Chuck H. writes:
>Ian Kennish <[log in to unmask]> in response to Jeffrey T. Anbinder's note
>about the game-deciding goal (in a 2-1 game) scored by Harvard on a power
>play resulting from a penalty called on a Cornell fan says
>
>>Ironically, the exact same thing happened at Cornell last year. The refs
>>issued a warning to the fans after the warm-ups, but some idiot threw his
>>fish on the ice late in the first, and Harvard quickly converted on the
>>subsequent Big Red bench minor.
Just checked last year's game report (why do I keep stuff like this around?)
and the bench minor occurred at the start of the second period, just like it
did Friday night. Also, while Harvard did convert four power plays in last
year's game at Lynah, this wasn't one of them. Not that that makes the
incident any less stupid.
>Shouldn't the real issue here be what level of discretion the officials
>have and exercise in making these calls? The rule book seems to give them
>the option to call or not call a delay of game. Does anyone know what
>instructions on-ice officials are given by the league?
6-25, "Interference by Spectators", Note 3: (emphasis mine)
"If fans throw objects on the ice after being warned, a bench minor
penalty *may* be assessed against the offending fans' team for delay of
game. At the discretion of the referee[s], a warning *may* be issued
before the game."
So it's a judgment call, like a lot of other penalties in hockey. If the
refs are properly trained, and I think most of them are, we can pretty well
accept their judgment. As far as official guidelines in this situation, I
don't know what the refs are told by the league, but I strongly suspect it's
along the lines of, "We're sick of seeing stuff thrown on the ice by fans.
If it happens, crack down on it." I don't recall exactly when this rule was
put in place -- six or seven years ago, maybe? -- but I do remember a big
push by the ECAC (and the other leagues as well, I believe) to control
situations like the annual fish-and-other-things toss at the Cornell-Harvard
game.
>There was no need at all for the penalty to be called in this weekend's game.
>After the warning at the start of the game, the solitary object thrown during
>the warmup before the second period had no effect on the game and caused no
>delay. It was an essentially gratuitous call made simply for reasons of ego
>or rigidity by Gallagher or Melanson, or because of poor league guidelines.
No, the call was made in accordance with the rule above. The warning was
read (two or three times!), somebody disregarded it, and the call was made.
Pretty cut and dried, actually. The fact that it happened during the inter-
mission and didn't really "delay the game" is immaterial. "Delay of game"
is kind of a catchall penalty in this situation. For example, Notes 1 and 2
under rule 6-25 deal with the calling of a delay-of-game penalty if the
bands play while the game is in progress and if fans use artificial noise-
makers like air horns. These things don't delay the game either, but that's
what the penalty is called. Maybe it should be called "interference by
fans" or something.
Again, the warning was read, and somebody ignored it. I don't see where
Gallagher and Melanson had much of a choice, other than to call it; the
announcement specifically said that a bench minor would be assessed against
Cornell if the fans threw more objects on the ice -- well, there's an
object. If the refs don't follow through, what kind of a message does that
send? (not only to the fans, but to the teams on the ice as well) "Look,
stop throwing things on the ice, we really, really mean it." How many
chances should the fans be given before the penalty is called? The warning
seemed pretty clear to me.
This, by the way, is the third straight year the call has been made for
something thrown during the intermission. If nothing else, the message
should have sunk in by now that the intermissions are considered part of the
game (at least, when the officials are on the ice), and that the call WILL
be made.
>Even the initial warning was made more for old time's sake than any major
>need to prevent further trouble.
No, the initial warning was made because a good number of fish were thrown
out of the stands during the pre-game warmups and introductions. It was the
officials' discretion, and I think they made the right choice. Besides,
Coach McCutcheon requested that the warning be repeated (fat lot of good it
did).
> The Harvard game at Lynah has been well
>under control for years. This penalty should be reserved for situations that
>truly warrant it: repeated violations of warnings or large quantities of
>debris on the ice after the initial warning.
A major part of the reason the Harvard game has been so well-controlled is
this rule; nobody wants to give the Crimson a free power play, even though
it's happened almost every year since the rule was put into place. Prior to
this rule, all manner of things used to find their way onto the ice during
the game: fish, sieves, funnels, eyeglasses (for bad calls), coins, etc.
Which is precisely the problem with "reserving" the penalty for "situations
that truly warrant it." Repeated violations? How many? And besides, time
and time again it's been demonstrated that, while there might be harmless
things flying out of the stands at the start of the game, this kind of thing
quickly escalates. I doubt you'll find a situation in which a player was
injured skating over a fish on the ice (the image is kind of comical,
actually :-) but when people shift to things like eyeglasses (which can
shatter) and coins (which can freeze to the ice and are often hard to see),
the situation gets dangerous. What if these things aren't cleaned up
properly? Players can easily catch a skate in a piece of frozen-to-the-ice
debris and tear up a knee, or worse.
And if it's OK to "support" your team and/or let the opposition know they're
not welcome by throwing things on the ice at home, remember that it can
happen to your guys on the road as well. Twelve years ago, at the end of a
Cornell-Harvard game at Harvard, somebody threw a full can of beer that
caught Big Red goaltender Darren Eliot in the neck. Is this the kind of
thing you want to see happening at a college hockey game? Not me, thanks.
> The league should think through the reasons for imposing the delay
>of game penalty and what is gained and lost.
It's not a league rule, it's an NC$$ rule. And what's been gained, by and
large, is a safer environment in which to play college hockey. Yeah, the
call went against my team Friday night, but that still sounds pretty good to
me.
I realize this looks a lot like a flame, and that is not my intent by any
means. But IMHO, shifting the blame to the officials for this situation is
the wrong thing to do. Some fan took it upon him/herself to disregard the
warning (and history -- as I said before, this happens every damn year), and
Harvard got a goal as the result of the power play caused by this fan's
action. As far as I'm concerned, the refs did what they had to do.
By the way, in response to Jeff Anbinder's question, I don't think there is
anything to prevent a fan of the opposing team from tossing something on the
ice and getting the home team called for a bench minor -- except the very
real fear of being beaten into a small, unrecognizable blob by the home team
fans. Imagine what the normally-rabid fans in Section D would have done had
it been revealed that the fish-tosser was a Harvard fan. Actually, I don't
even want to think about it. I doubt this is an issue; if an opposing fan
had ever pulled this off, I suspect the gloating would have been so prolonged
that we would have heard about it by now.
--
Disclaimer -- Unless otherwise noted, all opinions expressed above are
strictly those of:
Bill Fenwick | Send your HOCKEY-L poll responses to:
Cornell '86 and '94.5 | [log in to unmask]
LET'S GO RED!! DJF 5/27/94
"Top Ten San Diego Charger Excuses:
"6. If only we'd had Shapiro and Cochran on defense."
-- David Letterman, "Late Show with David Letterman"
|
