Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business
I would hope that in judging the strength/weakness of any call, the rule book might come into your consideration at some point...call me crazy. I'm not an expert and will stand corrected, but I believe that the last player to touch a puck is considered to have possession, making that person the eligible to be the recipient of physical contact. Further, whether or not the attacking player attempts to elude the defender also plays a role in judging the play.
I haven't watched a replay and probably won't. I do know that with the naked eye, it looked like a perfectly executed defensive play...the kind I'd want any d-man of mine to make. The call impacted the outcome of the game, which is exactly what any self-respecting official strives to avoid.
Rule 59 - Interference
59.1 Interference - A player shall not interfere with or impede the progress of
an opponent who is not in possession of the puck, deliberately knock a stick
out of an opponent’s hand, prevent a player who has dropped the stick, or
any other piece of equipment, from regaining possession of it or knock or
shoot any abandoned or broken stick or illegal puck or other debris toward
an opposing puck carrier in a manner that could cause the player to be
distracted.
Waving of arms in front of a goalkeeper by an opponent is interference.
PENALTY—Minor.
Note: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall
be considered the player in possession. In interpreting this rule, a referee
should make sure which of the players is the one creating the interference
— often it is the action and movement of the attacking player that causes the
interference since the defending players are entitled to stand their ground
or shadow the attacking players. Players of the team in possession shall not
be allowed to run interference for the puck carrier.
A player on the players’ or penalty bench shall not, by means of the stick
or body, interfere with the movements of the puck or of any opponent on
the ice during the progress of play.
PENALTY—Minor.
I threw in the rule so that it's easier to comment. You are quite correct about possession. However, both in the pros and the college game, the officials will call interference on a dump-in play if the D-man moves to interfere with the attacking player's attempts to track down the puck, especially if there is significant contact. This rule is similar to the charging/blocking rule in basketball where the D-man has the right to his turf and the resultant charging foul. But, if he moves his feet to engage the driving opponent, he will get a blocking foul.
The note in the rules indicates that the attacking player still has possession of the puck and it seem to would nullify the possibility of an interference call on a dump-in play. However, in my experience, it doesn't get called that way in the hundreds of college hockey games I've seen. This would mean that the location of the puck does matter since if it was in Bailen's skates, he would have every right to engage in contact since the path to the puck for Wilkins ended with Bailen. Or, if the puck had gone past Bailen, the question is did Bailen impede the progress of Wilkins in an illegal fashion? I will freely admit I did not see the play and my interpretations are my own and subject to loyalty bias.
The complaint from what I read from RPI folks was that the puck was in the skates of Bailen. I heard nothing about the intent of Wilkins to evade Bailen. That is a different concept. I agree that D-men have the right to stand their ground but does that also protect them when they move laterally to make contact with the intent to shadow the player? The term interference to me means to impede. Does the D-man have the right to leave his general position and impede the attacking player's route to the puck, in this situation by standing up Wilkins? Shadowing is a different concept than impeding. This is the judgement made by the official and since there was a precedent set earlier in the period on a similar play with the roles reversed, there are multiple variables in play here. For me, the issue of where the puck was really determines the level of contact allowed on the interaction and that is a judgement for the official.
This goes back to my thoughts about team loyalties. You felt it was a good, clean play, whereas I have a Union fan who commented that it was similar to another play where Gingras was called for interference. So, was the Gingras penalty a good call or a bad call? If it was a bad call, then according to your logic, it shouldn't have been called and it affected the outcome of the game since no self-respecting official would want to have that happen. So, we have to decide whether or not the Gingras penalty was a good call or a bad call. In your case, that involves comparison and judgement, both concepts that are ripe for bias.
Did it affect the outcome of the game? Well, at the time Union was ahead 2-1 and a PP goal by RPI would have tied it. RPI failed to convert and the game moved on. So, did it affect the game? Every call by an official affects the game. At the time of the Gingras penalty, Union and RPI were tied at 3 PP chances each. This gave RPI another chance and then they had a further chance later in the period for a +2 PP advantage. Up until that point, it looks like the refs were being reasonable towards RPI in a hard-fought, close game.
Would you prefer that officials just "let them play" in the last few minutes and not interfere unless there is a blood foul? If there is any agreement that a similar penalty was called on Gingras earlier in third that gave RPI a PP chance, then does it make a difference that a RPI penalty for a similar play came in the waning moments of regulation? I believe most fans and players/coaches want a consistent game called by the officials. Everyone hates bad calls, but bad calls are sometimes in the mind of the beholder and furthermore, I still think that most folks would prefer that the officials were consistently bad and that they called bad penalties on both teams in a similar or somewhat equal fashion.
In addition, just because the penalty was called, it didn't equate an automatic goal by Union. RPI had 5 PP chances. Union stopped them all. Given, RPI was short-handed, but they still had a chance to kill off the PP and try to get the extra point in OT. Heck, maybe they could have shocked everyone and scored a shorty to win it...
IMO, it's one thing to call a penalty shot or to disallow/allow a goal on a bad judgement. But PP opportunities are just that. Opportunities. The late call didn't doom the Engineers. The team has to take some responsibility for the defensive breakdown that led to the late PP goal. I liked that, in the post-game interview, Appert, while giving a no comment on the penalty call, correctly assessed why they lost. Two of their penalty killers made poor positioning decisions and Union exploited it. Last year, Appert would have shown a video on his laptop to the media. This year, he gives out the no comment and takes responsibility for his player's decisions. That was seriously classy and I am extremely impressed with his character and wisdom as a coach. RPI has turned the corner and it all started with Appert. Once the entire team buys into his plan and can work the system for an entire season, I have no doubt the Engineers will be back in the top 5 in the ECAC as well as back in the NCAA hunt.
Back to the homework!
Keith.
Just kidding everyone, I'm not being a FlagDUDE.
