clearly defined in the rulebook

 

[Pablo El Perro]

The only issue with that is the two refs were reviewing the play, the linesmen were not involved. And it was called for a review on Cole’s penalty.

It was a good call, but how they came to the outcome is something that needs to be clearly defined in the rulebook

The linesman might have already said something, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, rather than getting upset about one bulletpoint in the rulebook.

But simply making it clear that refs can catch other missed calls on a review is fine with me.

 

[Three On Zero]

The linesman might have already said something, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, rather than getting upset about one bulletpoint in the rulebook.

But simply making it clear that refs can catch other missed calls on a review is fine with me.

They never really huddled, the refs called a major on Cole and nothing on Myers.

I am also fine with it but they need to clearly define that it’s within the rules. Situations like this SHOULD be reviewed to ensure consistency and that the right call is made. But make it known that it’s a possibility

 

[Pablo El Perro]

They never really huddled, the refs called a major on Cole and nothing on Myers.

I am also fine with it but they need to clearly define that it’s within the rules

I agree, ultimately. I'm sure many wouldn't like it, but if a video review reveals something else, make the right call. Just don't like getting tinfoil about it,which would be solved by making that a rule.

 

[LuckyDay]

In spite of Ferraro convincing Shorthouse that it was Cole's hit on Danforth that was one the being called when I was watching I always thought the broadcasters got it wrong and were reviewing what caused Kuraly to bleed - they thought it was Cole when it was Myers, seemingly inadvertently.
There's no "4 minutes for elbowing" like there is for high sticking so they called it that.

If anything it should have been a 2 minute IMO. But by wrapping the brightest tin foil around my head, I don't think it was a coincidence this happened after the Canucks scored on three straight powerplays. The Blue Jackets were due and the officials didn't want to be the cause of them losing the game so they made this a match late in the game. I don't think anyone is calling for a suspension on Myers - that's how egregious it was.

 

[Guttersniped]

The existence of blood absolutely does not result in an automatic major. What about an interference penalty on an otherwise clean hit that results in a cut from the defending players own visor? How about a simple high-sticking penalty? Neither of those are majors but they are certainly physical infractions.



They placed Ian Cole in the penalty box and verbally confirmed it was an interference penalty on Cole. Unless you're arguing they were calling the major on Cole... in which case that's worse not better.


This is exactly what they did.

Even if all of that was true. Why didn't Cole get a penalty as well? It seems pretty clear they didn't understand the rule and that is what's concerning. Myers absolutely deserved a penalty (it could be argued as a minor or major) and so did Cole but that doesn't change the fact that the way they were given penalties (or taken away) doesn't actually align with the rules set by the NHL.

I deleted my original response to this because so many commentators were confused that I started to wonder if I was missing something because I only saw the video.

Then the post below gave me the courage to enter the fray again lol.

I was specifically referring to Elbowing, Charging and Boarding when I said physical infractions, because of this:

But with Elbowing:

Rule 45 - Elbowing
45.1 Elbowing - Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury.
45.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of elbowing an opponent.
45.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on any player who uses his elbow to illegally check an opponent. A major penalty must be imposed under this rule for an infraction resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent (see 45.5).
45.4 Match Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by elbowing.
45.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for an infraction resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct penalty shall also be imposed.

So yes, it’s an automatic Major + Game Misconduct if they call an Elbow on Meyers because of Kuraly’s injury.

In spite of Ferraro convincing Shorthouse that it was Cole's hit on Danforth that was one the being called when I was watching I always thought the broadcasters got it wrong and were reviewing what caused Kuraly to bleed - they thought it was Cole when it was Myers, seemingly inadvertently.
There's no "4 minutes for elbowing" like there is for high sticking so they called it that.

If anything it should have been a 2 minute IMO. But by wrapping the brightest tin foil around my head, I don't think it was a coincidence this happened after the Canucks scored on three straight powerplays. The Blue Jackets were due and the officials didn't want to be the cause of them losing the game so they made this a match late in the game. I don't think anyone is calling for a suspension on Myers - that's how egregious it was.

I still think Kuraly’s injury, after slumping to the ice, is was what caught the refs’ attention but maybe they thought Cole did it. Weren’t sure
and decided to use the video tape to find out?

I’ve become more confused honestly.

 

[geebster]

Comes down to if you believe in ends justify the means or in the process mattering (utilitarianism vs a Kantian approach).

Is it OK for the police to plant evidence and lie under oath if it gets an actually bad guy in jail? It's the right call for the wrong reasons. I say no.

They have no ability to call a different penalty on a different player based on video review. There's no provision for it. If not called on the ice it becomes a missed call, of which we see many. Should they take every review they do as an opportunity to see if any other penalties occurred in the frame?

Ultimately I think those tasked with upholding and enforcing the rules shouldn't be allowed to make rules up.

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

The rule always irritated me that they can't review certain plays. The spirit of the game should be about getting calls right and I'm glad they broke the rule to get the call right (even though I disagree with the assessment of the major but by the book the major could be argued). I say this as a Canucks fan.

Just get the call right in the end.

 

[Lawzy]

I deleted my original response to this because so many commentators were confused that I started to wonder if I was missing something because I only saw the video.

Then the post below gave me the courage to enter the fray again lol.

I was specifically referring to Elbowing, Charging and Boarding when I said physical infractions, because of this:

View attachment 812729

But with Elbowing:

Rule 45 - Elbowing
45.1 Elbowing - Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury.
45.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of elbowing an opponent.
45.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on any player who uses his elbow to illegally check an opponent. A major penalty must be imposed under this rule for an infraction resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent (see 45.5).
45.4 Match Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by elbowing.
45.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for an infraction resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct penalty shall also be imposed.

So yes, it’s an automatic Major + Game Misconduct if they call an Elbow on Meyers because of Kuraly’s injury.

Ah, this makes much more sense to me. I was wondering why you specifically used the term 'physical infraction' but, for whatever reason, I never asked. Just to clarify, you're arguing that the penalty on Myers has to be a major because of 45.5? I don't disagree with this at all. However, that doesn't take away from the issue here. If that is the case, the referee needs to assess Myers a major and then review the major (either removing the penalty altogether on review or withstanding) otherwise they still violated the rules attached a few pages ago by retroactively assessing Myers a major on the review for Cole's hit.

 

[cc]

The rules appear to be stipulated in such a way as to not allow much latitude for discretionary decisions by the officials.

Just change the rules to allow for review of any suspected infraction that results in injury or something to that effect. It would make things simpler.

One thing that surprises me is that this situation did not generate more discussion than the perfunctory 'just get the call right' response from the NHL and hockey analysts.

 

[Nucker101]

The rule always irritated me that they can't review certain plays. The spirit of the game should be about getting calls right and I'm glad they broke the rule to get the call right (even though I disagree with the assessment of the major but by the book the major could be argued). I say this as a Canucks fan.

Just get the call right in the end.

Well the slippery slope here is that what if next month, Nils Hoglander gets boarded and a 5 minute major gets reviewed, but during that same sequence, Quinn Hughes is clearly slashed on the wrist and gets injured, but the refs just uphold the boarding call and ignore the Hughes slash? They can easily just say "we were reviewing the boarding major, that's it" and technically that's fine.

So basically from my understanding, the refs can pick and choose when they want to "just get it right"

And the "just get it right" mantra here from the situation room in Toronto is hilarious here, because the entire league and all the fans know "game management" is a real thing so clearly "just get it right" is not something this league abides by at all.

Just a ton of hypocrisy from the NHL as per usual.

 

[Oilslick941611]

It clear on video, an elbow to face happened, I don't care about the precise rule book section giving them the authority or not. No one was screwed over. It wasn't a phantom call that never happened, Myers elbow hit the Blue jacket player.

There is no conspiracy here. No one got f***ed over and the right call was made.

a success in my book. It not like it was a review of a 1/32nd of a inch of a toe touching the blue line.