Forums/St. Louis Blues

ing Refs That was a ing Handpass

May 16 at 12:18
#76
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: rja
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


That's strange, also got this from NHL.com

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26478
May 16 at 12:18
#77
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 514
Quoting: rja
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?


As much as we fans want to blame the refs for all sorts of things, teams are the ones who really win or lose a game. Yes, human error is always a factor and will be so long as humans officiate sports. Blaming the refs is easy, and can be argued at times is used as a cop-out. We can debate intent, advantage, etc. but the Blues lost the game with 80 seconds left. Multiple poor decisions were made by players and the coaches. If they handle the puck, we don't have all of the controversy. They didn't and we lost with controversy. Do better and there's no controversy. I agree with you that all goals should be reviewable (just as all touchdowns are reviewable in football; all home runs are reviewable in baseball). It is a simple rule change that likely happens. It's just unfortunate that it won't happen until after this game.
rja liked this.
May 16 at 12:18
#78
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: rja
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.


Maybe the NHL is changing the rules on the fly after the game! laugh

That's honestly messed up there are two versions of the rules on the NHL website. Good find....if the NHL can publish two versions, then I give up.
May 16 at 12:21
#79
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,858
Likes: 657
Quoting: rja
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?


I don't disagree. It should be a renewable goal as well.
May 16 at 12:22
#80
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 514
Quoting: ChiHawk
Maybe the NHL is changing the rules on the fly after the game! laugh

That's honestly messed up there are two versions of the rules on the NHL website.


Funny. Perhaps they are trying to cover their asses for their referees. Regardless of the team we root for, it is pretty clear that the best the NHL has to offer blow lots of calls all over North America, but they are human. It is to be expected. It just sucks when it hurts our team.
May 16 at 12:23
#81
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 784
Likes: 119
Quoting: ChiHawk
Maybe the NHL is changing the rules on the fly after the game! laugh

That's honestly messed up there are two versions of the rules on the NHL website.


I mean if you really want to get technical you could argue that the term "directed" could include a hand pass that is first touched by a teammate, and does not have to be going directly to said teammate. But the bottom line is it's a hand pass that was just missed. Whatever, the league will fix the mistake.
May 16 at 12:25
#82
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,858
Likes: 657
Quoting: ChiHawk
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.


I'm not any more wrong than you are. Your opinion is that he didn't try to give his team the puck based on what you see, mine is based on what I see which he swatted his hand and the puck in direction of thw front of the net where his teammates were.
And rule 79 for handpasses are slightly different than the other.
May 16 at 12:26
#83
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: rja40
Funny. Perhaps they are trying to cover their asses for their referees. Regardless of the team we root for, it is pretty clear that the best the NHL has to offer blow lots of calls all over North America, but they are human. It is to be expected. It just sucks when it hurts our team.


I googled the hand pass rule and took me to that NHL.com link...honestly wondering if they changed it knowing google was blowing up with that search hit.

Yes, we can talk to hours about blown calls and debate a lot of them. It's humans. The key is for neither team to put themselves in that position where it comes down to that. I've never been a huge fan of sudden death OT, play a 10 minute period if not a full one...why not? I get because games could go on and on and TV contracts don't allow for it or more importantly advertising dollars don't support it, but then this happens and casual fans, which are the one's the NHL wants to get on the wagon during playoffs, get pissed and stop watching. Real fans know this crap happens and will watch regardless.
May 16 at 12:27
#84
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 514
Quoting: ChiHawk
I googled the hand pass rule and took me to that NHL.com link...honestly wondering if they changed it knowing google was blowing up with that search hit.

Yes, we can talk to hours about blown calls and debate a lot of them. It's humans. The key is for neither team to put themselves in that position where it comes down to that. I've never been a huge fan of sudden death OT, play a 10 minute period if not a full one...why not? I get because games could go on and on and TV contracts don't allow for it or more importantly advertising dollars don't support it, but then this happens and casual fans, which are the one's the NHL wants to get on the wagon during playoffs, get pissed and stop watching. Real fans know this crap happens and will watch regardless.


Yes
May 16 at 12:27
#85
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Edited May 16 at 12:34
Quoting: Chopper02
I'm not any more wrong than you are. Your opinion is that he didn't try to give his team the puck based on what you see, mine is based on what I see which he swatted his hand and the puck in direction of thw front of the net where his teammates were.
And rule 79 for handpasses are slightly different than the other.


Watch the replay again. Nyquist was behind the net dude...he wasn't in front of the net. Watch on youtube or the NHL app where you can slow it down and pause it. The puck ended up where Bouwmeester was...EK wasn't in the area yet either....the ice in front of the net was all St. Louis. The puck action was flukey is the best anyone could say. If Timo was hand passing well the puck took a weird bounce or two or that was a horrible hand pass.
May 16 at 12:49
#86
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 168
Likes: 67
Quoting: ChiHawk
Incorrect, it wasn't a direct pass to the player...that's clear as day in the replay. St. Louis had as much an opportunity to the puck as SJ.


Quoting: ChiHawk
See 67.1, I actually was referencing incorrectly USA hockey's rule. NHL's rule is much more descriptive. See above


You're saying that the NHL's rules are more descriptive, but are failing to read the entirety of the rules. 67.1 FULLY states:

"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."

This clearly references Rule 79, so to that portion of the rulebook we go.

Rule 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. A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed for “closing his hand on the puck” under Rule 67 – Handling Puck"

I've bolded the part that very clearly applies to the call tonight. The Shark batted the puck. Whether there is intent or not DOESN'T matter. If a different player of the team that batted the puck down GAINS AN ADVANTAGE by taking possession of the puck right after the "bat", the play should be whistled down. I think we can say pretty easily that an advantage was gained. They were able to make an uncontested pass to the slot due to the puck being batted down to their player.


Edited for cleanup and grammatical errors.
Chopper02 liked this.
May 16 at 12:57
#87
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: PuckLuck_77
You're saying that the NHL's rules are more descriptive, but are failing to read the entirety of the rules. 67.1 FULLY states:

"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."

This clearly references Rule 79, so to that portion of the rulebook we go.

Rule 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. A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed for “closing his hand on the puck” under Rule 67 – Handling Puck"

I've bolded the part that very clearly applies to the call tonight. The Shark batted the puck. Whether there is intent or not DOESN'T matter. If a different player of the team that batted the puck down GAINS AN ADVANTAGE by taking possession of the puck right after the "bat", the play should be whistled down. I think we can say pretty easily that an advantage was gained. They were able to make an uncontested pass to the slot due to the puck being batted down to their player.


Edited for cleanup and grammatical errors.


There were actually 2 versions of it we found on NHL.com....seems something fishy is going on as the version I found said nothing about "has allowed his team to gain 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.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26478

How does a ref rule then with two versions of the rule? If reading what I posted, then the refs absolutely made the right call. If reading the other version you posted then clearly the sharks gained an advantage
May 16 at 1:00
#88
rangersandislesfan
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 26,874
Likes: 2,908
I'm not reading all this discussion ... hard to believe this has gotten to page 4 in 2-3 hours. Anyway, I'm not a fan of either team but would be happy to see either win the series ... I'd have to say that was a pretty bad call.
CD282 liked this.
May 16 at 1:10
#89
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 786
Likes: 159
Quoting: ChiHawk
There were actually 2 versions of it we found on NHL.com....seems something fishy is going on as the version I found said nothing about "has allowed his team to gain 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.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26478

How does a ref rule then with two versions of the rule? If reading what I posted, then the refs absolutely made the right call. If reading the other version you posted then clearly the sharks gained an advantage


the puck went straight to nyquist, therefore he direct the puck to the player, and play should have been blown dead
May 16 at 1:14
#90
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: Blues4TheCup
the puck went straight to nyquist, therefore he direct the puck to the player, and play should have been blown dead


Watch the replay in slow motion; clearly it did not as Nyquist was BEHIND the net when the puck was swept from right to left in front of the net. Bouwmeester was the only one in front of the net and Nyquist skated around behind Bouwmeester took the puck and passed to EK who was coming from the blue line to the front.
May 16 at 1:17
#91
get off my lawn...
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 10,226
Likes: 4,827
Horrible missed call. I can’t believe they let that stand.
rangersandislesfan liked this.
May 16 at 1:26
#92
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 786
Likes: 159
Quoting: ChiHawk
Watch the replay in slow motion; clearly it did not as Nyquist was BEHIND the net when the puck was swept from right to left in front of the net. Bouwmeester was the only one in front of the net and Nyquist skated around behind Bouwmeester took the puck and passed to EK who was coming from the blue line to the front.


the puck was directed towards karlsson, and the net. It should be blow dead regardless
CD282 liked this.
May 16 at 1:30
#93
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
Quoting: Blues4TheCup
the puck was directed towards karlsson, and the net. It should be blow dead regardless


It wasn't. Timo was clearly trying to knock it down in front of himself as he tried to play the puck. EK wasn't in front of the net. Look at the wide angle and he was rushed up once he saw the puck down. Bouwmeester had it at his skates.
May 16 at 6:35
#94
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,858
Likes: 657
Quoting: ChiHawk
Watch the replay again. Nyquist was behind the net dude...he wasn't in front of the net. Watch on youtube or the NHL app where you can slow it down and pause it. The puck ended up where Bouwmeester was...EK wasn't in the area yet either....the ice in front of the net was all St. Louis. The puck action was flukey is the best anyone could say. If Timo was hand passing well the puck took a weird bounce or two or that was a horrible hand pass.


After watching the replay again this morning, it reaffirms my view because Karlsson was already in fromt of the net by himself and Meir made no effort to move the puck closer to his stick. He was trying to get it out in front where Karlsson was so his team could get a chance. Beyond that though, rule 79 disallows the goal from happening because intent doesn't matter anyway. It could have bounced off Bouwmeester and based on the rule still not have counted.
CD282 liked this.
May 16 at 6:49
#95
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: ChiHawk
He wasn't passing it, he was knocking it down to his own blade on his knees. Way too hard of a call to reverse the goal.


it was a hand pass, clear as day.
May 16 at 6:57
#96
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Edited May 16 at 7:21
Quoting: ChiHawk
75% of the population in the bay area has no idea who the Sharks are. Relatively small hockey market given the bay area population of 4M.


OK, now you're just making **** up. Fifth largest market in the United States,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
May 16 at 6:59
#97
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: ChiHawk
Show me how you can clearly support this was an intentional hand pass....intent is the key word. There was no intent. The league won't reverse that call. Hard way to lose and ****ty way to win but that's hockey. If both teams had a opportunity at the puck, it's not a pass.


Intent doesn't have anything to do with it.
May 16 at 7:05
#98
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: ChiHawk
Wrong; Rule 618 (b) clearly states....
A player or goalkeeper shall not be allowed to “bat” the puck in the air, or push it along the ice with his hand, directly to a teammate unless the “hand pass” has been initiated and completed in his defending zone

I know it's not what you want to hear, but intent means everything aka the word DIRECTLY


"... 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.
"
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf

Maybe you should quote the whole sentence? Now we KNOW you have an agenda here.
May 16 at 7:10
#99
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: rja40
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.


Even if it had, it still should be whistled dead, see my post above re rule 79.1.
rja40 liked this.
May 16 at 7:12
#100
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: rja
Unfortunately, the referees were unable to see it in real time, something that is already hard to do.


The puck changed direction almost completely. The fact that the refs missed that is disgraceful.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Remove Option
Submit Poll