In article <[log in to unmask]> College Hockey discussion list
 <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
>  No, I understand that the penalty was against the USA - what I don't under-
>stand is why the goal was waved off when scored off a USA defenseman who
>merely *touched* the puck.  As I understand (or think I do) the rules as
>regards play stoppage following a delayed penalty, the team committing the
>infraction must regain *control* of the puck from the opposing team before
>the whistle is blown for a face-off, not just *touch* it.  In that sense I
>agree with your next statement:
>
>>The only controversy was whether the official should have blown his whistle
>>as quickly as he did.  But once it was blown, no goal could be scored.
>>_That's_ why the goal was waved off.  Play had already stopped.
 
OK, so we agree that once the whistle is blown, a goal can't be scored.  The
debate is concerning whether or not the whistle should have been blown when
it was.  (again, remember that I am going by AHAUS and NCAA rules, and this
might be different for the Olympics):
 
>   Since CBS choose not to show a replay :-( of this contested goal, my
>impression was that the "goal" was scored on a deflection, i.e., "touch"
>by a USA defenseman off the initial shot.  If no other Polish player is
>involved before the puck goes in the net, then shouldn't the goal be
>allowed ??  After all, the US never regained "control" of the puck ....
		[ ... ]
>a whistle and face-off. The key, of course, is the subjective interpretation
>of "control" of the puck ....  All you referees (Kenny ??) out there - how
>do *YOU* interpret "control" in this situation ??  To me, it implies
>uncontested play of the puck *on the stick,* not a carom off a body or yes,
>even a defenseman's stick.  Am I seriously mis-interpreting this rule ??
 
No, I don't think you're misinterpreting the rule at all.  However, from
the NCAA rulebook, there are two somewhat conflicting rules.  The second
one (both are mentioned below) may not have any bearing on our discussion,
since we are deciding whether the whistle should have been blown or not.
 
Now, I did not see the play in question, but if the puck did indeed just
deflect off the stick of a player on the offending (ie. about-to-be-
penalized) team, then the whistle should not have been blown, as shown
in the excerpt below from the rulebook:
 
Rule 4-9b (Calling of Penalties):
[......] the referee shall signal the calling of a penalty and immediately
upon completion of the play by the team in possession, blow the whistle
and assess the penalty to the offending player.
	[......]
Note 1: "Completion of the play by the team in possession" in this rule
means that the puck must have come into the possession and control of an
opposing player or goalkeeper or has been "frozen".  This does not mean a
rebound off the goalkeeper, the goal or the boards or any accidental
contact with the body or equipment of an opposing player.
 
And there it is, "any accidental contact".  A deflection in this case was
accidental contact, and therefore, the whistle should not have been blown
as early as it was.  Now for the second ruling, which is somewhat
ambiguous, but could have been used, even had the whistle not been blown:
 
Rule 6-15c (Goals and Assists):
A goal shall not be allowed in any of the following cases:
1. If the attacking team has committed a foul that assisted in the making
   of a goal;
 
Granted, in the Olympic example above, it was the defending team who had
the delayed penalty.  But let's say the situation is this: team A is in
the attacking zone, and a team A player cross-checks a team B player, while
team B has the puck.  As team B is trying to clear it out, a team B player
makes a cross-ice pass which deflects off the skate of a team A player and
enters the team B goal (all during the course of the delayed calling).
Goal or not?
 
Well, the whistle shouldn't have blown, since the puck just deflected off
a team A player's skate.  But then the referee must determine if the
cross-check "assisted" in the scoring of that goal.  Very unclear, huh?
My own rule of thumb would be to disallow ANY goal scored by the offending
team on a delayed penalty call, using the reasoning that the penalty
"assisted" in the making of the goal (you could always back yourself up
if you follow that reasoning).  The only time I would allow a goal is if
the goal is scored by a direct action of a player of the non-offending
team.  This is my interpretation of the ruling, and not hard fact.  Other
interpretations and/or comments are welcome.
 
--
Kenny Zalewski -- Information Technology Services at Rensselaer
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 83 Albright Court, Troy, NY, 12180
[log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask]