Dear ask,
During the gold medal game today the linesman held in a puck accidentally at the blue line that would have left the zone. He called this a delayed off-side even though the puck never left the zone. Does this rule apply at all in USA Hockey?
-- Hit by Pitch
Dear Hit,
If you'll recall the play, the Linesman was actually outside the attacking zone (in proper position) when a defender shot the puck out of the zone. The puck struck the Linesman and bounced back into the attacking zone while an attacker was still in the zone. The attacker played the puck and the Linesman correctly stopped the play. The ensuing face-off was held at the point where he deflected the puck. The call is the same in USA Hockey, rule reference 626(e). Any deflection, whether off a teammate, an opponent, an official, or the boards or glass creating an off-side situation at the blue line, must be treated as an off-side. The officials must always strive to locate themselves in such a position that would allow the puck to leave the zone before striking them, thereby creating the off-side situation.
Play shall not be stopped if a puck, which would have otherwise cleared the zone, is deflected off an official in the zone and the puck remains in the zone. Likewise, play shall not be stopped if a defender passes or carries the puck back into his defending zone while attackers are still in the zone.
Dear ask,
Lately, I have encountered numerous players who have positioned their stick between an opponents legs, and then brought the stick up into the groin area. In fact, just this weekend I twice assessed slashing penalties for this behavior/infraction
.
However, in the past I have had partners who witnessed severe episodes of this, in one instance bringing the fouled player to his knees. In that instance my partner assessed a spearing penalty. Technically, the spearing rule talks about using the point or tip of the blade, and in these instances it is usually the shaft of the stick that is making the contact. However, I view this type of stick work as cheap, potentially very dangerous, and very poor sportsmanship.
My questions are: Is spearing ever an appropriate call in such a situation, even when the stick blade is not involved in the infraction? Is slashing a more appropriate call, or does it depend upon the severity of the stick work involved? Should this be an "automatic" slashing major since the slash is to the groin area? I realize that a slashing major will not result in a game ejection, whereas a spearing penalty will, and I philosophically support tossing such a cheap-shot artist. However, the rule as written, seemingly requiring use of the stick blade, can be very problematic here.
-- Ouch!
Dear Ouch,
Although Rule 634(a) defines spearing as "stabbing an opponent with the point of the stick blade" (note 1), spearing should also be called for an attempt to spear even if no body contact is made (note 2). Think of spearing as any stabbing, poking or jabbing motion used against an opponent. So even if the point of the stick blade does not contact the opponent, if a player fouls an opponent using a stabbing motion with his stick, spearing should be called.
If you remember the USA Hockey situational video, it specifically addresses that the spearing motion up between the legs should be penalized as spearing. The stick motion upward is spearing. The risk of injury caused by using a stick in this manner is the reason for the mandatory major plus game misconduct penalty assessed for this behavior.
Slashing, on the other hand, is a chopping or swinging motion. Slashing can also be called if no contact is made and should always be called where a player uses a wild slashing motion to intimidate an opponent. Obviously, area of contact can be a factor when determining whether to assess a major or minor penalty for slashing, however degree of violence is usually the defining factor in a major-minor decision. The two handed "baseball swing" style of slashing qualifies for a major penalty under rule 633. Slashing may result in a game ejection. Rule 633(b) requires a major plus a game misconduct penalty for any player who injures an opponent by slashing.
Dear ask,
I would like to run a situation that came up to ensure that I handled it properly. I looked in the situation handbook and could not find a similar situation. During a scrum Player 17 white and 22 blue were assessed a variety of penalties listed below.
Player 17 White -- Major penalty for High Sticks plus Minor penalty for Roughing
Player 22 Blue -- Double Minor penalties for Roughing
Meanwhile White had an existing Minor being served with about 49 seconds remaining.
Blue and White were instructed to place substitutions on the penalty bench. White substitution would serve the 5 minute major and Blue the additional minor to blue. White 17 was to serve 7 minutes in penalties and blue 22 to serve 4 minutes in penalties.
When we dropped the puck we had 3 White players and 4 Blue. White got a player back after the 49 seconds and we played 4-4 for 1:11 until the first minor to Blue expired. We then played 5-4 for the remaining 3 minutes in White 17's major.
There was no scoring that took place so we did not have to deal with that situation. However, at a stoppage 2:30 seconds after the incident, player 22 Blue came off the penalty bench and attempted to return to play. He was instructed to return to the penalty bench to serve another 1:30 on his penalties. He insisted that because the substitute served the first penalty, he only had to serve one penalty and his coach argued the same point. However, because he was assessed 4 minutes in penalties, he was returned to the box and told to serve the remaining portion of his penalty. He came back to the box and after I explained the situation to him, he and his coach still disagreed and player # 22 became vocal and stated some derogatory remarks towards me and was eventually assessed a 10 minute Misconduct.
Was this situation handled correctly?
Dear Complicated,
You are correct. Player 17 White can return first whistle after 7 minutes have elapsed. Player 22 Blue can return first whistle after 4 minutes have elapsed. The minor penalty to White is coincidental to one of Blue's minors, therefore, both teams must place a player in the box to return to the ice after the coincidental minors expire. Taking into account the previous penalty, the teams would play 3 on 4 until the previous penalty expires, then 4 on 4 until the first Blue minor expires at which time the substitute for Blue 22 would return, then 5 on 4 (Blue on power play) for three minutes at which time the substitute for White 17 would return.
On a countdown clock, (assuming the penalties were assessed at 10:00) it would look like this:
| Time | White | Blue | |
| 11:11 | X- 2 min | ||
| 10:00 | #17 - 5 min.+2 min. | #22 - 2min.+2 min. | |
| 9:11 | X - returns | ||
| 8:00 | Sub returns | ||
| 5:00 | Sub returns | ||
| 4:00 plus whistle | #22 returns | ||
| 3:00 plus whistle | #17 returns | ||
Although this exact situation is not covered in the Playing Rules Handbook,there is a similar situation on page 34 which explains what would happen if someone scored 30 seconds after the penalties were assessed. That situation refers to the coincidental offset.
Dear ask,
Is a Game misconduct plus a 5 minute major an appropriate call for a checking from behind in a non-checking league?
-- No Check
Dear No Check,
A Major plus a Game Misconduct is not only appropriate for checking from behind, in some cases it's mandatory. Regarding this infraction, the USA Hockey rulebook makes no distinction as to the checking or non-checking classification of the game. Rule 607(a) calls for a Minor plus a Misconduct or a Major plus a Game Misconduct for any player who "body checks or pushes an opponent from behind". A Major plus Game Misconduct is required if an injury results from the illegal action. Rule 607(b) requires a Major plus Game Misconduct be assessed to any player who "body checks or pushes an opponent from behind head first into the side boards, end boards, or goal frame." There is no lesser alternative to a Major plus Game Misconduct for any check from behind where the victim is thrown headfirst into the boards.
The note accompanying Rule 607 states that checking from behind may also be treated as a deliberate attempt to injure and may be penalized by a Match penalty under Rule 603.
The rationale for this call is provided by the 2001-2003 USA Hockey Playing Rules Handbook (Rule 607, page 66):
"Checking from behind is senseless and extremely dangerous. On-Ice Officials must be sensitive to all checks from behind that occur within the "danger zone", which is the area approximately ten feet out from the boards. Players who are checked from behind in this area and who then crash into the boards may be at high risk of receiving a serious and possibly life threatening injury."Checking from behind has been a point of emphasis at USA Hockey officiating seminars since 1997.
Dear ask,
In a NON-league game, involving 1 CBHL team & 1 non-CBHL team, are the players from each team required to sign the score sheet?
-- John Hancock
Dear John,
There is no USA Hockey rule requiring players to sign the score sheet. The CBHL rules and bylaws are also silent on the subject. This is a practice that has developed in the CBHL to help prevent the introduction of non-rostered players into the game. Non-league games are conducted with the mutual agreement of both clubs. Items not covered by the official rules should be determined by club officials. In this case, I would accept the judgement of the official scorekeeper as to whether the players should sign the scoresheet.
Dear ask,
Does USA Hockey make any distinction between subsequent face-off placement based on where the Defense were? As background, many of us have heard that the NHL will call the face-off outside the zone if the offensive team's defenseman/men come into a goal mouth "argument". I don't think that applies to USA Hockey.
-- Puck Dropper
Dear Dropper,
Yes, you can hold a face-off in the nearest Neutral Zone face-off spot if members of the attacking team enter the Attacking Zone to participate in a "discussion". Refer to USA Hockey rule 611(m) which states:
"When a stoppage of play in an end zone takes place and is followed by a gathering of players, no attacking player shall enter the end zone further than the outer edge of the face-off circles nearest the blue line (this includes players on the ice at the time of the stoppage of play, or players involved in a line change).Applied properly, this rule can be an excellent tool to help keep control of the game.
For a violation of this rule, the ensuing face-off shall take place at the nearest Neutral Zone face-off spot."
Dear ask,
The puck is brought into the attacking zone by the attacking team. The play is on-side. They penetrate deep and pass to the high slot. A defenseman from the attacking team has slid into the high slot unmolested. He winds up for a thundering slapshot. No one but the goalie between the shooter and the net.
But...................
The puck split in half. Luckily neither half went into the net, but what if it did?
Make the call.
-- Half Puck
Dear Puck,
Play should be halted immediately if the puck no longer conforms to the dimensions in Rule 306(a):
"The puck shall be ... 1 inch thick and 3 inches in diameter and shall weigh between 5-1/2 and 6 ounces..."
Any puck that, in the opinion of the Referee, is chipped enough to alter the normal movements of the puck shall be deemed unplayable. The puck must be round with a flat edge. The edges must NOT be rounded, cut or chipped to the extent of affecting the normal movements of the puck. Any deformation of the puck renders it unplayable and play must be stopped, therefore any shot of an unplayable puck prior to a whistle can not result in a goal.
Dear ask,
A team UNINTENTIONALLY shoots the puck offside at the blue line. The puck goes directly and immediately to an opponent (defensive team). The player now in possession starts directly out of the zone with no opposition between him and the blue line. An attacking player skates into his path, causing the skater to turn back towards his own goalie, and the referee/linesman to blow down the offsides.
Since in the USA Hockey training film shown at this year's seminars clearly states that no action by the attacking team can change whether an offsides is intentional after the puck is shot into the zone, isn't it to the attacking team's ADVANTAGE to try and break up the play and INTENTIONALLY cause an offsides?
If he lets the defender skate out of the zone, the best he can hope for is to take the puck away somewhere up ice. If he causes the intentional off-sides, he gets a face-off at the nearest neutral zone spot.
-- Broken Breakout
Dear Broken,
Since you mentioned the USA Hockey video, we went to USA Hockey for an explanation. Here's what Matt Leaf says:
"Absolutely! Our rules and interpretations say that the actions of the DEFENDING team would not change the determination as to whether and intentional off-sides has occurred. However, the actions of the attacking team (the attacking team's actions cannot turn an intentional off-sides situation into an unintentional off-sides, though) may turn a normal off-sides into intentional if they were to continue to pressure the defending player when they are aware of the fact there is a delayed off-sides in effect. Another example is when the puck is shot back into the zone, and is clearly off-sides, and the atcking player intentionally plays the puck.
In the example given, it would turn into an intentional off-sides situation.
Dear ask,
A player from team A is held inside his offensive zone by a player from team B, with the puck in the neutral zone. Another player from team A proceeds to bring the puck back into the A teams offensive zone.
My question is, does the whistle blow immediately for the off sides, or when team B touches the puck for the interference for holding the A player in his zone?
-- Jammed at the Blue Line
Dear Jammed,
Play stops when the player from Team A carries the puck into the Attacking Zone off-side even though his teammate was pushed or is being held off-side. This is similar to Rule 626 Situation 14 (page 97) in the 2001-2003 Playing Rules Handbook.
Rule 409(b) describes what happens when a penalty committed by the team NOT in possession and control of the puck:
"...the Referee shall signify the calling of a penalty by raising his arm and upon completion of the play by the team in possession will immediately stop play and assess the penalty to the offending player."
The play is completed when Team A is off-side. The ensuing face-off is conducted as specified in Rule 626, Off-Sides.
Dear ask,
Should the rule changes in the new rulebook be enforced now, or should they go into effect after our 2000-2001 certification runs out on Nov. 1st? It doesn't make much sense to enforce rules when we're not certified for that season yet. But on the other hand, the teams shouldn't have rule changes after their season starts either.
If somebody decided not to re-certify for the upcoming season, they wouldn't even have the new rulebook to know what rules had changed, but they could still be officiating games until the end of October.
--Longing for the past
Dear Longing,
The 2001-2003 rulebook is in effect for each league when the league begins it's 2001-2002 season, including pre-season exhibition play. CBHL, MSHL, and NVSHL all break for the summer. Most senior leagues in the Washington Metro area have a two week break at the end of August to separate the 2000-2001 season from the 2001-2002 season.
All SHOA-supported leagues are now playing their 2001-2002 season, so the new rulebook is effective now. Even if an official decides not to re-certify for the new season, it is a professional's responsibility to know the current rules and make the correct call.
Dear ask,
This applies to rule 609 (b)
At some rinks, there is protective netting preventing the puck from going out of bounds (Laurel Resor is a good example). If the goalkeeper shoots the puck directly (nondeflected) into the netting, thus obtaining a stoppage, but the puck does not leave the rink, is a minor penalty to be imposed for delay of game?
--Out of Bounds
Dear Out,
This one was tough. The panel was split on the interpretation of Rule 609(b) with respect to netting above the glass. So we went to the Director of the USA Hockey Officiating Education Program, Matt Leaf. Here is his response:
"Thanks for your interest in hockey. First off, the protective netting above the glass is not considered part of the rink and play shall be stopped any time the puck is shot into the netting. Anytime a goalkeeper shoots the puck directly out of the rink, without being deflected, he shall be assessed a minor penalty for delay of game. Therefore, shooting the puck into the protective netting is considered the same as shooting it over the glass and out of play, so the goalkeeper should be penalized for such. The protective netting is there to protect spectators and not to keep the puck in the playing surface and a goalkeeper who shoots the puck into the netting is causing a stoppage of play, hence the delay of game penalty being assessed.
Dear ask,
1. Is head checking considered an injury potential penalty to be reported to the referee by the linesmen at a stoppage? How about leg-checking (mentioned under Tripping, rule 639 b). Neither infraction is listed as an injury potential penalty in the glossary.
2. A player is given a misconduct for not wearing a mouthpiece. It turns out he does not have one available. Can he serve his 10 minute penalty without wearing a mouthpiece? (Potentially an unsafe situation if another player is thrown over the boards into him or if he returns to the ice.) Can he leave the rink to obtain one? If he does leave the rink to get a mouthpiece, can another player sit the penalty for him? When he returns, can he sit the remainder of the penalty (assuming another player is sitting it for him), or does the penalty start when he returns to the rink with a mouthpiece?
--Many Questions
Dear Many,
1. No, Head Checking and Leg Checking are not considered injury potential penalites. The 2001-2003 Rulebook Glossary lists the injury potential penalties as: Butt Ending, Checking from Behind, Head-Butting, Spearing, Board Checking, Charging, Cross Checking, Elbowing/Kneeing, High Sticking, Holding the Face Mask, Slashing, and Roughing. The Lineman may report such infractions to the Referee, following the next stoppage of play, that have occurred behind the play and were unobserved by the Referee.
2. The player must proceed to the penalty bench and serve his Misconduct penalty. He will return to the ice at the first stoppage of play following the expiration of the 10 minute penalty. Play is not under way at the time he returns. If he wishes to resume play he must obtain a mouthpiece prior to entry into the game. This is similar to Situation 17 under Rule 304 (page 21) in the 2001-2003 Playing Rules Handbook. Note that Situation 18 in the Playing Rules Handbook requires the player to have his mouthguard in place when he is on the ice, i.e. preparing for a face-off, even if play is not actually underway. Remember that this only applies to those player classifications where a mouthpiece is required.
Dear ask,
A player receives a major and a minor at the same time, so his team is short handed. The other team scores a goal before the major penalty expires. Because the major is being served first the minor penalty does not expire. Is this still correct under the relatively new rule for termination of penalties?
(i already mailed in my exam, so the answer won't have any effect on that.)
--The Terminator
Dear Terminator,
That is the correct interpretation, but the rule is not new. If the opposing team scores while a player is still serving the major penalty after being assessed a major plus a minor penalty, no one returns to the ice and no penalty expires. Rule 402(e) requires the major penalty to be served first and Rule 403(a) states that no substitute can be permitted for a major penalty. Those rules haven't changed in years.
In the 2001-2003 Playing Rules Handbook, Situation 24 under Rule 402 on page 30 has an example of this situation. Player X is assessed a major plus a minor at 3:00 and the opposing team scores at 4:30. No one returns because the major penalty must be served first.
Good luck on your test.
Dear ask,
Team B is shorthanded and in possession of the puck. A delayed penalty is signaled to Team A, Team B scores a goal. Is the signaled penalty assessed? What if team B is shorthanded by 2-men?
--Delayed in Maryland
Dear Delayed,
The signalled penalty is not assessed, even if Team B is shorthanded by two.
Rule 409 (b) states: "Should an infraction of the rules be committed by a player of a team NOT in possession and control of the puck the Referee shall signify the calling of a penalty by raising his arm and upon completion of the play by the team in possession will immediately stop play and assess the penalty to the offending player.... If the penalty or penalties to be imposed are minor penalties and a goal is scored on the play by the nonoffending team, the first minor penalty shall not be imposed but all other penalties shall be imposed in the normal manner..."
Note that the rule does not consider the on ice numerical strength of the team scoring the goal. The goal is considered a "shorthanded" goal and no player from the scoring team is allowed to return to the ice.