Opinion: As a Clarification...

by Casey Richey on Apr 24, 2009 10:01 AM CDT in Opinion

There was a lot of opposition to last night's call on FS-Ohio (the network I and several other fans watched the game on) as to whether or not the call of "too many men on the ice" was indeed the right call. In my mind, there's no doubt about the call, but for others...make your own interpretation of the rule

According to the NHL rule book, Rule 74.1 states:

If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player (or goalkeeper) retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of “too many men on the ice” will be called.

...I don't know how it could be any clearer than that. There were four Jackets in the offensive zone and one retreating for a line change. As he was getting ready to come off the ice (but still too far from the bench to ignore it) his sub came on and played the puck, with him still on the ice. That's a penalty, sorry Columbus. I could see an argument if the player leaving the game was closer to the bench but the puck was played in between the two of them, with the exiting player still about 7-10 feet off the bench, leaving it fair game for either to make a play on the puck.

I also thought it was poor taste by the Columbus fans throwing trash onto the ice. I know it was a close, hard fought game and there's no reason to be ashamed of the performance put forth by the Blue Jackets on Thursday night. But there is reason to be ashamed of how the fans reacted following the call and the game's conclusion. The referees made the right call, deal with it. Don't throw stuff on the ice after the game's over when the teams are in the process of one of the most respected aspects of the game (the handshake). I know Wings fans throw octopuses on the ice, but that is instead a tradition of celebration, not an ill-willed temper tantrum.

I hate that the series ended this way, on a "controversial" call but it did. And it wasn't that controversial. Its a clear cut rule when it comes to playing the puck. I hate even worse how the Columbus fans reacted. I know they didn't get the same replay I did on TV but there's never a reason to throw things onto the ice in anger. Reserve that for hats, visors, and yes, octopi; all for celebration, not out of ire.

I want to hear your thoughts on the call and the reaction, so drop a comment below...after all we have some time off.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

From a biased Red Wings fan perspective

I can remove my bias and easily say that it was a penalty. The 6th man (guy coming onto ice) played the puck with the guy going off still on the ice. No clearer way of calling Too Many Men.

And for those that say that the ref should have put away the whistles and let the players decide the outcome I ask you this, why? The Jackets didn’t have to play the puck. There was still plenty of time left in the game. They made a mental error and paid the price.

Plus this Veteran team needs some rest so better it ends in game 4 then playing a game 5….although I could use the pool points……I’m looking at you Datsyuk.

For more hockey news; www.illegalcurve.com

by WpgMikos on Apr 24, 2009 10:32 AM CDT reply actions

Agree about the penalty call – it was pretty clear cut. Just unfortunate.

Just thought I’d bring something else up though – the throwing of the octopus on the ice… Can’t that be saved for Detroit ice only? It’s obnoxious in other teams’ arenas and anyone who does it deserves to get the crap kicked out of them.. as it seems some did in Columbus..

If I ever go to a game in Detroit I’m sneaking in a Chicago hot dog or deep dish pizza and throwing that on the ice.

Second City Hockey

by Killion on Apr 24, 2009 2:14 PM CDT reply actions

On The Octopus

We, of course, have to that the Panthers for taking an honorable tradition and ruining it for everyone.

There’s also some level of what I’d call decorum when it comes to the time to toss the octopus, and I’ve never been too keen to doing it on the road. I’m surprised that more visiting teams don’t press criminal charges against Wings fans who do it (beyond throwing them out of the building, which is locking the barn door after the horse is out).

The fan who was wearing a Federov jersey of all things while trying to throw an octopus…that’s one of those hallmarks of a false fan who’s being a dingus.

And you don’t have to sneak a Chicago hot dog into Joe Louis. You can get one at Chelios’s Chili Stand.

(Remember kids: when you put ketchup on a hot dog, an angel dies. This message brought to you by Vienna Beef)

by joehass on Apr 25, 2009 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions

see, I feel like it would be almost more fun to throw an octopus onto another team’s home ice. its like the ultimate daring and arrogant act in sports, like spitting on an opposing team’s logo at center ice. it would totally be worth getting thrown out late in the 3rd of an elimination game to be able to tell the story of sneaking it in and keeping it hidden for 3 hours.

by nWolv13 on Apr 25, 2009 7:17 PM CDT up reply actions

While I agree that it’s quite a daring act, if I owned that visiting team and you did that, you can bet grandma’s silver that you’d be sitting in a jail cell that night under a charge of disorderly conduct.

by joehass on Apr 29, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions

Neutral Perspective: Inconsistent Call

While I agree that the call was legitimate, the timing was suspicious.

If the refs are going to “let them play” and forgo calling incidental penalties for much of the third period, they cannot switch modes and call an infraction like too many men on the ice so late in the game.

I know the rule is what it is, but you could just as easily find other penalties that were not called against either team in the third period and demonstrate the refs’ desire to call a loose game. All I’m saying is that the call looked inconsistent. That said, it was a great series and a dominant performance by Detroit.

by cybourgeoisie on Apr 24, 2009 2:28 PM CDT reply actions

Inconsistent Call

The Wings were going to win this series – no question – the problem with the game last night was that the refs didn’t call a lot of calls before that period. If they are not going to call 2 clear penalties on the wings (for things like faceoff interference or pulling wingers down) then they shouldn’t have made the too many men call. That’s why the fans were upset – I have no issue with the fans of Columbus showing how they felt – welcome to the league. The call may have been technically right – but inconsistency leads to controversy.

by pjacat on Apr 24, 2009 5:49 PM CDT reply actions

Bottom line is

It was a tough way to lose a playoff series

I think the fans need to be given a break….i would be willing to bet that given the same situation,first playoff appearence and such a hard fought game with first playoff win EVER on the line….wings fans or canucks fans would have reacted in the same way.

As for the call itself….it was horse pucks!
We all know refs let ALOT of stuff go late in the 3rd period or in O.T.

There is an option for a ref to blow play dead when a goalie is leaving and the 6th attacker comes on to soon,with no penalty called…..anyone know if this was an option?

by dave1205 on Apr 24, 2009 7:26 PM CDT reply actions

True, but...

It is true that that is an option for the referee to call it but it is extremely rare that the sixth man and the goalie are both capable of making a play on the puck at the same time.

I can understand the fans being upset and they can be mad all they want but as soon as you cross that line and throw things in disapproval, you lose respect in my eyes. I agree with you that it was a tough way to lose a playoff game and to be honest i would probably have been pretty upset too but throwing things on the ice is a different things. Honestly, i would be just as mad if it was Detroit fans throwing things on the ice. I know I know, Wings fans throw things on the ice all the time (octopi) but that is rarely ever in danger of hitting a player/coach and is usually thrown during a stoppage of play.

www.wingingitinmotown.com

by Casey Richey on Apr 24, 2009 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions

To be honest, though, this call was not arguable. It was a cut and dry penalty, and I would have been more upset at the linesman for swallowing the whistle in this case. Sure, the players get more physical and certain penalties are let go late in the game, but if we shot the puck over the glass from the defensive zone in the last minute, the refs have no grounds for leniency. It’s the same situation here.

And I probably would have thrown stuff on the ice if it had happened to us, too. It’s real easy to get too emotionally invested in a hockey game, and without the benefit of replays (and especially since the BJ players were so livid at the call) fans shouldn’t be held accountable for getting riled up at the abrupt end to their season. And to their credit, they did calm down and give an ovation for the best BJ team in the franchise’s short history.

by nWolv13 on Apr 25, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Some Calls You Have To Make

Without questioning the inconsistency issue, there’s a difference between what I’d call an interpretation call and a yes/no call.

There are rules that by their very nature requires some level of interpretation by the officials, almost all involving contact of some kind. Those calls are the ones where you see officials traditionally swallowing their whistles in the third period.

The yes/no calls get called every time. There’s no interpretation, there’s no question: the penalty happened. And too many men in a situation where the player is still four to six feet away from the bench is going to get called every single time. Just like a player who hits a puck over the glass from the defensive zone is always going to get called.

A great example of what happened when a ref blows the yes/no call was the Jakob Voracek two-stick move from Game 2. I was not privy to the Fox Sports Ohio broadcast, but when I saw that, I thought, “How can you not call that?” and it was picked up throughout the blogosphere.

Here’s my standard: if an official blows a spot call, I’m more forgiving than if they blow a rule application call. The play in question was a rule application call. Had they not called it, I’d have been furious.

by joehass on Apr 25, 2009 11:11 AM CDT reply actions