Was this a penalty shot?

[Green]

Not sure if this was posted anywhere else on this forum, exciting finish to the Ohio State - Wisconsin Women's NCAA Championship that Wisconsin won in OT, with 18 seconds left they called this a penalty shot that Wisconsin scored on that led to the OT, no ref called anything initially but it was challenged and they ruled a penalty shot, personally I don't see anything conclusive given this angle and where the puck ended up but the refs thought otherwise



Also I am not entirely sure the penalty shot was legal looking at this angle, looks like she might have brought the puck back slightly

 

[MeHateHe]

Not sure if this was posted anywhere else on this forum, exciting finish to the Ohio State - Wisconsin Women's NCAA Championship that Wisconsin won in OT, with 18 seconds left they called this a penalty shot that Wisconsin scored on that led to the OT, no ref called anything initially but it was challenged and they ruled a penalty shot, personally I don't see anything conclusive given this angle and where the puck ended up but the refs thought otherwise



Also I am not entirely sure the penalty shot was legal looking at this angle, looks like she might have brought the puck back slightly

From my days as a referee, based only on the overhead angle, I would call that a penalty shot.

A non-goalie cannot cover the puck in the crease, and it's not just the use of the hand. The purpose of that rule is to allow for attacking players to have full access to the puck, unless the goaltender controls and/or covers it. The defender #18's actions took away the attacker #6's ability to get a clear chance at goal. Don't lawyer it up by saying she didn't cover it because the puck went 'through' her. Her actions were intended to prevent access to the puck in contravention of the rule. The fact that the defender reached for the puck makes her even more culpable.

Now, had there been no player from the white team at the side of the net, I am probably less inclined to make that call. But for me the bottom line is that the defender's actions were against the rules (she covered the puck) and served to take away a scoring opportunity. That's what the penalty shot rule is for. Penalty shot all day, every day for me.

 

[Drummer]

I am a Canadian based official (Level 3 on-ice, certified Officials Instructor and mentor to Jr. A officials). I totally agree with MeHateMe - she intentionally handles the puck by covering it with the palm of her hand and then gathers it into her chest. The face it pops out the other side is not material to the situation. Had she bated the puck, flicked it with her fingers, etc - fine, but she doesn't. Also, her actions intentionally hides the puck from the opponents. Great call by the official.

For the penalty shot - the shooter has to lose control of the puck in the opposite direction or stop propelling it forward. In this example, she does not lose control on her deke. The puck can move backwards (when controlled by the player) otherwise they would never be able to have a 'wind up' for a wrist shot. Transitioning from backhand to forehand is not 'backwards' unless she loses control and has to reestablish control by reaching back to gather the puck. In this example it's a pretty clean transition. (I had situation in a U13AAA game where the player started his wrist-shot wind-up and lost control which sent the puck 1-2ft backwards. He had to stop and reach back to gather it - I blew it down right away)