PDA

View Full Version : Hand Pass



CornwallAce
02-13-2012, 06:28 PM
I was watching a replay of the Friday night Yale @ Colgate game.

Yale tied it in the 3rd when a player grabbed the puck out of the air off a high bounce off the end wall behind the net, essentially caught it in the palm of his glove, dropped it near his feet and went to tap it into the net. On review, he never touched the puck, and the puck went in because he redirected the puck.

I know it is legal, but it irks me greatly that a player can essentially catch the puck, and redirect it to himself, and it is not called a hand pass, but if you hit the puck with the back of your glove to another player, it is a hand pass.

Is there anyone else out there that would like to see anything but a redirection of the puck with the inside of your glove/hand called a hand pass, even if it is to yourself?

pgb-ohio
02-13-2012, 07:05 PM
Didn't see the game or any replays. So forgive the question, but is there more to the story? I ask because the rules clearly state that:

A goal shall not be allowed... If an attacking player throws or bats the puck into the goal. Rule 16, Section 18(c)(2)

If the puck really went directly from the glove into the net, isn't that batting the puck -- even if the "batting" is more of a bunt? Or am I not understanding what you mean by "redirect?"

As for your more general question, I would tend to oppose to a rule change that creates more hand pass whistles. While it sounds like the goal shouldn't have counted, I'd shy away from overly broad solutions.

hockeyenthusiast
02-13-2012, 09:59 PM
Didn't see the game or any replays. So forgive the question, but is there more to the story? I ask because the rules clearly state that:

A goal shall not be allowed... If an attacking player throws or bats the puck into the goal. Rule 16, Section 18(c)(2)

If the puck really went directly from the glove into the net, isn't that batting the puck -- even if the "batting" is more of a bunt? Or am I not understanding what you mean by "redirect?"

As for your more general question, I would tend to oppose to a rule change that creates more hand pass whistles. While it sounds like the goal shouldn't have counted, I'd shy away from overly broad solutions.

Apparently the instant replay wasn't clear enough for the officials to overrule the call and the league does not allow them to use the angles available to TV broadcasting stations, such as time warner who was televising the game.

LTsatch
02-13-2012, 10:13 PM
A high slap shot off of the back glass behind the net caroomed at his face, he gloved the puck and dropped it straight down. Being just outside the crease and moving towards the net with defensive pressure from behind, the puck bounced towards the net after hitting the ice and both players basically touched the puck at the same time.

Debate begins 3:45 of this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ujh-acXZ4To#!

pgb-ohio
02-14-2012, 12:43 AM
Yale tied it in the 3rd when a player grabbed the puck out of the air off a high bounce off the end wall behind the net, essentially caught it in the palm of his glove, dropped it near his feet and went to tap it into the net. On review, he never touched the puck, and the puck went in because he redirected the puck...


A high slap shot off of the back glass behind the net caroomed at his face, he gloved the puck and dropped it straight down. Being just outside the crease and moving towards the net with defensive pressure from behind, the puck bounced towards the net after hitting the ice and both players basically touched the puck at the same time....First of all, many thanks to LTsatch for the video. That was both interesting and helpful.

Next, notice the inconsistency between the two quotes. Two posters, each watching carefully, reach opposite conclusions. One says the puck was touched before crossing the line, the other says no. And the disagreement is completely understandable. Even the "good" view provided by Timer Warner is simply inconclusive. You do see sticks directly over the puck. Maybe one of the sticks got a little piece of the puck before it crossed the line; maybe not. I'd lean toward "not," but you just can't tell with certainty.

The broadcasters are 100% convinced that the sticks don't make contact with the puck. For the sake of argument, let's assume that's correct. So we've got a puck being caught a couple feet outside of the crease. After an immediate drop, the puck is rolling toward the goal line. The players in the vicinity tie each other up; there's no further touching of the puck. IF the announcers are correct, then it's clearly not a goal; the puck was batted in.

Bottom line? This is a difficult judgment call, but not a rules issue. IMHO.

PenaltyBoxBeast
02-14-2012, 01:28 AM
I watched the video six times. I'm still not sure if anyone touches the puck before the puck goes in. I feel that it should have been no goal since to me it appears that no one clearly touches the puck before the goal. Something like this happened recently between CC/Minny. It was ruled no goal in that instance.

Stauber1
02-14-2012, 02:23 AM
In terms of the purpose of this thread, in my opinion that is no goal. It didn't appear anyone touched the puck. Obviously the officials disagreed.
I agree with pgb, this isn't a question of rules but of how they were interpreted/the play was interpreted.

Aside from that...
Man, I really wish there was a place to go on the internet to find video like this from multiple games every week.
I know a guy from Ferris tried to initiate something like that last year. I really wish it had taken off.
I have to think most schools produce some sort of highlight/game summary reel for their games. It would be awesome to have that aggregated somewhere online.

Thanks for posting the video. I enjoyed it outside of simply the goal in question.

LTsatch
02-14-2012, 07:34 AM
In terms of the purpose of this thread, in my opinion that is no goal. It didn't appear anyone touched the puck. Obviously the officials disagreed.
I agree with pgb, this isn't a question of rules but of how they were interpreted/the play was interpreted.

Aside from that...
Man, I really wish there was a place to go on the internet to find video like this from multiple games every week.
I know a guy from Ferris tried to initiate something like that last year. I really wish it had taken off.
I have to think most schools produce some sort of highlight/game summary reel for their games. It would be awesome to have that aggregated somewhere online.

Thanks for posting the video. I enjoyed it outside of simply the goal in question.

My first caveat, the announcers are Colgate announcers, so take that for what it is worth. The video is provided by the schools or the internet feed company to the ECAC which posts the highlights usually the day or next day after the weekends games. It is actually one thing they get right. The sa thing is that you get t see how much better the direct video is compared to the crappy internet feeds that are sold to fans.

Osorojo
02-14-2012, 07:57 AM
" . . . the player grabbed the puck out of the air . . . " By rule "grabbed" = whistle, regardless of what happened next.

FlagDUDE08
02-14-2012, 08:06 AM
" . . . the player grabbed the puck out of the air . . . " By rule "grabbed" = whistle, regardless of what happened next.

OK, so your definition of "grabbed" is closing your hand on the item.

sshablak
02-14-2012, 08:20 AM
This is a tough one. After watching many times, you simply cannot tell if the puck was touched or not. If it "was" touched by the Yale player it was a good goal. If he didn't touch it, no goal, by the rules.
Something not mentioned here yet, the puck never changes speed, even if just tapped, it would jump in speed a little bit, it never did. So it looks like it was never touched, by either player.
LOL, but, the chance still is that it was touched ever so softly, like a glance. I guess only the players know,Maybe.

KnowItAll
02-14-2012, 08:21 AM
" . . . the player grabbed the puck out of the air . . . " By rule "grabbed" = whistle, regardless of what happened next.

the rule is "closes the hand on the puck"
he did not do that... no whistle

and who ever said that as long as the puck TOUCHES a stick before completely crossing the line, it is a goal.

a BU player kicked a puck from the top of the crease once, and JUST BARELY touched the puck while it was going in, and ON the goal line with the bottom of his stick... great heads up play to make stick contact just in a nick of time.... this might be the case in this Colgate Yale game

pgb-ohio
02-14-2012, 08:25 AM
My first caveat, the announcers are Colgate announcers, so take that for what it is worth.Which tends to explain why they were so absolutely confident in their perception.:D And here I thought that they might be looking at a high resolution monitor and getting a better look.;)

Question: As you look at the "medium good" version, do you see the puck either change direction or pace? I don't see a change in direction. A change in pace, maybe -- but I can't be sure. Just curious as to the particulars of the contact you perceived.

LTsatch
02-14-2012, 09:21 AM
Which tends to explain why they were so absolutely confident in their perception.:D And here I thought that they might be looking at a high resolution monitor and getting a better look.;)

Question: As you look at the "medium good" version, do you see the puck either change direction or pace? I don't see a change in direction. A change in pace, maybe -- but I can't be sure. Just curious as to the particulars of the contact you perceived.

My second caveat is that I am a Yale fan with Yale fan perception, he barely touched the bottom of the puck as it was going in. I perceive a slight change in the action of the puck after the sticks flail at it. This argument is moot as Yale lost by two goals anyway.:(

hockeyenthusiast
02-14-2012, 10:35 AM
My first caveat, the announcers are Colgate announcers, so take that for what it is worth.

Time Warner was broadcasting the game, so it wasn't Colgate announcers.

FlagDUDE08
02-14-2012, 10:43 AM
Time Warner was broadcasting the game, so it wasn't Colgate announcers.

That's not entirely accurate. Time Warner will hire local announcers from site to site that have a good knowledge of the programs involved, but it won't be specifically the announcers to whom you're used to hearing, such as Gate Radio (unless, in the future, Gate Radio is hired by Time Warner). In RPI's case with Time Warner, they hired Tim Heiman, who did RPI radio for the time he was at that school. Time Warner also hired Dan Fridgen to cover the Union games. They don't typically cover games away from their "home" locations (Houston and Messa, respectively). I'm sure TWCS 13 has a similar deal when they cover Colgate games at Starr.

It's only the national stations (such as NBC Sports, CBSCS, ESPNU, etc.) that will fly in their national talent to cover the game.