In article <[log in to unmask]>,
Ralph Christopher Slate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I spoke with a friend of mine who played Div II hockey a few years back.
>He said that if the puck is knocked away first, then the play is good
>and no penalty should be called, even if the player is tripped AFTER
>the puck is knocked away. If the player was hit first, though, it would
>have been a penalty (and probably a penalty shot in this case).
 
Never listen to hockey players when it comes to rule interpretations...
even the Div I guys I know are lacking in many areas of the rules.  That's
why officials are paid to know the rulebook inside and out.
 
While I agree that the tripping call may have been poor, there is no rule
that states that if the puck is knocked away first, and then the puck
carrier is tripped, that there should be no call.  The rulebook DOES state
this however:
 
        From 6-46a --
 
        Note: If, in the opinion of the officials, a player on a sweep
        or hook-check is unquestionably playing the puck and obtains
        possession of it, thereby tripping the puck carrier, no penalty
        shall be imposed unless the tripping is flagrant.
 
So if Cuthbert had obtained possession of the puck in the process of
tripping the Clarkson player, then the penalty could be considered a
bad call.  However, as it stands, the penalty was marginal, and definitely
callable.  Still, I probably would have let it go myself.  :-)  -- kennyz
 
--
Kenny Zalewski -- Computer Science Department; Intramural Department
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 83 Albright Court, Troy, NY, 12180
[log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask]