|
Post by Sébastien on Oct 6, 2008 11:28:26 GMT -4
Ok, there is nothing specific about this is the rule book. If you really want to find out, you'll probably have to ask a QMJHL referee or send an email to the league.
That being said, Hockey Canada rules say what I said earlier. I simply cannot see the Q not doing this.
They do weird things, that is true, but the point of a minor penalty is that it can, unlike a major penalty, be expired thanks to the opposing team scoring a goal. Having it the way you are wondering about makes then the minor penalty simply be a "shorter major" penalty. It doesn't make sense.
IMO, the fact that this isn't mentionned in the rulebook means that it goes as the rules that are in the rulebook are written: a major penalty shall be expired at the end of it's time, while a minor penalty shall be expired when the opposing team scores a goal.
****EDIT***** The QMJHL uses NHL rules, and not Hockey Canada rules (except for the changes implemented by the QMJHL or the CHL that differ from the NHL). If you can think of an example that applies to the NHL, then it'll work in the Q as well.
|
|
|
Post by Sébastien on Oct 6, 2008 11:36:32 GMT -4
From the NHL rulebook, article 16.2:
Minor penalty expiration criteria:
(i) Is the team scored against short-handed?
(ii) Is the team scored against serving a minor penalty on the clock?
If both criteria are satisfied, the minor penalty with the least amount of time on the clock shall terminate except when coincidental penalties are being served. Refer to Reference Tables – Table 16 – Goals Scored Against a Short-handed Team.
That should answer your question.
|
|
tal
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 327
|
Post by tal on Oct 6, 2008 11:45:01 GMT -4
It seems that the Q uses a combination of Hockey Canada and NHL rules - for example, they follow the goalie no-play zones, which is an NHL rule, not Hockey Canada, but they observe no-touch icing (which is Hockey Canada I believe), and players CAN change in the event of an icing, which is different than the NHL. I understand the reasons for the different rules, but shouldn't there be a Q rule book that clearly outlines the rules for the league? Or is it an "exception" book - use the NHL rules "except" for those explicitly stated differently in a Q book?
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 6, 2008 11:57:21 GMT -4
Ok, there is nothing specific about this is the rule book. If you really want to find out, you'll probably have to ask a QMJHL referee or send an email to the league. That being said, Hockey Canada rules say what I said earlier. I simply cannot see the Q not doing this. They do weird things, that is true, but the point of a minor penalty is that it can, unlike a major penalty, be expired thanks to the opposing team scoring a goal. Having it the way you are wondering about makes then the minor penalty simply be a "shorter major" penalty. It doesn't make sense. IMO, the fact that this isn't mentionned in the rulebook means that it goes as the rules that are in the rulebook are written: a major penalty shall be expired at the end of it's time, while a minor penalty shall be expired when the opposing team scores a goal. ****EDIT***** The QMJHL uses NHL rules, and not Hockey Canada rules (except for the changes implemented by the QMJHL or the CHL that differ from the NHL). If you can think of an example that applies to the NHL, then it'll work in the Q as well. I don't know the correct answer ... just going with what I have been told in other circumstances ... and applying it here ... and wondering if it is correct. I've never encountered it before and that probably because they just cancelled the minor when a goal was scored ... so it didn't seem out of the ordinary. There are other sports that have a seperate rule book that come into play in unique circumstances. Golf for example ... has a "Rulings and Decisions" (or something like that) that accompanies the general rule book because the rules cannot be applied fairly in all circumstances. Most people are not aware of the addendum to the rule book and normally only rules officials would ever know about it. The reason they have a seperate book is that there are sometimes very unique situations that cannot be clearly understood under the general rule book. And the difference between a level 3 guy and a level 5 guy can include understanding these very unique circumstances ... among other things. I have no idea if such a thing exists in hockey. Since you can't find a discussion on a 5 on 3 PP with the first penalty being a major ... I would suggest it may come under a special circumstances ruling. And let me be clear ... I think the fairest approach is that the minor is cancelled after the 5 on 3 goal ... just that wording that was given to me several years ago (verbally) would suggest that maybe it doesn't work that way. Another odd one ... but correct when you think about it ... is if a team is already on the PP and suddenly a delayed penalty is being called against the PK team ... and the PP team scores on that delayed call. The guy already in the box comes out and the new penalty goes up on the clock for a full 2 min PP after the goal. Some people scream at the Ref when this happens and they think either no penalty should be on the clock after the goal ... or the guy in the box should stay in there and the delayed penalty gets wiped off.
|
|
|
Post by thesone on Oct 6, 2008 12:02:23 GMT -4
Any updates on Roski?
|
|
|
Post by Sébastien on Oct 6, 2008 12:06:12 GMT -4
There are other sports that have a seperate rule book that come into play in unique circumstances. Golf for example ... has a "Rulings and Decisions" (or something like that) that accompanies the general rule book because the rules cannot be applied fairly in all circumstances. Most people are not aware of the addendum to the rule book and normally only rules officials would ever know about it. The reason they have a seperate book is that there are sometimes very unique situations that cannot be clearly understood under the general rule book. And the difference between a level 3 guy and a level 5 guy can include understanding these very unique circumstances ... among other things. I have no idea if such a thing exists in hockey. Hockey Canada has such a setup. Sadly, I left all my refereeing stuff at home back in New-Brunswick, which includes the rulebook and that "other book" that focuses on odd situations, so I don't have access to it right now. Check the message I posted about the NHL rulebook, it seems to explain the situation pretty clearly IMO. It does seem odd, but sticking with the rule book, it makes perfect sense. The minor penalty with the less time remaining in it will expire. The one being served has obviously less time left in it then the one on the delayed call.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Oct 6, 2008 12:20:25 GMT -4
Since we are on the delayed penalty call now, it reminded me of one of the strangest plays I have witnessed at the Coliseum.
The Cats had a delayed penalty coming up, the puck comes to Sebastien Strozinsky who, because he was visibly pissed about the penalty, just slaps at the puck, which should have blown the play dead, but he slapped it in his own net.
Goal scored because the puck went in before the ref had time to blow his whistle.
I always wondered about that call.
|
|
|
Post by canucklehead on Oct 6, 2008 12:25:13 GMT -4
Since we are on the delayed penalty call now, it reminded me of one of the strangest plays I have witnessed at the Coliseum. The Cats had a delayed penalty coming up, the puck comes to Sebastien Strozinsky who, because he was visibly pissed about the penalty, just slaps at the puck, which should have blown the play dead, but he slapped it in his own net. Goal scored because the puck went in before the ref had time to blow his whistle. I always wondered about that call. I'm just gonna guess but possibly a one timer into his net was called a goal because he never had control of the puck similar to if a player tips a puck but the team never actually has control the play continues. Could be wrong!
|
|
|
Post by CatsFan on Oct 6, 2008 12:26:37 GMT -4
Since we are on the delayed penalty call now, it reminded me of one of the strangest plays I have witnessed at the Coliseum. The Cats had a delayed penalty coming up, the puck comes to Sebastien Strozinsky who, because he was visibly pissed about the penalty, just slaps at the puck, which should have blown the play dead, but he slapped it in his own net. Goal scored because the puck went in before the ref had time to blow his whistle. I always wondered about that call. I remember that well.. one of the strangest goals I've seen at the Coliseum. It was Shawinigan, if memory serves correct. I thought it had gone in off Strozynski's skate, but I could be wrong.. odd play nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Sébastien on Oct 6, 2008 12:28:44 GMT -4
Since we are on the delayed penalty call now, it reminded me of one of the strangest plays I have witnessed at the Coliseum. The Cats had a delayed penalty coming up, the puck comes to Sebastien Strozinsky who, because he was visibly pissed about the penalty, just slaps at the puck, which should have blown the play dead, but he slapped it in his own net. Goal scored because the puck went in before the ref had time to blow his whistle. I always wondered about that call. I think the rules have changed somewhat since then. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think there is now the mention of the "intention to whistle" somewhere. So a referee doesn't need to actually whistle (because that always happens slightly after the fact), but he can defend a decision with his "intention to whistle" earlier then he actually did. If someone knows more about this, I'd appreciate if they'd let us know how this is applied. Nowadays, you'll often see a referee whistle the puck actually before a player touches it if it's plainly obvious that he's going to do so.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 6, 2008 12:52:17 GMT -4
Check the message I posted about the NHL rulebook, it seems to explain the situation pretty clearly IMO. Well it wasn't so clear to me from your post ... but it refers to Table 16 which I looked up here ... www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26555... and if you scroll down to circumstance C3 ... it is the exact circumstance I am talking about and it indicates that the minor is terminated ... so now it is clear.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 6, 2008 12:55:26 GMT -4
Since we are on the delayed penalty call now, it reminded me of one of the strangest plays I have witnessed at the Coliseum. The Cats had a delayed penalty coming up, the puck comes to Sebastien Strozinsky who, because he was visibly pissed about the penalty, just slaps at the puck, which should have blown the play dead, but he slapped it in his own net. Goal scored because the puck went in before the ref had time to blow his whistle. I always wondered about that call. I think the rules have changed somewhat since then. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think there is now the mention of the "intention to whistle" somewhere. So a referee doesn't need to actually whistle (because that always happens slightly after the fact), but he can defend a decision with his "intention to whistle" earlier then he actually did. If someone knows more about this, I'd appreciate if they'd let us know how this is applied. Nowadays, you'll often see a referee whistle the puck actually before a player touches it if it's plainly obvious that he's going to do so. They use to blow the whistle when a puck was dumped into the zone while a player was still in ... and the dump in is on goal and forcing the goaltender to make the stop. Now they don't blow it down anymore as long as the offensive team is attempting to clear the zone. But if it ever went in the net on the dump in ... offside ... they'd have to call the goal back for being offside even though the puck would clearly be in before the whistle.
|
|
|
Post by Sébastien on Oct 6, 2008 13:06:27 GMT -4
Check the message I posted about the NHL rulebook, it seems to explain the situation pretty clearly IMO. Well it wasn't so clear to me from your post ... but it refers to Table 16 which I looked up here ... www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26555... and if you scroll down to circumstance C3 ... it is the exact circumstance I am talking about and it indicates that the minor is terminated ... so now it is clear. Glad I could unclearly help!
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Slick on Oct 6, 2008 16:34:30 GMT -4
On a positive note the fans behind the Sea Dogs bench managed to get in beaulieu's head so badly that he celebrated towards the fans like a kid that just got a new Playstation 3 for christmas after the OT goal. Yeah and that was AFTER his whining and complaining to security about fans yelling had one removed from the section. Also mind you nothing that was being yelled was "out of line". Apparently he can dish it out but he can't take it I honestly don't think I've ever seen a coach act like that at the end of the game. Really setting a good example for his team in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by lirette on Oct 6, 2008 16:41:57 GMT -4
On a positive note the fans behind the Sea Dogs bench managed to get in beaulieu's head so badly that he celebrated towards the fans like a kid that just got a new Playstation 3 for christmas after the OT goal. Yeah and that was AFTER his whining and complaining to security about fans yelling had one removed from the section. Also mind you nothing that was being yelled was "out of line". Apparently he can dish it out but he can't take it I honestly don't think I've ever seen a coach act like that at the end of the game. Really setting a good example for his team in that situation. I figured he had complained because the fan got kicke dout for saying "Thanks for the goal sparling". Pretty tame if you ask me
|
|