Forums/St. Louis Blues

ing Refs That was a ing Handpass

May 15 at 11:48
#51
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 514
Quoting: ChiHawk
it was clear this was not directly to a teammate


I don't understand your rationale here ChiHawk? It is clear from video evidence that it went directly to his teammate. It did not go to the boards. It did not go to a skate. It did not go to a Blues player or any part of his body, equipment or stick. It did not go over the boards. It did not go on net. The only alternative left is to his own player. That's pretty clear from video evidence.
CD282 liked this.
May 15 at 11:49
#52
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 659
Quoting: ChiHawk
Actually, apologize, that was USA Hockey's rule.

NHL hockey rule is even more descriptive; Rule 67
67.1 Handling Puck - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 – Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.

INTENT has everything to do with this call. Guys, you're all ganging up on me saying you know the rule and clearly the rule says differently.


Which is funny because the player still batted the puck directly in the direction of his teammate! Not to mention, players bat down pucks all the time in "general" areas where both teams can play the puck and it is always blown dead unless the refs miss the call.
So again, you are wrong.
May 15 at 11:50
#53
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 514
Quoting: ChiHawk
Actually, apologize, that was USA Hockey's rule.

NHL hockey rule is even more descriptive; Rule 67
67.1 Handling Puck - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 – Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.

INTENT has everything to do with this call. Guys, you're all ganging up on me saying you know the rule and clearly the rule says differently. There is NO WAY, the refs can reverse a game winning goal saying the player was deliberately directing the puck to a teammate. Only a homer or someone not understanding the hockey rules would suggest the refs blew the call.


I'm not ganging up on you, CHiHawk. Just debating with you, my friend.
May 15 at 11:51
#54
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 659
Quoting: ChiHawk
Wrong, see Rule 67.1 is states deliberately directing no way can anyone here make a case that happened. Refs are turning over a game winning goal on a wild guess of intent.


In that case, the refs would never blow dead a puck on a hand pass because you can never know "intent". And Again, if you watch the replay, he clearly batted the puck towards his teammate. Which by your definition is "direct"
CD282 liked this.
May 15 at 11:51
#55
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: rja40
I don't understand you rationale here ChiHawk? It is clear from video evidence that it went directly to his teammate. It did not go to the boards. It did not go to a skate. It did not go to a Blues player or any part of his body, equipment or stick. It did not go over the boards. It did not go on net. The only alternative left is to his own player. That's pretty clear from video evidence.


It's clear as day the player did not "deliberately direct the puck to a teammate" that's the rule.
May 15 at 11:53
#56
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: Chopper02
Which is funny because the player still batted the puck directly in the direction of his teammate! Not to mention, players bat down pucks all the time in "general" areas where both teams can play the puck and it is always blown dead unless the refs miss the call.
So again, you are wrong.


The refs and everyone outside of St. Louis would see he was trying to bat the puck down, not to a teammate. First comment on here I said there was no intent, then you guys say intent doesn't matter, then I show you rule and now you're saying he did intentionally hand pass directly to a teammate. 100% wrong on this.
May 15 at 11:54
#57
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 514
Quoting: ChiHawk
It's clear as day the player did not "deliberately direct the puck to a teammate" that's the rule.


How is that "clear?"
May 15 at 11:56
#58
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Edited May 16 at 12:01
Quoting: rja40
I'm not ganging up on you, CHiHawk. Just debating with you, my friend.


Fair enough, thank you. Look, it's a crap way to win and crap way to lose but the refs followed the rules. The player, seeing it from different angles, was trying to bat it down not bat it to a teammate as a St. Louis player (Bouwmeester) was right there where the puck ended up. It's impossible to say TM deliberately directed it to a teammate (Nyquist who was behind the net)...i don't honestly know how anyone who sees the replay over and over again can say with a 100% certainty that is the case. There is no way on a game winning goal the refs are going to reverse a call without 100% certainty.
May 15 at 11:59
#59
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 784
Likes: 119
The referees are not able to revert the goal and call it back for a hand pass. A careful reading of the rule states that the on-ice officials have to make the call, and a team is not able to challenge the goal. Unfortunately, the referees were unable to see it in real time, something that is already hard to do. Toronto was unable to help the Blues out here, and it's simply an unfortunate situation.

Blaming the refs, however, is misplaced anger. It should be a long series, and the Blues played very well. The NHL will right this wrong in the offseason, and we all need to move on.
May 16 at 12:00
#60
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: rja40
How is that "clear?"


Prove to me it was clear he did. Watch the replay from different angles. Bouwmeester had the best chance at the puck in front of the net, Nyquist was behind the net and skated around and passed to EK.
May 16 at 12:01
#61
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 514
Quoting: ChiHawk
The refs and everyone outside of St. Louis would see he was trying to bat the puck down, not to a teammate. First comment on here I said there was no intent, then you guys say intent doesn't matter, then I show you rule and now you're saying he did intentionally hand pass directly to a teammate. 100% wrong on this.


Ok. This debate has now gone awry. Now you are trying to speak for the refs (who, in your defense, somewhat support your statement by the no-call) and "everyone outside of St. Louis." It is clear that the puck was moved from a hand to a teammate. It is unclear his intent (although he did swipe his hand from his right to his left, which also happened to be the front of the net). It is clear a second pass was made. It is clear the Sharks scored after the puck transferred from hand to teammate. It is clear that the referees did not blow a whistle. It is clear the Blues lost the game. What is certainly not clear is what the refs and everyone outside of St. Louis saw (or thought). You're overstepping a bit there. We lost. We had a chance to win it, but Petro iced it when he didn't need to. Schwatrz missed an open net. Berube didn't put Parayko in for Petro when he had a chance. We blew it. That is clear.
May 16 at 12:02
#62
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 514
Quoting: ChiHawk
Fair enough, thank you. Look, it's a crap way to win and crap way to lose but the refs followed the rules. The player, seeing it from different angles, was trying to bat it down not bat it to a teammate as a St. Louis player (Bouwmeester) was right there where the puck ended up. It's impossible to say TM deliberately directed it to a teammate (Nyquist who was behind the net)...i don't honestly know how anyone who sees the replay over and over again can say with a 100% certainty that is the case. There is no way on a game winning goal the refs are going to reverse a call without 100% certainty.


I certainly agree with your last statement.
May 16 at 12:04
#63
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 659
Quoting: ChiHawk
The refs and everyone outside of St. Louis would see he was trying to bat the puck down, not to a teammate. First comment on here I said there was no intent, then you guys say intent doesn't matter, then I show you rule and now you're saying he did intentionally hand pass directly to a teammate. 100% wrong on this.


Intent doesn't matter, but when you look at the replay, based on the definition it is directly being batted to a teammate. If "intent" was the deciding factor than handpasses would never be blown dead but they always are unless missed.
May 16 at 12:04
#64
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 784
Likes: 119
Quoting: ChiHawk
Wrong, see Rule 67.1 is states deliberately directing no way can anyone here make a case that happened. Refs are turning over a game winning goal on a wild guess of intent.


If you continue reading the rule, it says " or has allowed his team to gain an advantage..." which one could argue that in this case did create an advantage (which is why referees call the hand pass whenever a player on the same team touches the puck first). However, it's not reviewable, and once the referees failed to make the call, you have to call the game. They missed the call, but it was out of their hands at that point. The NHL will change the rule and allow teams to challenge that sort of play going forward.
May 16 at 12:05
#65
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: rja40
Ok. This debate has now gone awry. Now you are trying to speak for the refs (who, in your defense, somewhat support your statement by the no-call) and "everyone outside of St. Louis." It is clear that the puck was moved from a hand to a teammate. It is unclear his intent (although he did swipe his hand from his right to his left, which also happened to be the front of the net). It is clear a second pass was made. It is clear the Sharks scored after the puck transferred from hand to teammate. It is clear that the referees did not blow a whistle. It is clear the Blues lost the game. What is certainly not clear is what the refs and everyone outside of St. Louis saw (or thought). You're overstepping a bit there. We lost. We had a chance to win it, but Petro iced it when he didn't need to. Schwatrz missed an open net. Berube didn't put Parayko in for Petro when he had a chance. We blew it. That is clear.


TM swiped the puck from right to his left and landed in front of the net right at the feet of Bouwmeester, Nyquist was behind the net and skated in from behind to infront and grabbed the puck. That is pretty hard to say it was a deliberate handpass. The refs followed the rulebook and the game was called correctly. It's not a great way to win and a crap way to lose but that is hockey or any sport. For it to come down to this after a long fought battle sucks. But anyone that understands the rule, knows the refs made the right call and held it up after convening. If that was a hand pass with intent, it was a ****ty one because Bouwmeester had the best shot at the puck and Nyquist was behind the net at the time.
May 16 at 12:06
#66
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 659
Quoting: rja
The referees are not able to revert the goal and call it back for a hand pass. A careful reading of the rule states that the on-ice officials have to make the call, and a team is not able to challenge the goal. Unfortunately, the referees were unable to see it in real time, something that is already hard to do. Toronto was unable to help the Blues out here, and it's simply an unfortunate situation.

Blaming the refs, however, is misplaced anger. It should be a long series, and the Blues played very well. The NHL will right this wrong in the offseason, and we all need to move on.


I blame the refs for the missed call that directly led to a Sharks victory. I blame the Blues for letting it get to overtime to allow this situation to happen
May 16 at 12:08
#67
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: Chopper02
Intent doesn't matter, but when you look at the replay, based on the definition it is directly being batted to a teammate. If "intent" was the deciding factor than handpasses would never be blown dead but they always are unless missed.


You're wrong. It has to be a deliberately directed to a teammate....watch the replay...that was a very crappy deliberate attempt if you're arguing it was deliberate. Bouwmeester had the best opportunity and Nyquist who ended up with the puck was BEHIND TM and the net. That wasn't a deliberate pass to Nyquist...the refs would have to say it was in order to nix the goal. Not happening.
May 16 at 12:08
#68
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 514
Quoting: ChiHawk
Prove to me it was clear he did. Watch the replay from different angles. Bouwmeester had the best chance at the puck in front of the net, Nyquist was behind the net and skated around and passed to EK.


I don't need to. You are the one who stated that is was "clear as day the player did not 'deliberately direct the puck to a teammate' that's the rule. " I asked you how it was clear as day, but you want me to prove it was clear that he deliberately moved the puck. I'm not claiming intent. I'm claiming the fact that it was moved by hand to teammate. It certainly is NOT clear, but you are claiming is was "clear as day." Neither of us has any idea whether is was deliberate or not. Both of us, however, have video evidence clearly showing the puck was moved from hand to teammate.
May 16 at 12:09
#69
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: rja
If you continue reading the rule, it says " or has allowed his team to gain an advantage..." which one could argue that in this case did create an advantage (which is why referees call the hand pass whenever a player on the same team touches the puck first). However, it's not reviewable, and once the referees failed to make the call, you have to call the game. They missed the call, but it was out of their hands at that point. The NHL will change the rule and allow teams to challenge that sort of play going forward.


Incorrect; here is the entire rule...it doesn't say anything about gaining an advantage.

67.1 Handling Puck - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 – Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.
May 16 at 12:10
#70
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 784
Likes: 119
Edited May 16 at 12:19
Quoting: ChiHawk
Did his hand slapping the puck give a clear advantage to the goal...the answer is no. Was he intentionally passing the puck or slapping it down....the answer is too hard to say.


Quoting: rja40
You are correct. However, the rules state the puck is whistled dead when a hand pass is made to another teammate. The teammate who touched it didn't score the goal. He passed it to Karlsson who scored. Whistle should have been blown; pass to Karlsson and goal is moot. The rule says nothing about intent.


Does not have to be an advantage to the goal; just has to be an advantage in general. Maintaining possession of the puck can be considered an advantage. A textualist interpretation of the rules would suggest that this should be a hand pass, like any other hand pass. But once they missed it, you move on. It was a quick play and was hard to make the call. If there is any blame here, it was a lack of forethought from the league not to allow teams to challenge any goal that was influenced by any violation of the rule. In other words, teams should be allowed to challenge goals that were influenced by a hand pass. The NHL will correct it going forward.
rja40 liked this.
May 16 at 12:11
#71
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: rja40
I don't need to. You are the one who stated that is was "clear as day the player did not 'deliberately direct the puck to a teammate' that's the rule. " I asked you how it was clear as day, but you want me to prove it was clear that he deliberately moved the puck. I'm not claiming intent. I'm claiming the fact that it was moved by hand to teammate. It certainly is NOT clear, but you are claiming is was "clear as day." Neither of us has any idea whether is was deliberate or not. Both of us, however, have video evidence clearly showing the puck was moved from hand to teammate.


And that same video shows Nyquist BEHIND the net when it was batted down and behind Timo. The puck was batted down right to Bouwmeester...nobody but St. Louis was there and you can see Timo try to stick handle it. If it was a hand pass, Timo who's a great player, made a real bad attempt to pass it.
May 16 at 12:12
#72
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 784
Likes: 119
Quoting: Chopper02
I blame the refs for the missed call that directly led to a Sharks victory. I blame the Blues for letting it get to overtime to allow this situation to happen


Blame the league for not having the forethought to allow teams to challenge goals that were influenced by hand passes. It's hard to see a trickling puck like that from the vantage point the refs had. I get that they should have made the call, but human error will continue to be a part of the game. However, we allow review on goals for other violations, so why not this one?
rja40 and Chopper02 liked this.
May 16 at 12:13
#73
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: rja
Does not have to be an advantage to the goal; just has to be an advantage in general. Maintaining possession of the puck can be considered an advantage. A textualist interpretation of the rules would suggest that this should be a hand pass, like any other hand pass. But once they missed it, you move on. It was a quick play and was hard to make the call. If there is any blame here, it was a lack of forethought to allow teams to challenge any goal that was influenced by any violation of the rule. In other words, teams should be allowed to challenge goals that were influenced by a hand pass. The NHL will correct it going forward.


The rule states nothing about an advantage...that's factually incorrect.

67.1 Handling Puck - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 – Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.
May 16 at 12:14
#74
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 784
Likes: 119
Quoting: ChiHawk
Incorrect; here is the entire rule...it doesn't say anything about gaining an advantage.

67.1 Handling Puck - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 – Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.


Strange, the 18-19 rulebook I found says the following:

67.1 Handling Puck - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage, in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and a faceoff conducted (see Rule 79 – Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf
May 16 at 12:15
#75
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 784
Likes: 119
Quoting: ChiHawk
The rule states nothing about an advantage...that's factually incorrect.

67.1 Handling Puck - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 – Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.


And here's rule 79 with the same language:

79.1 Hand Pass - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the
air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the
play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials,
he has directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to
gain an advantage
, and subsequently possession and control of the
puck is obtained by a player of the offending team, either directly or
deflected off any player or official.
mokumboi liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Remove Option
Submit Poll