Die Planung » existing rule 85.1 (play shall be stopped when the puc

Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Hello, I love reading your column. I have a question on the Bruins/Columbus game from Saturday. The puck clearly went out of play in the second period and play continued on as the on ice officials didnt see the puck go into the netting and Columbus ended up scoring. Why was this not reviewed and the time put back on the clock and the goal not disallowed? Thanks! Cristina I hope all is well! I was wondering if you could give a little explanation in to the call, or lack thereof, during the Bruins vs. Columbus game on Saturday 12/27? The puck clearly went out of play and hit the protective netting, as it was described by the announcers it should have been reviewed at the next whistle and the clock reset to the time the puck went out of play, the next whistle was a goal by Columbus, which they deserved, but the commentator made it seem that there was no way it would stand with the new rule the NHL implemented in the off season as a result of the Detroit vs. San Jose game last year. Later it was clarified by the NHL that the puck needed to go immediately in the net for that rule to be enforced, who was right in this situation? Sincerely, Jason in Boston Cristina and Jason: The Hockey Operations Department is the exclusive and final authority responsible for managing everything that takes place on the ice. As keepers of the game, Hockey Ops extensive range of authority includes, but is not limited to, conducting studies to improve the on-ice product, recommendation of rule changes, provide for player safety and to render all video review decisions under guidelines issued by the team General Managers and as approved by the rules committee. As the NHL puck bounces, we are all forced to accept their decisions. The expressed inability by the NHL Situation Room blog to review this play beyond the scoring of an immediate goal after the puck struck the struck the spectator netting is beyond just right or wrong. It exposes a communication and public relations problem too often created by the NHL that provides confusion and frustration as opposed to clarity for those that report the game and for fans. There have been times that a new rule was implemented in an attempt to manage a specific situation without due consideration as to how it might affect or impact other preexisting rules. The Referees usually pick up any contradictions at training camp as various scenarios are brought forward in new rule discussions. The horrible optics and negative impact on the outcome of the game in Detroit last season contributed to an expanded and broader discretionary capability for video review to determine the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are good hockey goals). In that game, with L.A. leading by one goal in the dying seconds of regulation time, and the Wings net empty in favor of an extra attacker, the puck deflected high onto the spectator netting behind the Kings net and was undetected by the Officials. The puck then caroomed off the netting, struck Jonathan Quick on the back and rolled into the net for the tying goal. The Wings then went on to win the game in overtime thereby denying the Kings a point they desperately needed in the tight Western Conference playoff race. That was surely not a good hockey goal by any stretch of the imagination. I have to question whether the one in Columbus the other night was much better. During the summer months wording was incorporated into Rule 38.4 (viii) to allow video review to rule upon this specific situation with regard to (and I quote), pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed into the goal. As per the wording in the rule book and as communicated to Bruins play-by-play man Jack Edwards and other NHL broadcasters that attended a pre-season advisory meeting in New York, there was never a reference to the word immediate or a defined lapse of time between the puck going out of play (onto the spectator netting) and a subsequent goal being scored. It would appear that a change in criteria or understanding was implemented at some point after the broadcasters September meeting in New York and following the publishing of the 2014-15 NHL Rule Book, to only allow a review if a goal was scored immediately after hitting the spectator netting and going out of play. It would also appear that someone forgot to send a memo to everyone that was affected by this dramatic change in policy? The next most obvious question is how immediate must the puck be directed into the net for video review to disallow the goal and reset the clock? Aside from the puck deflecting into the net off the goalie (as was the case with Jonathan Quick) or any other player for that matter, is a puck off the netting onto a stick and shot allowable? What about an attacker gaining puck possession in the corner who subsequently makes a pass into the slot for a one-timer? Is two or more multiple passes allowed or is sustained pressure in the end zone by the attacking team before the puck is directed into the net? These are way too many variables that create inconsistency through subjective decisions. Are any of these scenarios more or less a good hockey goal from each other once it is determined the puck has exited the playing surface by striking the spectator netting? The new and specific wording in 38.4 (viii) contradicts preexisting rule 85.1 (play shall be stopped when the puck hits the spectator netting unless it goes unnoticed by the on-ice officials, in which case play shall continue as normal and resulting play with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play. I would suggest that through a common sense application the new and expanded authority granted to video review in this very specific situation should take precedent and override 85.1 since it results in the scoring of a goal and not just a normal stoppage at some point and time. My recommendation would be to amend the existing rule by adding, …in which case play shall continue as normal and resulting play with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play unless the next stoppage of play is created by the scoring of a goal in which case video review shall disallow the goal and reset the clock to the time the puck exited the playing surface by hitting the spectator netting. An application of this nature would be consistent with rule 78.6 when a team scores an apparent goal that is not seen by the on-ice officials and play continues, the play shall be reviewed by the Video Goal Judge at the next stoppage of play. If the goal is confirmed by video review, the clock (including penalty time clocks, if applicable) is re-set to the time the goal was scored. Any potential goal requiring video review must be reviewed prior to or during the next stoppage of play. No goal may be awarded (or disallowed) as a result of video review once the puck has been dropped and play has resumed. Video review is provided much broader discretion in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals. They even recently extended the authority granted to them within the above rule by placing a play under review following a puck drop and resumption of play after Carey Price had made a goal line save. The decision to add the terminology to their criteria, puck directed into the goal as an immediate result of hitting the spectator netting would appear to be another extension of this broad discretion and authority. It might be prudent for the NHL Public Relations Department to communicate these changes to the hockey world before they take effect. It is only reasonable to expect that everyone, especially the hockey broadcasters, would like to clearly understand what defines a good hockey goal? Tampa Bay Lightning Jerseys . Right-hander Todd Redmond took the loss. Jose Bautista hit his second home run of the spring. Here are a handful of tidbits from around camp: Hutchison impressive The Blue Jays are being cautious when talking about their young arms but internally, excitement is building over the way Drew Hutchison is looking and performing this spring. Martin St. Louis Lightning Jersey . Kamloops, B.C., the host city of this years Tim Hortons Brier, is where he won his first Canadian mens curling crown in 1996. http://www.lightninghockeystore.us/Louis-Domingue-Jersey/. Louis second-period goal increased the New York Rangers lead but Dustin Brown has countered for the Los Angeles Kings who now trail the New York Rangers 2-1 in Game 4 of the Stanley Cup Final at Madison Square Garden. Cedric Paquette Jersey .ca. The NHL Play of the Year showdown kicks off with some slick moves going head-to-head with a combination of soft hands and endless patience. Cedric Paquette Lightning Jersey . "I met her, I think, a week ago. We went to a Norwood hockey store and picked her out some gear.DUNEDIN, Fla. -- Alex Cobb tossed three scoreless innings as the Tampa Bay Rays defeated the Toronto Blue Jays 6-3 on Friday. Cobb, who did not allow any runs over 1 2-3 innings in his first start against Minnesota, gave up two hits, struck out one and walked one. The right-hander allowed back-to-back singles to Melky Cabrera and Jose Bautista in the first, but then retired eight straight batters, seven on groundballs. Cobb was pulled one baatter into the fourth.dddddddddddd Blue Jays starter Mark Buehrle made his second start of the spring. The left-hander gave up one run and four hits in three innings. Kevin Kiermaier hit a two-run homer in the Rays fourth. Wil Myers added an RBI single in the fifth. The game included a replay review by umpires with one out in the ninth when Torontos Munenori Kawasaki was called out at first base. The call was confirmed. ' ' '