PDA

View Full Version : Suspend Kyle Rau for as long as Jason Zucker is unable to play!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

mnstate0fhockey
02-14-2012, 03:50 PM
You're arguing semantics here only to make yourself feel better about being "right". It was a late hit due to the fact that he had released the puck and was in a defenseless position. If it weren't late and he still had the puck it wouldn't have been late. Therefore, it was a late hit. The reason, presumably, that he was suspended is because he went in high, he went in late (ie there was no reason to "finish the check"), and he hit a defenseless man that no longer had the puck. It was just plain old dirty. Nothing more, nothing less.

Besides, it wasn't called interference, it was called boarding. It's a moot point that you're trying to make and really offers no substance. I have no idea why this is such a big issue that it's not being classified right in your mind. He did it. It was a bad thing for him to do. Hopefully he doesn't do it again. And it's done.

Of course I'm arguing semantics, and I specified that (not in those precise words) numerous times. Why is it such a big deal that I'm pointing out the improper classification of the hit by certain posters? I understand it wasn't called interference. That's exactly the point I was trying to make to those calling it a "late hit". It wasn't.

I agree, it doesn't change the outcome of the call, but I did think it was interesting enough to mention. You clearly don't think it was interesting or useful discussion. I respect that. Please ignore if it bothers you. I've made my point, so I'm content.

Gurtholfin
02-14-2012, 03:51 PM
Of course I'm arguing semantics, and I specified that (not in those precise words) numerous times. Why is it such a big deal that I'm pointing out the improper classification of the hit by certain posters? I agree, it doesn't change the outcome of the call, but I did think it was interesting enough to mention. You clearly don't think it was interesting or useful discussion. I respect that. Please ignore if it bothers you. I've made my point, so I'm content.

It was late.

Bale
02-14-2012, 03:51 PM
Of course I'm arguing semantics, and I specified that (not in those precise words) numerous times. Why is it such a big deal that I'm pointing out the improper classification of the hit by certain posters? I agree, it doesn't change the outcome of the call, but I did think it was interesting enough to mention. You clearly don't think it was interesting or useful discussion. I respect that. Please ignore if it bothers you. I've made my point, so I'm content.

Ha....fair enough. Stupid hockey banter at it's best. It's all good.

mnstate0fhockey
02-14-2012, 03:52 PM
It was late.

According to the rules, it wasn't.

mnstate0fhockey
02-14-2012, 03:53 PM
Ha....fair enough. Stupid hockey banter at it's best. It's all good.

No worries. Sorry to make a big deal about nothing. Not my intention when first mentioning it :)

Driftryder
02-14-2012, 03:57 PM
It was late.

You just had to go there. :)

manurespreader
02-14-2012, 04:00 PM
He started his progress to make the check long before he got rid of the puck, and a ways away from Zucker. Which is a textbook definition of a charge.

So by your definition, if I am Bobby Orr with the puck in my own end and Bill Gatsby lines him up from the other end of the ice and flattens him at the red line, even though several strides before hand Orr sent Bucyk away, in your mind this is legal and within the rules as it is finishing a check? please.

ScoobyDoo
02-14-2012, 04:02 PM
It was late.

That's what I said.

mnstate0fhockey
02-14-2012, 04:07 PM
So by your definition, if I am Bobby Orr with the puck in my own end and Bill Gatsby lines him up from the other end of the ice and flattens him at the red line, even though several strides before hand Orr sent Bucyk away, in your mind this is legal and within the rules as it is finishing a check? please.

Sounds like a charge, so no, it wouldn't be a legal check. You can't take three or more strides before hitting a player. Just like Rau's check wasn't legal, because it was a charge and contact to the head.

In your example, if Bill Gatsby took only two strides and hit Bobby Orr a few seconds AFTER he passed the puck, and it wasn't a check from behind or contact to the head, it would be a legal check.

By the rules, not by my definition.

Gurtholfin
02-14-2012, 04:08 PM
You just had to go there. :)

Aw, you know me... :D


I guess I'm just missing Dubber. Where'd he go?

pgrass01
02-14-2012, 04:15 PM
By the rules, not by my definition.

Please cite a rule book that uses the word "Few", preferably a college hockey rule book? If I see the word 'Few' in any rule book I am officiating I would automatically throw it away.

Driftryder
02-14-2012, 04:35 PM
Aw, you know me... :D


I guess I'm just missing Dubber. Where'd he go?

Good question, timeout in the penalty box possibly?

Gurtholfin
02-14-2012, 04:39 PM
Please cite a rule book that uses the word "Few", preferably a college hockey rule book? If I see the word 'Few' in any rule book I am officiating I would automatically throw it away.

According to the rule books that I looked in, USA Hockey and NCAA Hockey, I couldn't find a definitive amount of time.

Nowhere did I see the word "two" or "few."

It would be nice if someone would post the rule where it says that you can finish your check a few seconds (or even two seconds) after the puck is gone.

ScoobyDoo
02-14-2012, 04:42 PM
According to the rule books that I looked in, USA Hockey and NCAA Hockey, I couldn't find a definitive amount of time.

Nowhere did I see the word "two" or "few."

It would be nice if someone would post the rule where it says that you can finish your check a few seconds (or even two seconds) after the puck is gone.

I'd like to see that as well. I do find it funny that he's arguing this though. Charging to me is a much worse offense than interference. He seems to want to mitigate what Rau did by saying it wasn't interference? Seems silly to me.

AggiesHockey
02-14-2012, 04:48 PM
... and hit Bobby Orr a few seconds AFTER he passed the puck, and it wasn't a check from behind or contact to the head, it would be a legal check...

What do you mean by "a few seconds?" Literally a few seconds? If he can't avoid the hit in a few seconds, he's seriously out-of-control. If you mean something more like instantaneously--like he was starting the check when Orr possessed the puck--then Orr passed the puck, and Gatsby's momentum made the hit unavoidable, then I'd say you're right.

Rulebook states that if it's avoidable after the puck is gone, then it's not a check. It's a penalty.

ScoobyDoo
02-14-2012, 04:53 PM
Rulebook states that if it's avoidable after the puck is gone, then it's not a check. It's a penalty.

If that's the rule then the hit was late. No question about it.

mnstate0fhockey
02-14-2012, 04:55 PM
I'd like to see that as well. I do find it funny that he's arguing this though. Charging to me is a much worse offense than interference. He seems to want to mitigate what Rau did by saying it wasn't interference? Seems silly to me.

That was kinda my point. People were all up in arms about it being a "late hit", and that wasn't even why the hit was dirty. It was a dirty hit because he took around 8 strides to make the check, and he hit Zucker in the head.

goldy_331
02-14-2012, 04:57 PM
That was kinda my point. People were all up in arms about it being a "late hit", and that wasn't even why the hit was dirty. It was a dirty hit because he took around 8 strides to make the check, and he hit Zucker in the head.

...and it was late.

ScoobyDoo
02-14-2012, 04:57 PM
That was kinda my point. People were all up in arms about it being a "late hit", and that wasn't even why the hit was dirty. It was a dirty hit because he took around 8 strides to make the check, and he hit Zucker in the head.

Well, it was a late hit.

Gurtholfin
02-14-2012, 05:08 PM
If that's the rule then the hit was late. No question about it.

I didn't see that in the rule either, but in looking at the play as it unfolded, the hit served no hockey purpose. Zucker was stationary and showing no intent to do anything further, meaning that there was no hockey advantage to hitting him.

You "finish a check" to prevent the player who just moved the puck from continuing on with the play or to change the trajectory of the pass/shot. Since Zucker was simply standing there, Rau wasn't doing either of these. Rau's only reason for his charge was to physically punish the player, obviously. There was no continuation aspect in this play as Rau was not engaged in any way with Zucker.

Had the same thing happen in a pee wee game last year and the ref threw out our player and said that there was no hockey play to that hit and our player's only motivation was to punish. We didn't argue it in the least as that's exactly how we saw it too. Completely unnecessary hit and not a good hockey play.

The Rau play wasn't simply charging, it was also late. Whether or not late equates to the interference penalty doesn't really have any bearing on whether the contact happened late. The lateness can just be a modifier to the charge because in being so late, it resulted in Zucker not expecting the hit and being defenseless.

Call it roughing or unsportsman like conduct if you want. I'll call it late.