NHL Rulebook

[zuck698]

I have a question on why the NHL even has a rule book. I have watched hockey forever and for the life of me, I cannot remember a replay review being initiated when there has no been no penalty called on the ice. Sure, refs can consult with linesman and maybe change a no call on the ice to a high sticking call, but I have never seen them do a replay review for this, when there was no penalty called on the play. So how did the replay review get initated last night? All the research I can find says that the only time a referee can only initiate a replay review, when no penalty is called on the ice, is to review a goal/no goal situation. That is supposedly the only time they are allowed to do so. Am I missing something here? And if not, why wasn't it brought up last night by someone affiliated with either the Blues or the Blues broadcast team. Never mind Kerbs or Vitale, as they were still discussing ear holes, but was mainly thinking Bernie or Pronger would have mentioned something about the call. And the kicker is, the replay showed that it wasn't even knee to knee contact, and they still chose to call the penalty! Somebody should be held accountable here or I guess refs can just make the rules up as they see fit! The rule is 20.6 in the NHL rulebook and it clearly states a call must be made on the ice for any review to occur. Sorry for the long post.

[TAFKAP]

I was listening to Kerbs and Joey, I of course could see nothing, they were confused as you were. Joey mentioned the ability to call a penalty a 5 minute in order to review it, but as you mentioned, they pointed out NO OFFICIAL ON THE ICE CALLED A PENALTY. Did nobody ask Monty in the interviews?

[Absolut]

I was listening to Kerbs and Joey, I of course could see nothing, they were confused as you were. Joey mentioned the ability to call a penalty a 5 minute in order to review it, but as you mentioned, they pointed out NO OFFICIAL ON THE ICE CALLED A PENALTY. Did nobody ask Monty in the interviews?

First mistake.

[TheJackBurton]

I was listening to Kerbs and Joey, I of course could see nothing, they were confused as you were. Joey mentioned the ability to call a penalty a 5 minute in order to review it, but as you mentioned, they pointed out NO OFFICIAL ON THE ICE CALLED A PENALTY. Did nobody ask Monty in the interviews?

They did and he stated he wouldn't be commenting on the refs. Essentially that's a big no no as we all know and results in massive fines.

The NHL came up with the 5 minute major review a few years ago, but that was so they could review a play they actually called a 5 minute major on to make sure the infraction actually met the definition of a 5 minute major. That revision makes sense as the plays are happening so fast that some look far worse than they actually are in real time, but I don't think the intention was ever to use it because you felt like you missed a call and due to injury you feel something happened that you missed.

It was a necessary thing they didn't have back when Backes got ejected in the game against the Red Wings on a hit into the dmans chest when the refs gave him the 5 minute because they thought he hit his head.

Now they are using it to potentially cover up for a missed call.

[AtillaTheBlue1]

Here is my issue with the hold dealio:

They went to replay, which means the League is involved in the replay, and agreed it was a major penalty.


But then asap in morning claimed no suspension, it was an accident by torpchenko.


So why bad on replay, now, on replay its ok??? One dude claims the league pulls this [shirt], so there are no bench clearing stuff later in game. They figure this clears the air, teams finish game off. I wouldnt put it past the nhl to do this, although i ddoubt it.

[Old_Goat]

Well, if we're going to rely upon the Wizard behind the curtain in Toronto to be monitoring every game and calling penalties, then maybe we can get back to having just ONE referee on the ice with two linesmen, so there are fewer observers getting in the way of plays and pucks. That is a problem with bigger and faster players, never mind the, "Are you going to call that? Or I thought you would call that?"

[zuck698]

I was listening to Kerbs and Joey, I of course could see nothing, they were confused as you were. Joey mentioned the ability to call a penalty a 5 minute in order to review it, but as you mentioned, they pointed out NO OFFICIAL ON THE ICE CALLED A PENALTY. Did nobody ask Monty in the interviews?

They did and he stated he wouldn't be commenting on the refs. Essentially that's a big no no as we all know and results in massive fines.

The NHL came up with the 5 minute major review a few years ago, but that was so they could review a play they actually called a 5 minute major on to make sure the infraction actually met the definition of a 5 minute major. That revision makes sense as the plays are happening so fast that some look far worse than they actually are in real time, but I don't think the intention was ever to use it because you felt like you missed a call and due to injury you feel something happened that you missed.

It was a necessary thing they didn't have back when Backes got ejected in the game against the Red Wings on a hit into the dmans chest when the refs gave him the 5 minute because they thought he hit his head.

Now they are using it to potentially cover up for a missed call.

I agree with you Jack, but that revision was for a penalty called on the ice. The rule clearly states that there is no review unless a penalty is called on the ice. The only exception is on the goal/no goal calls. I just cannot understand how the NHL can just entirely ignore their own rule book! It was worse than the goalie inteference call against Hofer earlier that was clearly inteference. Are they really this incompetent or is it really about money thats on line for the betting lines? I know the last sentence probably has no basis, but it makes me think what if, when they throw the rule book into the trash.

[TAFKAP]

I was listening to Kerbs and Joey, I of course could see nothing, they were confused as you were. Joey mentioned the ability to call a penalty a 5 minute in order to review it, but as you mentioned, they pointed out NO OFFICIAL ON THE ICE CALLED A PENALTY. Did nobody ask Monty in the interviews?

They did and he stated he wouldn't be commenting on the refs. Essentially that's a big no no as we all know and results in massive fines.

The NHL came up with the 5 minute major review a few years ago, but that was so they could review a play they actually called a 5 minute major on to make sure the infraction actually met the definition of a 5 minute major. That revision makes sense as the plays are happening so fast that some look far worse than they actually are in real time, but I don't think the intention was ever to use it because you felt like you missed a call and due to injury you feel something happened that you missed.

It was a necessary thing they didn't have back when Backes got ejected in the game against the Red Wings on a hit into the dmans chest when the refs gave him the 5 minute because they thought he hit his head.

Now they are using it to potentially cover up for a missed call.

No I get it. It was a response to the 2019 Vegas/Sharks playoff debacle when the Sharks got a five minute power play for Cody Eakin cross checking Pavelski when it should have been a 2 min. I understand why they made the rule, and generally agree. I just commented as a response to the guy who said that Kerbs and Joey didn't mention it. They did, they had no idea how they could replay a penalty that wasn't called. that's the only reason i know about it.

[Backesdraft]

I was at the game with my 13 year old and 10 year old daughters and they kept asking why the Jumbotron wouldn’t show the replay. Not one time did that Jumbotron show the replay…NOT ONCE. I thought that was kind of telling too.

[TAFKAP]

I was listening to Kerbs and Joey, I of course could see nothing, they were confused as you were. Joey mentioned the ability to call a penalty a 5 minute in order to review it, but as you mentioned, they pointed out NO OFFICIAL ON THE ICE CALLED A PENALTY. Did nobody ask Monty in the interviews?

First mistake.

What? Following my team? I work nights and have since 2007. To me Chris Kerber is the Blues. I like the guy. You're forced to endure him, my condolences. Nothing really changed for me.

[hockey jedi]

Just know the rules are kind of fluid and they let the ref's interpret them.

[blues2112]

Reffed for a long time, and we were trained on the "rulebook" and, more important on how to call and interpret the rulebook.

Having said that, I'm no expert on NHL officiating, but it's possible that the lines-them (cannot stop play for penalty) saw the play and reported to refs, who consulted video. Only a guess.

In totality, correct call was made. Reckless, if not necessarily intentionally harmful, knee by Toropchenko. That simply cannot be unaddressed.

[Hooking]

Reffed for a long time, and we were trained on the "rulebook" and, more important on how to call and interpret the rulebook.

Having said that, I'm no expert on NHL officiating, but it's possible that the lines-them (cannot stop play for penalty) saw the play and reported to refs, who consulted video. Only a guess.

In totality, correct call was made. Reckless, if not necessarily intentionally harmful, knee by Toropchenko. That simply cannot be unaddressed.

Yikes.

Not at all. This is one of those cases where replay makes it look worse.
Two guys collided, one got the worse of it.
Only reason a call was made was because one guy laid on the ice for a while afterwards.
If that doesn't happen there is no replay, no call, no penalty, no powerplay.

Basically telling NHL teams, if you want (nothing) reviewed in replay and want the NHL refs to hunt for a reason to call a penalty on the other team - just lay on the ice for a bit and they might go hunt for something to call against the other team.

[blues2112]

Reffed for a long time, and we were trained on the "rulebook" and, more important on how to call and interpret the rulebook.

Having said that, I'm no expert on NHL officiating, but it's possible that the lines-them (cannot stop play for penalty) saw the play and reported to refs, who consulted video. Only a guess.

In totality, correct call was made. Reckless, if not necessarily intentionally harmful, knee by Toropchenko. That simply cannot be unaddressed.

Yikes.

Not at all. This is one of those cases where replay makes it look worse.
Two guys collided, one got the worse of it.
Only reason a call was made was because one guy laid on the ice for a while afterwards.
If that doesn't happen there is no replay, no call, no penalty, no powerplay.

Basically telling NHL teams, if you want (nothing) reviewed in replay and want the NHL refs to hunt for a reason to call a penalty on the other team - just lay on the ice for a bit and they might go hunt for something to call against the other team.

Excellent explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_x2fUr2HHk

As for your last graph, why would Utah tell its best player to fake an injury — and leave the game — when they are playing a team they are in the playoff hunt with, in a close game?

[TheJackBurton]

I was listening to Kerbs and Joey, I of course could see nothing, they were confused as you were. Joey mentioned the ability to call a penalty a 5 minute in order to review it, but as you mentioned, they pointed out NO OFFICIAL ON THE ICE CALLED A PENALTY. Did nobody ask Monty in the interviews?

They did and he stated he wouldn't be commenting on the refs. Essentially that's a big no no as we all know and results in massive fines.

The NHL came up with the 5 minute major review a few years ago, but that was so they could review a play they actually called a 5 minute major on to make sure the infraction actually met the definition of a 5 minute major. That revision makes sense as the plays are happening so fast that some look far worse than they actually are in real time, but I don't think the intention was ever to use it because you felt like you missed a call and due to injury you feel something happened that you missed.

It was a necessary thing they didn't have back when Backes got ejected in the game against the Red Wings on a hit into the dmans chest when the refs gave him the 5 minute because they thought he hit his head.

Now they are using it to potentially cover up for a missed call.

I agree with you Jack, but that revision was for a penalty called on the ice. The rule clearly states that there is no review unless a penalty is called on the ice. The only exception is on the goal/no goal calls. I just cannot understand how the NHL can just entirely ignore their own rule book! It was worse than the goalie inteference call against Hofer earlier that was clearly inteference. Are they really this incompetent or is it really about money thats on line for the betting lines? I know the last sentence probably has no basis, but it makes me think what if, when they throw the rule book into the trash.

oh I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I'm just saying that this is the reason the league has allowed it to morph into this.

The NHL rulebook, other than the shooting the puck over the glass delay of game penalty is nothing but a guidebook for all intents and purposes and they adjust it to fit whatever narrative they sit fit.

[TheJackBurton]

I was listening to Kerbs and Joey, I of course could see nothing, they were confused as you were. Joey mentioned the ability to call a penalty a 5 minute in order to review it, but as you mentioned, they pointed out NO OFFICIAL ON THE ICE CALLED A PENALTY. Did nobody ask Monty in the interviews?

They did and he stated he wouldn't be commenting on the refs. Essentially that's a big no no as we all know and results in massive fines.

The NHL came up with the 5 minute major review a few years ago, but that was so they could review a play they actually called a 5 minute major on to make sure the infraction actually met the definition of a 5 minute major. That revision makes sense as the plays are happening so fast that some look far worse than they actually are in real time, but I don't think the intention was ever to use it because you felt like you missed a call and due to injury you feel something happened that you missed.

It was a necessary thing they didn't have back when Backes got ejected in the game against the Red Wings on a hit into the dmans chest when the refs gave him the 5 minute because they thought he hit his head.

Now they are using it to potentially cover up for a missed call.

No I get it. It was a response to the 2019 Vegas/Sharks playoff debacle when the Sharks got a five minute power play for Cody Eakin cross checking Pavelski when it should have been a 2 min. I understand why they made the rule, and generally agree. I just commented as a response to the guy who said that Kerbs and Joey didn't mention it. They did, they had no idea how they could replay a penalty that wasn't called. that's the only reason i know about it.

Yeah I don't disagree with any of the 3 of you. They didn't call the penalty because they didn't see a penalty they only saw what appeared to be a major injury so there had to be a penalty.

Just terrible line of thinking.