NHL Roughing Penalty Standard

[timelydew]

Okay, I've conjured up one more question. I think it's a good one for discussion.

 

When it comes to roughing and it being applied during the normal course of play (i.e., NOT after the whistle, but during play, NHL specifically), am I right in saying that a ref is looking for unnecessary or overzealous behavior on a player "finishing" his check on an opponent? Basically, putting a little extra on a hit where it's not really required, especially if the puck is gone? Would it have to be a "high" hit as well, with the arms and hands elevated? Would lateness when combined with these elements also be a factor?

 

I'm talking one player being assessed the penalty under these conditions rather than two, generally.

 

I've maybe definitely (see how sure I am?) seen roughing called in these situations (I think, my memory is hazy enough to warrant this question though), but I can't find any direct reference in the rules to it. However, I am almost certain that this is one way the ref can apply it. A common one seems to be after a player has let go of the puck already and his opponent seems intent on inflicting undue punishment instead of laying a normal check or making a play on the puck. I know USA Hockey encourages this call.

 

The other night in Montreal, Jordie Benn was given one for a quasi horse collar during play. It was excessive and he was nailed. The common thread seems to be that it's a high hit, possibly delivered with the hands or arms up, contacting the head/neck area.

 

Would it be safe to say, then, that roughing is kind of a "catch all" penalty for excessively rough play on high hits? Again, there are multiple ways to call this penalty by the looks of it, just making sure the NHL refs are held to this standard. I feel like I've always known this, but never asked to be sure. I know all about it being assessed in post-whistle scrums, but you rarely hear about it for high, excessive, and late hits, although I'm sticking to my story that they use it in a "kitchen sink" type of way when players go over the top in this way.

 

I have proof in this penalty assessed to Anthony Peluso. It might be a couple other penalties (like a board maybe), but I think the ref called roughing because it was high and gratuitous, and after the puck was gone. I have no issue with it:

I also found footage of Mike Brown's forearm clocking Doughty near the head area. It too was roughing. Thoughts?

[timelydew]

USA Hockey says roughing can be any "avoidable" hit when the opponent lets go of the puck. Essentially what I'm trying to convey. Again, I think the point of emphasis is hits delivered, or strikes delivered, if you will, to the head and neck area are roughing in the NHL. I don't think the league would make refs taught to call it a certain way change very much, it just has to fit within the framework of the NHL rule. Watch the Peluso hit. Search Mike Brown on Doughty and find the Hockey News link. Okay. Just wanted to add that. PS I've noticed my original post was in faded font, sorry

[nossagog]

Sure it could be used as a catch all for anything the particular official of the day deems as unnecessary. But the NHL has too many catch all's to cover things that leave too much up to the officials in games.  The problem is that there is no consistency in how and when the rules are applied.  Take for example your video above.   The play involved above could also have been called boarding, because the way the the boarding rule is stated.  

 

Rule 41 - Boarding 41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

 

Talk about ambiguous definitions.  Your video shows Wilson going into the boards in a dangerous manner,  could have been boarding.

 

But as I mentioned, its all left in the eyes of the officials. And just wait two weeks until the playoffs start.   Watch all the jabs and punches to the head after the whistle  which should clearly be roughing.  They won't get called. There are teams that thrive on the little things after whistles. You know, to "Get the other team off their game" and to "Get under their skin".   They'll be "Playing the game with passion".   All terms used when those little things are done, and roughing is not called. 

 

So in the end, it all depends on what kind of game the official wants to call.  If the call the penalties, the physical team will complain that the officials aren't letting them play and affecting the game.    And if the don't call the penalties then the receiving team will complain that they're letting the game get out of hand.

 

And let's not even talk about the wonderful retaliatory penalty where the receiving player finally has enough and retaliates and he's the only one who gets a penalty.   That deserves a whole 'nother thread. 

 

 

 

 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

I agree that 'roughing' is in the eyes of the beholder (or the officials in this case).

 

Sure, there is a 'defined' rule as to what is roughing, but as @nossagog stated, it is very ambiguous and mainly left to the interpretation of the game day officials.

 

I don't think roughing itself centers around high hits, but rather the aforementioned overzealous physical contact, particularly when the puck is long gone.

I have seen games where two players get tangled up, the ref or linesman is clearly telling them to 'move it' or 'break it up', he will give them a few seconds to comply, if they don't, usually matching roughing minors are assessed...many times players DO comply and the official just moves on with the game....though it may not stop those same two players from roughing it up again later in the game, or even just a bit later in the same shift.

 

Oftentimes, I think if the official is annoyed enough by the repeated back n forth of two players, he may call them both on roughing the very next time they even BREATHE in the direction of the other.

 

And that, therein lies the main issue with officiating in the NHL:

 

Since many rules, including roughing, seem defined with a very broad stroke, and because the interpretation is left to the officials (and as we all know, interpretations can vary wildly....one need look no further than a discussion on this site on any given hit or other call to see how opinions can vary), CONSISTENCY takes a big hit during a game.

 

At the end of the day, I think all coaches and players really want is consistency.

If something is going to be called, then call it for EVERYONE....not just based on the 'game situation' or who is involved.

If a particular style of play is going to be let go, then let it go for the DURATION of the game....don't start calling stuff later in the game that you weren't calling throughout the contest.

 

Yea, this isn't perfect (as far as I am concerned the rules should be applied as defined, but oh yea, they are so vague sometimes!) but given how the rulebook is currently set up and with how much leeway the NHL gives officials to handle the games, I think this is best........if the ref is gonna call a rough at 1:00 of the 1st period with the score at 0-0, it should STILL be a rough with 1:00 left in the game, and one team has pulled the goalie and is trying to tie a 4-3 game.

 

Some may cry that this isn't fair because calling a rough so late in that situation is 'affecting the game', but if it was a rough before, it should be a rough now.......again, consistency.

 

If the NHL and its officials can manage that, I believe games would flow much more smoothly because players always like to know what they can and can't do out there when it comes to the 'ambiguous' stuff.

[timelydew]

Thanks for the detailed responses. I think it's obvious that the NHL does use it for aggressively excessive play. Maybe it's not exclusively on "high hits"  but I think it's no coincidence that most single roughing calls look that way, since an over-aggressive player tends to hit up high. I agree with the puck being gone. Problem is, as you guys were alluding to, that the rule is ambiguous, and it's applied differently than it is written in the rules. I've seen this penalty applied many times to one over-aggressive player, at least to the best of my recollection. I was looking for confirmation, but that's almost impossible unless you're in tight with the NHL, or unless you're an NHL official. @AlaskaFlyerFan, you seem to wax thoughtful on my inane questions, any thoughts? Sorry to bug you, but that means I like you. And that sounded creepy.

[nossagog]

42 minutes ago, timelydew said:

Thanks for the detailed responses. I think it's obvious that the NHL does use it for aggressively excessive play. Maybe it's not exclusively on "high hits"  but I think it's no coincidence that most single roughing calls look that way, since an over-aggressive player tends to hit up high. I agree with the puck being gone. Problem is, as you guys were alluding to, that the rule is ambiguous, and it's applied differently than it is written in the rules. I've seen this penalty applied many times to one over-aggressive player, at least to the best of my recollection. I was looking for confirmation, but that's almost impossible unless you're in tight with the NHL, or unless you're an NHL official. @AlaskaFlyerFan, you seem to wax thoughtful on my inane questions, any thoughts? Sorry to bug you, but that means I like you. And that sounded creepy.

Only in a weird stalker sort of way.