timelydew Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Just FYI, I've delved into detail with this question, but for good reason. I have found it next to impossible to get this answered accurately, so I try and describe it best as I can. Thanks for reading, any of you NHL rule buffs. I hope this is posted in the correct area. The following is in the IIHF rule for delayed offside. I want to compare with the NHL interpretation. After reading the first clause for context, read "ix" and "x", both of which bring on my question. The question relates to faceoff location, which I think belongs in the defensive zone in BOTH scenarios, not just "x", under NHL rules. Could be wrong. I almost suspect I am. "viii. If, during a delayed offside, a player from the defending team shoots the puck directly out of play, rules pertaining to delay of game will be applied and the appropriate penalty assessed. ix. If the situation in Rule 82-viii occurs but the puck deflects off the glass or a teammate, but does not cross the blue line, no penalty will be assessed but the ensuing faceoff will be in the neutral zone because of the delayed offside." x. If the situation in Rule 82-viii occurs but the puck deflects off the glass or a teammate but does cross the blue line, no penalty will be assessed but the ensuing faceoff will be in the defending zone on the side where the puck was shot or deflected." Do these apply in the NHL? Specifically, "ix", since that is the one I'm quibbling over. The neutral zone draw just feels wrong to me somehow. The first one there (viii) is referenced in the NHL book, and it's the same. The others are nowhere in the rulebook unless you do some serious reading in between the lines. They do mention a couple delayed offside/puck out of bounds scenarios, but not those, and nothing that specific. Just the first one there, one about the attacking team's original shot causing the delayed offside deflecting out off a defender, and a shot off the crossbar going out during a delayed offside. In all of those situations, the faceoff is held in the neutral zone; the original shot infraction faceoff is held from the spot closest to where the shot was taken. You could apply this logic to my scenario, but I'm unsure about that. I get that the offside in ix is still "in effect," since it doesn't cross the blue line on its way out while the linesman is still signaling the delayed offside, and since the attacking team didn't nullify the violation on their own by tagging up prior to the puck being shot out, but it not being in the NHL rulebook gives me pause. Remember that it must be deflected off the glass or a defending teammate for any of this to matter. Anyway, you can't observe a rule that isn't written down, can you? Maybe you can? Logically, it makes total sense that the offside team can't gain territorial advantage for still being "offside" as this play unfolds (an answer on Reddit used this to support that the NHL does this), but yeah, it just isn't written in the book. Knowing that the NHL and IIHF rules diverge quite frequently, I feel justified in asking. The puck out of bounds rule says it must be faced off at the nearest spot in the zone from where it was shot or deflected out of play that gives the offending team the least territorial advantage, and that has nothing to do with where the puck leaves, and it makes no mention of special circumstances like these. Apologies for the novel, but I did it for accuracy's sake. Thanks for any help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Tuesday......the answer to the question is Tuesday. Seriously though, welcome to the board timelydew. That is a whole lot of info to digest. 3 hours ago, timelydew said: Logically, it makes total sense that the offside team can't gain territorial advantage for still being "offside" as this play unfolds (an answer on Reddit used this to support that the NHL does this), but yeah, it just isn't written in the book. Knowing that the NHL and IIHF rules diverge quite frequently, I feel justified in asking. It honestly comes down to the linesman and what kind of mood they are in. I have seen nothing set in stone and I have seen different linesman(officials) call it situation-ally as to who is ahead at the time of the infraction. The only consistency that I have ever seen is that they are inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timelydew Posted March 28, 2017 Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 3 hours ago, flyerrod said: Tuesday......the answer to the question is Tuesday. Seriously though, welcome to the board timelydew. That is a whole lot of info to digest. It honestly comes down to the linesman and what kind of mood they are in. I have seen nothing set in stone and I have seen different linesman(officials) call it situation-ally as to who is ahead at the time of the infraction. The only consistency that I have ever seen is that they are inconsistent. Fair enough, obviously I'd like to get a specific answer, but I do thank you for welcoming me and slogging through that for that matter. I've tried to get this answered elsewhere, to no avail. Well, to little avail. It's been speculated that the nhl PROBABLY observes this rule, but it's not officially in the rules. The people who say it is use a the rationale that I it makes sense, which it does, but that's hardly proof. You can infer they use it, but that's all you would be doing. I'm hoping that someone with an intimate knowledge of the rules will know. Fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 @timelydew I thought I'd welcome you to the site even though I really don't know the answer to your question. Maybe I'll have time later to sift through it more. But this is a site that has the different rulebooks and is a good reference. http://scoutingtherefs.com/2016-17-nhl-rulebook/ A couple of members who may have an answer might be @AlaskaFlyerFan and @aziz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timelydew Posted March 28, 2017 Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 11 hours ago, hf101 said: @timelydew I thought I'd welcome you to the site even though I really don't know the answer to your question. Maybe I'll have time later to sift through it more. But this is a site that has the different rulebooks and is a good reference. http://scoutingtherefs.com/2016-17-nhl-rulebook/ A couple of members who may have an answer might be @AlaskaFlyerFan and @aziz I hope they take a look, it's been impossible to find this anywhere. I tried seeing if I could edit my post, but I don't see that option? I was gonna try to cut it down. Is it possible to delete it and start from scratch? Don't wanna be a pest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 20 hours ago, timelydew said: Just FYI, I've delved into detail with this question, but for good reason. I have found it next to impossible to get this answered accurately, so I try and describe it best as I can. Thanks for reading, any of you NHL rule buffs. I hope this is posted in the correct area. The following is in the IIHF rule for delayed offside. I want to compare with the NHL interpretation. After reading the first clause for context, read "ix" and "x", both of which bring on my question. The question relates to faceoff location, which I think belongs in the defensive zone in BOTH scenarios, not just "x", under NHL rules. Could be wrong. I almost suspect I am. "viii. If, during a delayed offside, a player from the defending team shoots the puck directly out of play, rules pertaining to delay of game will be applied and the appropriate penalty assessed. ix. If the situation in Rule 82-viii occurs but the puck deflects off the glass or a teammate, but does not cross the blue line, no penalty will be assessed but the ensuing faceoff will be in the neutral zone because of the delayed offside." x. If the situation in Rule 82-viii occurs but the puck deflects off the glass or a teammate but does cross the blue line, no penalty will be assessed but the ensuing faceoff will be in the defending zone on the side where the puck was shot or deflected." Do these apply in the NHL? Specifically, "ix", since that is the one I'm quibbling over. The neutral zone draw just feels wrong to me somehow. The first one there (viii) is referenced in the NHL book, and it's the same. The others are nowhere in the rulebook unless you do some serious reading in between the lines. They do mention a couple delayed offside/puck out of bounds scenarios, but not those, and nothing that specific. Just the first one there, one about the attacking team's original shot causing the delayed offside deflecting out off a defender, and a shot off the crossbar going out during a delayed offside. In all of those situations, the faceoff is held in the neutral zone; the original shot infraction faceoff is held from the spot closest to where the shot was taken. You could apply this logic to my scenario, but I'm unsure about that. I get that the offside in ix is still "in effect," since it doesn't cross the blue line on its way out while the linesman is still signaling the delayed offside, and since the attacking team didn't nullify the violation on their own by tagging up prior to the puck being shot out, but it not being in the NHL rulebook gives me pause. Remember that it must be deflected off the glass or a defending teammate for any of this to matter. Anyway, you can't observe a rule that isn't written down, can you? Maybe you can? Logically, it makes total sense that the offside team can't gain territorial advantage for still being "offside" as this play unfolds (an answer on Reddit used this to support that the NHL does this), but yeah, it just isn't written in the book. Knowing that the NHL and IIHF rules diverge quite frequently, I feel justified in asking. The puck out of bounds rule says it must be faced off at the nearest spot in the zone from where it was shot or deflected out of play that gives the offending team the least territorial advantage, and that has nothing to do with where the puck leaves, and it makes no mention of special circumstances like these. Apologies for the novel, but I did it for accuracy's sake. Thanks for any help! @timelydew, Welcome! I can't answer the question (yet). The NHL has a Casebook and the answer is probably in there. Unfortunately, the Casebook is not available to the general public. "Logically, it makes total sense that the offside team can't gain territorial advantage for still being "offside" as this play unfolds" Conversely, you would be giving the team that shot the puck out of play the territorial advantage and the delayed off side is not what caused the whistle to be blown. I may get to talk to an NHL referee this coming weekend. I will ask the question and get back to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 21 hours ago, timelydew said: Just FYI, I've delved into detail with this question, but for good reason. I have found it next to impossible to get this answered accurately, so I try and describe it best as I can. Thanks for reading, any of you NHL rule buffs. I hope this is posted in the correct area. The following is in the IIHF rule for delayed offside. I want to compare with the NHL interpretation. After reading the first clause for context, read "ix" and "x", both of which bring on my question. The question relates to faceoff location, which I think belongs in the defensive zone in BOTH scenarios, not just "x", under NHL rules. Could be wrong. I almost suspect I am. "viii. If, during a delayed offside, a player from the defending team shoots the puck directly out of play, rules pertaining to delay of game will be applied and the appropriate penalty assessed. ix. If the situation in Rule 82-viii occurs but the puck deflects off the glass or a teammate, but does not cross the blue line, no penalty will be assessed but the ensuing faceoff will be in the neutral zone because of the delayed offside." x. If the situation in Rule 82-viii occurs but the puck deflects off the glass or a teammate but does cross the blue line, no penalty will be assessed but the ensuing faceoff will be in the defending zone on the side where the puck was shot or deflected." Do these apply in the NHL? Specifically, "ix", since that is the one I'm quibbling over. The neutral zone draw just feels wrong to me somehow. The first one there (viii) is referenced in the NHL book, and it's the same. The others are nowhere in the rulebook unless you do some serious reading in between the lines. They do mention a couple delayed offside/puck out of bounds scenarios, but not those, and nothing that specific. Just the first one there, one about the attacking team's original shot causing the delayed offside deflecting out off a defender, and a shot off the crossbar going out during a delayed offside. In all of those situations, the faceoff is held in the neutral zone; the original shot infraction faceoff is held from the spot closest to where the shot was taken. You could apply this logic to my scenario, but I'm unsure about that. I get that the offside in ix is still "in effect," since it doesn't cross the blue line on its way out while the linesman is still signaling the delayed offside, and since the attacking team didn't nullify the violation on their own by tagging up prior to the puck being shot out, but it not being in the NHL rulebook gives me pause. Remember that it must be deflected off the glass or a defending teammate for any of this to matter. Anyway, you can't observe a rule that isn't written down, can you? Maybe you can? Logically, it makes total sense that the offside team can't gain territorial advantage for still being "offside" as this play unfolds (an answer on Reddit used this to support that the NHL does this), but yeah, it just isn't written in the book. Knowing that the NHL and IIHF rules diverge quite frequently, I feel justified in asking. The puck out of bounds rule says it must be faced off at the nearest spot in the zone from where it was shot or deflected out of play that gives the offending team the least territorial advantage, and that has nothing to do with where the puck leaves, and it makes no mention of special circumstances like these. Apologies for the novel, but I did it for accuracy's sake. Thanks for any help! My buddy at work has a son that was a former Spitfire and now a hot prospect for NHL Linesmen. He is currently a OHL Linesmen, but is on a fast track to the NHL. I will ask my buddy, see if he can get an answer from his son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timelydew Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 5 hours ago, jammer2 said: My buddy at work has a son that was a former Spitfire and now a hot prospect for NHL Linesmen. He is currently a OHL Linesmen, but is on a fast track to the NHL. I will ask my buddy, see if he can get an answer from his son. Oh please do! You'd solve a month long mystery for me! I'll send you a Christmas card... In April. Chances are that the CHL and NHL see eye to eye on this. Remember -- it is deflected out by the defending team before crossing the blue line during the offside. I've been told the iihf interpretation and nhl are likely the same, but again the rules do differ quite often. I think it belongs in the defensive zone under NHL rules, as they are written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timelydew Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 5 hours ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said: @timelydew, Welcome! I can't answer the question (yet). The NHL has a Casebook and the answer is probably in there. Unfortunately, the Casebook is not available to the general public. "Logically, it makes total sense that the offside team can't gain territorial advantage for still being "offside" as this play unfolds" Conversely, you would be giving the team that shot the puck out of play the territorial advantage and the delayed off side is not what caused the whistle to be blown. I may get to talk to an NHL referee this coming weekend. I will ask the question and get back to you. You sir, are a saint. I would be so happy if you can answer this. My original thought was that the faceoff does belong in the defensive zone, since it was the defending team propelling/deflecting it out of play. Remember, if you ask, the defenders have it deflect out off the glass or a teammate and it leaves play before crossing the blue line. I've had people tell me it probably is a neutral zone draw, but I don't believe them because of what you said in your response. Thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timelydew Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 The more I mull this over, I'm thinking it is a defensive zone draw in the scenario that the iihf moves to neutral ice. It really isn't alluded to in the book, and I can't imagine the NHL going off the reservation and enforcing a rule that isn't in writing. I'll wait for my new friends to deliver their verdicts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timelydew Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 @AlaskaFlyerFan, are you willing to divulge the identity of this ref, or are you not at liberty to say? Call me old-fashioned, but the fact you might be taking my little old question so far up the ladder is exciting to me. Of course, you are allowed to keep your source close to the vest. I'm just genuinely curious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 On 3/29/2017 at 1:43 AM, timelydew said: Oh please do! You'd solve a month long mystery for me! I'll send you a Christmas card... In April. Chances are that the CHL and NHL see eye to eye on this. Remember -- it is deflected out by the defending team before crossing the blue line during the offside. I've been told the iihf interpretation and nhl are likely the same, but again the rules do differ quite often. I think it belongs in the defensive zone under NHL rules, as they are written. I posed the question to my buddy at work. He will ask his son this weekend. I guess his kid got to don the zebra stripes in the a few Leaf exhibition games last fall, I would venture to guess it was thrilling for him. The OHL sat him out of the playoffs, preferring to go with more experienced vets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timelydew Posted March 30, 2017 Author Share Posted March 30, 2017 11 hours ago, jammer2 said: I posed the question to my buddy at work. He will ask his son this weekend. I guess his kid got to don the zebra stripes in the a few Leaf exhibition games last fall, I would venture to guess it was thrilling for him. The OHL sat him out of the playoffs, preferring to go with more experienced vets. Thank you sir, you did your part. Hopefully we'll get an answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Unfortunately, I was unable to ask an NHL referee the question. However, I did get to ask an AHL linesman the question. Without hesitation, he said the face-off is outside the defense of zone for the exact reason you stated in your original post, so as "not to give a territorial advantage to the team that was offside". He also stated the rule is the same in both NHL and AHL (as are most rules). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timelydew Posted April 1, 2017 Author Share Posted April 1, 2017 7 hours ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said: Unfortunately, I was unable to ask an NHL referee the question. However, I did get to ask an AHL linesman the question. Without hesitation, he said the face-off is outside the defense of zone for the exact reason you stated in your original post, so as "not to give a territorial advantage to the team that was offside". He also stated the rule is the same in both NHL and AHL (as are most rules). Dude, thank you so much. Mystery finally solved. You rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.