Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / Calls in Stubbs/pd "attempted match" (
View Older Thread |
View Newer Thread)
First |
1 |
Last
| DRAGO
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 46
|
I believe the posts discussing the "charging" rule are distracting from the larger issues of the attempted match between Billy and paper dragon.
I agree with most of what Robbins has said regarding the rule. However, I believe the referees were interpreting the rules correctly. I think that they were ruling that the defensive player made contact while charging and the puck didn't actually leave play until after it hit the back of the defensive players mallet on the rebound. In this case it is a judgement call (did it hit or not hit the mallet initially), and not a matter of rules interpretation.
If this is not what is happening and the refs were saying the puck was missed by the initially charge and was going off the table after the rebound, then errors were made. In that case Robbins' is again correct that Billy and pd should have corrected the refs.
Either way, this was not a tournament match at a neutral site. This was a match for the number one rank and it was played on Billy's home turf. You have to expect and be able to overcome a small home field bias in this case (as long as it is not intentionally).
ac made the following comment:
"..It's so borderline. I think I agree that there is a slight forward motion but it's so slight. It's mostly a sideways motion."
This is bad thinking. If there is a "slight" forward motion then THERE IS FORWARD MOTION. It doesn't matter if "It's mostly [sideways]". This is the kind of logic that has helped Danny out a bit in the last few years. If the defensive moves 1/10th of an inch out and 3 miles sideways, then it is a charge plain and simple.
I have not watched the "match" yet so I can't comment specifically on any calls (I refuse to watch what amounts to practice games anyway, especially when they have been edited). However, as a side note I can tell you what should have happened at the end of the match if I was reffing. I would not have allowed the forfeit to take place. I would have called time on pd when he didn't take the puck out of the goal within the time rules. I would have allowed Billy to at least score the final two or three points through conduct warning s and technical fouls and at least given him the honor of actually winning the match. Of course, I would have then reported pd's despicable behavior to the USAA board.
---DJ
|
|
|
| EShoukry
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 67
|
I have not seen the video but I do not think the refs thought Davis had struck the puck on the way forward. If he had struck it while moving forward, that's just a traditional charge and he would lose possession. I think the scenario was Davis moved forward to catch the puck off the rebound and it hit the back of his mallet and flew off.
Those should result in his possession. Again, I think the rules are very clear and this was just inexperience by the part of the refs.
Ehab
|
|
|
|
| DRAGO
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 46
|
EShoukry said: I have not seen the video but I do not think the refs thought Davis had struck the puck on the way forward. If he had struck it while moving forward, that's just a traditional charge and he would lose possession. I think the scenario was Davis moved forward to catch the puck off the rebound and it hit the back of his mallet and flew off.
Those should result in his possession. Again, I think the rules are very clear and this was just inexperience by the part of the refs.
Ehab |
I agree with you 100% Ehab, if that is what happened. But if that is the case it wasn't a matter of a "judgement call" so pd and Billy should have corrected the wrongly applied rule and the "inexperience" should not have factored into it. From my understanding pd was arguing whether or not he charged, rather than the interpretation of the rule.
|
|
|
| Q
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 497
|
I am reposting Eric Rood's post from the other thread here because it summaries how I believe the rule is defined. I read rule VI.15 inclusion of "with forward momentum" to define the state of the mallet specifically. If the defender's mallet is moving forward at the time of impact (even if the back of the mallet) according to rules (as written...if not the case, there should be clarification put in explicitly/rewrite the rule) it is defined to have forward momentum and the puck is turned over to the other player. Eric's post explains this in a bit better detail I think:
therood said:
SECTION VI. Penalties & Fouls
15. If the defensive player strikes the puck in an offensive manner (with forward momentum) and causes the puck to leave the playing surface, this constitutes "charging the puck". The offensive player retains possession of the puck. Conversely, a defensive player who "blocks" by holding steady or by striking the puck sideways or backwards, causing the puck to leave the table, should not be charged with "charging."
The problem with making the "proper call" is that it requires the referee to determine intent.
The point of having "with forward motion" in the rule appears to be as a definition of "offensive manner." So with that in mind, one interpretation of the rule is that "forward motion of the mallet at all" constitutes "offensive manner."
If you take that definition away and the only standing indication of "charging" is an "offensive manner," it then becomes the referee's job to say what "offensive" is. That can be pretty subjective.
Of course, this notion is muddied up by an apparent converse of the statement, which states that hitting the puck sideways or backward is a defensive maneuver. So would a player moving forward to hit the puck backward be making a defensive maneuver? I think a lot of people would say it is.
As I see it, though, the trouble with making the call either way is that the referee is left to determine what the player is trying to do. Are they moving forward to hit the puck back to gain possession or are they moving forward to make a transition shot? The first is a defensive move by the rule, the second an offensive. Since the puck flew off the table, it's not necessarily clear what was going to happen.
With that in mind, what do we have to go on when making the call? The player was moving forward, which in the rule is the definition of an "offensive manner."
That's how I read the rule anyway. Rather than leaving it up to the referee to decide what the player's intent was, it's simpler and more consistent to interpret the rule as:
(1) "Forward motion" is an offensive maneuver. Period.
(2) "Sideways or backwards motion" is a defensive maneuver.
|
|
|
|
| fupersly
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 231
|
I don't know how one can strike the puck "in an offensive manner" with the back end of the mallet, unless they are intentionally attempting to shoot the puck against their back rail in an attempt to make the rebound into an actual offensive shot. I have seen this happen before, but it's nothing more than a gimmick shot based off an offensive setup and has probably worked less than 1% of the time. I can also say that nearly 100% of the time, the intent of the defensive player in attempting to corral a loose puck is not to create a shot, but to gain possession. I know we don't want to get caught up in "intent" discussions, but it is obvious in virtually 100% of these cases when the player is attempting to gain possession and when they are attempting to shoot an offensive shot. In the cases that aren't obvious, it falls on the ref to make a call, and in my opinion, whatever tools the referee has at his disposal to make that decision that he/she deems relevant should be allowed.
Look at it this way: if we're going to try to simplify the rules for the sake of simplification, we might as well remove the definition of offense and defense from the equation and just say that whoever contacted the puck before it went off the table is the one who fouled and give it to the other player. (Of course, we would never say this because this is exactly what the Brunswick rules did say once upon a time!) To say that a referee should never have to pay full attention to what is happening on the table at all times and only exist to facilitate timeouts, keep score and let everything else work itself out is in conflict with the need to have a referee in the first place.
I do agree that we should make changes where ambiguity in the rules exists, but this particular rule is more a matter of interpretation, not how the rule is written. By definition, you cannot strike the puck with forward momentum with the back end of a mallet. Furthermore, I don't think it's even possible to cause it to leave the table while doing that in an attempt to corral a loose puck. If you don't agree with at least the forward momentum issue, I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. 
|
|
|
|
| Q
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 497
|
For the record, I am not saying how I think the rule should be...just how by the letter of how it is written, I have come to interpret it. Ideally the rules could possibly be written so that no ambiguity exists, and I've been drafting ways to do that with this particular rule (nothing significantly better as of yet) because for me there still exists ambiguity in the way it is worded.
If you're mallet is going forward and the puck strikes the mallet from behind, technically the puck is making contact with your mallet while the mallet has forward momentum (I'm defining my point of reference/the origin as the center of the defenders goal) and by the letter of the rule, that is what defines the eventual loss of possession. I don't want to get into judging intent (what if a player swings to actually charge the puck, not corral it, misses, puck goes off back rail, hits back of his mallet while going forward...I could say this is an offensive manner but it bounced off the back of his mallet so therefore it's maybe not a turnover) so I look to the rule to define offensive manner as with forward momentum.
The best I've come with so far which addresses the interpretation of the current rule that Ehab and Joe have said is something along the lines of "...in an offensive manner (defined as increasing the forward momentum of the puck, relative from the defenders goal to their opponent's goal) and causes..."
One comment, that perhaps I didn't use the correct word/edit Eric's post. He may even agree with me here...I don't believe the rules should be simplified just for the sake of simplification but rather fully clarified to address (ideally) all of the possible situations.
|
|
|
| ajflanagan
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 509
|
don said: ac made the following comment:
"..It's so borderline. I think I agree that there is a slight forward motion but it's so slight. It's mostly a sideways motion."
This is bad thinking. If there is a "slight" forward motion then THERE IS FORWARD MOTION. It doesn't matter if "It's mostly [sideways]". This is the kind of logic that has helped Danny out a bit in the last few years. If the defensive moves 1/10th of an inch out and 3 miles sideways, then it is a charge plain and simple. |
You took that section a little out of context. I think I clarified that I would have called charging. I completely agree that any forward motion is forward motion. The "borderline" I was referring to was another refs angle of visibility in a call as close as the first one in the Davis v Billy match. Without busting out the protractor, it might be a close call to determine if the motion was sideways or had some forward movement. Either way, both players agree to the ref and need to stand behind the ref's call.
Ehab clearly summed up the back rail fluttering puck situation. His interpretation of the rule is exactly the way I have known it to be practiced as long as I've been playing. However, I can understand the confusion a newer player coming in and following the written rules to the letter and calling it the way Dan called it. The rules need clarification. An attempt to trap a puck and gain possession off of an opponents offensive shot is not an offensive move, no matter what direction you are moving.
|
|
|
| therood
- 02 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 42
|
Q said: For the record, I am not saying how I think the rule should be...just how by the letter of how it is written, I have come to interpret it. Ideally the rules could possibly be written so that no ambiguity exists, and I've been drafting ways to do that with this particular rule (nothing significantly better as of yet) because for me there still exists ambiguity in the way it is worded.
If you're mallet is going forward and the puck strikes the mallet from behind, technically the puck is making contact with your mallet while the mallet has forward momentum (I'm defining my point of reference/the origin as the center of the defenders goal) and by the letter of the rule, that is what defines the eventual loss of possession. I don't want to get into judging intent (what if a player swings to actually charge the puck, not corral it, misses, puck goes off back rail, hits back of his mallet while going forward...I could say this is an offensive manner but it bounced off the back of his mallet so therefore it's maybe not a turnover) so I look to the rule to define offensive manner as with forward momentum.
The best I've come with so far which addresses the interpretation of the current rule that Ehab and Joe have said is something along the lines of "...in an offensive manner (defined as increasing the forward momentum of the puck, relative from the defenders goal to their opponent's goal) and causes..."
One comment, that perhaps I didn't use the correct word/edit Eric's post. He may even agree with me here...I don't believe the rules should be simplified just for the sake of simplification but rather fully clarified to address (ideally) all of the possible situations.
|
Q pretty much summed up anything I could add to the discussion. I wasn't saying how the rule should be; I was merely taking the available information (the rule in question) and saying what I feel the literal application of the rule's wording is. I seem to recall that Illinois players have used this particular interpretation of the rules for as long as I've played (about 4 years).
Anyway, in the original post, Billy commented to the effect that, over the course of a match (or even a set), these kinds of calls tend to even out over the duration and are generally inconsequential in the grand scheme of the game. So I'm not sure the discussion really needs to go much farther about this particular rule at the moment. The USAA seems to have more pressing issues than rules discussions right now.
________________________________________________________________________________
[I'm Eric Rood and, luckily, you're not...I'd really like that to be my forum signature...hmmmm...]
*Trundles on over to the Web site suggestions forum*
I'm Eric Rood and, luckily, you're not.
|
|
|
| tableman
- 04 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 690
|
Q said: I am reposting Eric Rood's post from the other thread here because it summaries how I believe the rule is defined. I read rule VI.15 inclusion of "with forward momentum" to define the state of the mallet specifically. If the defender's mallet is moving forward at the time of impact (even if the back of the mallet) according to rules (as written...if not the case, there should be clarification put in explicitly/rewrite the rule) it is defined to have forward momentum and the puck is turned over to the other player. Eric's post explains this in a bit better detail I think:
therood said:
SECTION VI. Penalties & Fouls
15. If the defensive player strikes the puck in an offensive manner (with forward momentum) and causes the puck to leave the playing surface, this constitutes "charging the puck".
|
|
Q: Like Joe, I'm trying to wrap my mind around how you guys could come up with such an interpretation. To me, the rule seems clear (and in line with the traditional interpretation). The key words are "strikes the puck" and "forward momentum".
If you move your mallet forward but there's only air in front of it... and the pucks comes from the back rail and hits the back of your mallet... you aren't "striking the puck". The puck hit the back of your mallet. Your mallet was moving away from the puck.
I agree with Joe that one can try a junk shot where you hit the puck backwards toward your back rail or corner, hoping that it will ricochet back at the opponents' goal. And technically that's a loophole (although to me, an acceptable one) IF you're doing it while on defense.
But if you're in possesion of the puck... strike it backward toward your back rail... and it flies off - you committed the foul, since the defender never even touched the puck.
Mark
|
First |
1 |
Last
Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / Calls in Stubbs/pd "attempted match"
|
|
