The too many men call explained

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    The too many men call explained

    So Fraser's column today explains the screwup, basically it sounds like one of the refs erroneously convinced the linesman that Ovie was substituting for Holtby and not Hamrlik.



    After the whistle blew and prior to the referee assessing the penalty a conference was held by the officials and the too many men call was changed in error. There is only one possible situation in which this could have been deemed a legal line change; even with seven skaters on the ice. Some member(s) of the crew obviously convinced the linesman who stopped the play that this situation applied. They were wrong. Let me explain.

    With the play deep in the Washington end zone Bergeron clipped Semin in the head with his stick near the faceoff circle hash marks. The back referee identified the infraction and Washington's sensational young goalie Braden Holtby raced to the bench in favour of an extra attacker as the Caps pushed the puck up ice.

    Following along behind Holtby for a line change was defenceman Roman Hamrlik. Holtby arrived at the Capitals bench in advance of Hamrlik and was within the legal five-foot change limit when his replacement jumped onto the ice from the middle of the players' bench. (I believe it was Mike Knuble.) Holtby took his place on the Capitals bench.

    It is important to note that if Holtby's replacement (Knuble?) left the bench prior to the five-foot change limit being achieved then Rule 71—premature substitution would have resulted. The linesman would have blown the whistle, the face-off would result at centre ice but no time penalty to the Caps would be assessed. (This would constitute a premature substitution for goalkeeper versus too many men on the ice.)

    Holtby was on the bench and his replacement on the ice when Roman Hamrlik arrived near the back door of the Washington players' bench for a change. With Hamrlik still physically on the ice but reasonably within the five-foot change limit, Alex Ovechkin jumped off the end of the bench closest to their attacking zone. All systems were good at this point even with seven players on the ice; legal change for Holtby had been executed and Hamrlik was within five feet of the bench as was Ovi.

    The too many men on the ice violation occurred when Alex Semin saw Ovechkin open on the left side and fired a perfect cross-ice pass onto Ovi's tape prior to Hamrlik physically leaving the ice. At this point Rule 74 is applied: "If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface player 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 "too many men on the ice" will be called."

    The linesman stopped play to correctly apply Rule 74 when Ovechkin played the puck with Hamrlik still physically on the ice. The only thing that I can think of is that someone determined that the second man over the boards (Ovi) was intended and deemed to replace Holtby and was able to convince the linesman of it.

    No matter what the reason the officials came up with through their on-ice conference, the final call was made incorrectly. Washington was clearly guilty of too many men on the ice and the teams should have played 4-on-4. The announcers got it right — the officials did not.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    In a nutshell, they blew the call.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourrings. Show fourrings's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    so in other words they screwed up the call
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    Haha yep. They blew it.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    Yep
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from wallydouglas. Show wallydouglas's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    yep x3
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    They blowed it . (just trying to be funny)

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from LordByron77. Show LordByron77's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    On a postive note, the whistle DID blow and a face-off was done in the neutral zone. If the play wasn't called dead and Washington entered the B's zone and scored?

    Madness??

    What happens now? Will there be more screw ups in face-off, penalties, non-penalties, icing and suspensions?

    Think the NHL has this all figured out before the second round begins? hahaha
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    If it was blown dead due to illegal change then that is the correct spot. That indicates that was the thinking.

    The refereeing in my men's leagues is worse than the NHL.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    Typical Dan O'Rourke game. Keep this guy out of the playoffs please.... Better yet send him to the AHL, by far the worst Linesman in the NHL calling important games makes no sense.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    In Response to Re: The too many men call explained:
    Typical Dan O'Rourke game. Keep this guy out of the playoffs please.... Better yet send him to the AHL, by far the worst Linesman in the NHL calling important games makes no sense.
    Posted by Bisson1


     O'Rourke is not a linesman ?
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    They did see it, but for some reason they thought Ovie had subbed for Holtby and not Hamrlik, so they thought it fell into the exemption.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yaso#7. Show Yaso#7's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    Sounds like a perfect use for replay???

    Totally inexcusable and they need to be held accountable for their ineptitude.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    In Response to Re: The too many men call explained:
    In Response to Re: The too many men call explained : O'Rourke was the referee and not the linesman, bisson, but I wonder why the referees didn't see the too-many-men infraction? The play was RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES in the neutral zone!
    Posted by CraftyandSly1


    Oh. Well either way I can't stand O'Rourke lol.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RawrBear. Show RawrBear's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    25 game suspension.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    In Response to Re: The too many men call explained:
    They did see it, but for some reason they thought Ovie had subbed for Holtby and not Hamrlik, so they thought it fell into the exemption.
    Posted by red75


    And Knuble ?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    In Response to Re: The too many men call explained:
    In Response to Re: The too many men call explained : And Knuble ?
    Posted by BsLegion


    I guess Knuble in their eyes replaced Hamrlik. But if that's the case, Knuble would have been out of the five feet zone, and Hamrlik wouldn't have been inside it yet, so the exemption wouldn't apply.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    In Response to Re: The too many men call explained:
    In Response to Re: The too many men call explained : I guess Knuble in their eyes replaced Hamrlik. But if that's the case, Knuble would have been out of the five feet zone, and Hamrlik wouldn't have been inside it yet, so the exemption wouldn't apply.
    Posted by red75


    I know, pretty clear on your original post.  Good for Fraser , it's crystal clear.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    As usual, Fraser is making this more complicated than it needs to be.  Only the last part of the explanation is necessary - Ovechkin was the 7th man on the ice and he played the puck.  Too many men.  Everything else is noise unless you care why they blew the call.  Really, I don't.  It sounds like an excuse.  And with the win in the bank, I'm happy enough to forget it and move on. 

    "We don't lobby."  The Bruins don't moan and suck to the league about the injustice of it all.  These are the champions.  Too much garbage is starting to creep into their game (a bit of embellishing here, Claude complaining about double standards there...).
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karl-Hungus. Show Karl-Hungus's posts

    Re: The too many men call explained

    i hate fraser more than van massengill.   
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share