Quirk found in USA Hockey boarding call. Does it apply at NHL level?

[timelydew]

Hey, in the USA Hockey casebook, I came across an interesting little nugget.

"Player A1 pushes teammate A2 into an opponent who is thrown against the boards violently enough to warrant a boarding penalty. Which Team A player is assessed the penalty?"

In this, a1 is called for boarding, instead of a2, unless a2 does something on his own that might deserve the call. Like applying "additional force."

My question is, would the NHL use this approach too, for this kind of play? Ie, would it likely be penalized? The NHL rule is worded very specifically about a player who 'checks or pushes' an opponent who impacts the boards violently or dangerously; the USA hockey rule just says any 'action' that causes an opponent to go violently go into the boards.

They are just different enough to ask.

[jammer2]

37 minutes ago, timelydew said:

Hey, in the USA Hockey casebook, I came across an interesting little nugget.

"Player A1 pushes teammate A2 into an opponent who is thrown against the boards violently enough to warrant a boarding penalty. Which Team A player is assessed the penalty?"

In this, a1 is called for boarding, instead of a2, unless a2 does something on his own that might deserve the call.

My question is, would the NHL use this approach too, for this kind of play? Ie, would it likely be penalized? The NHL rule is worded very specifically about a player who 'checks or pushes' an opponent who impacts the boards violently or dangerously; the USA hockey rule just says any 'action' that causes an opponent to go violently go into the boards.

They are just different enough to ask.

 

 

 

 

 I doubt a teammate is attempting to injure another teammate. Can't see it getting called....unless it's a high stick, then...you must have care an control of your stick. If it injures anyone on the ice, including a teammate, then off to the box with ya.

 

Edit, oh, my bad, a teammate hits another player who then hits his teammate, like a pin ball effect, never saw that called in the NHL.

[timelydew]

7 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

 

 

 I doubt a teammaate is attempting to injure another teammate. Can't see it getting called....unless it's a high stick, then...you must have care an control of your stick. If it injures anyone on the ice, including a teammate, then off to the box with ya.

I don't think that's the intent of the scenario.

 

I think this is trying to say, what if a player used his teammate to check another player? It could even be planned out by the two of them. A1 and a2 are teammates, and a1 uses a2 as a battering ram to board a player on team B, if you will.

 

If a player uses his teammate as a proverbial battering ram, he should be penalized accordingly. The ref would have to be pretty sharp to notice it, albeit. I can even see the player who was hit into the opponent getting the penalty in error. But yeah, I think it's fair to say it's worth a penalty if the opponent getting boarded violently is the end result.

 

[jammer2]

1 minute ago, timelydew said:

I don't think that's the intent of the scenario.

 

I think this is trying to say, what if a player used his teammate to check another player? It could even be planned out by the two of them. A1 and a2 are teammates, and a1 uses a2 as a battering ram, if you will.

 

If a player uses his teammate as a proverbial battering ram, he should be penalized accordingly. The ref would have to be pretty sharp to notice it, albeit. I can even see the player who was hit into the opponent getting the penalty in error. But yeah, I think it's fair to say it's worth a penalty if the opponent getting boarded violently is the end result.

 

 

 

 I get what you are saying, but I think the intent would have to be there, cause that kind of a hit can happen 10+ times a game. The ref would have to be sure the intent was to use your teammate as a weapon.

[jammer2]

43 minutes ago, timelydew said:

Hey, in the USA Hockey casebook, I came across an interesting little nugget.

"Player A1 pushes teammate A2 into an opponent who is thrown against the boards violently enough to warrant a boarding penalty. Which Team A player is assessed the penalty?"

In this, a1 is called for boarding, instead of a2, unless a2 does something on his own that might deserve the call.

My question is, would the NHL use this approach too, for this kind of play? Ie, would it likely be penalized? The NHL rule is worded very specifically about a player who 'checks or pushes' an opponent who impacts the boards violently or dangerously; the USA hockey rule just says any 'action' that causes an opponent to go violently go into the boards.

They are just different enough to ask.

 

 

 Just out of total curiosity, why the interest in rules an how they are implied and enforced?  It's a useful thing, to interpret rules and discuss their application, or lack thereof....so thanks for starting some of these threads. You will find there are a lot of very knowledgeable posters in here....

[jammer2]

48 minutes ago, timelydew said:

Hey, in the USA Hockey casebook, I came across an interesting little nugget.

"Player A1 pushes teammate A2 into an opponent who is thrown against the boards violently enough to warrant a boarding penalty. Which Team A player is assessed the penalty?"

In this, a1 is called for boarding, instead of a2, unless a2 does something on his own that might deserve the call. Like applying "additional force."

My question is, would the NHL use this approach too, for this kind of play? Ie, would it likely be penalized? The NHL rule is worded very specifically about a player who 'checks or pushes' an opponent who impacts the boards violently or dangerously; the USA hockey rule just says any 'action' that causes an opponent to go violently go into the boards.

They are just different enough to ask.

 

 

Of course Quirk is found in USA hockey, Cory was, after all, born in the States.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Quirk

[timelydew]

22 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

 

 I get what you are saying, but I think the intent would have to be there, cause that kind of a hit can happen 10+ times a game. The ref would have to be sure the intent was to use your teammate as a weapon.

I think that's exactly the point the casebook is trying to make. Obviously incidental contact where he didn't intend to use his teammate as a weapon would not be penalized. It would have to be deliberate, blatantly so.

 

As for my rule interest, I am not sure why exactly I've gotten so interested. I watch a lot of NHL hockey, play beer league, etc. When I'm watching something, especially a sport, I want to know everything I possibly can about it. I mean, everything. I started down this road a few months ago, and I'm almost at the end of it. It's made me enjoy Hockey that much more.

 

It's also led to me starting refereeing next year, hopefully.

[jammer2]

1 hour ago, timelydew said:

I think that's exactly the point the casebook is trying to make. Obviously incidental contact where he didn't intend to use his teammate as a weapon would not be penalized. It would have to be deliberate, blatantly so.

 

As for my rule interest, I am not sure why exactly I've gotten so interested. I watch a lot of NHL hockey, play beer league, etc. When I'm watching something, especially a sport, I want to know everything I possibly can about it. I mean, everything. I started down this road a few months ago, and I'm almost at the end of it. It's made me enjoy Hockey that much more.

 

It's also led to me starting refereeing next year, hopefully.

 

 

 Best of luck with the refing career, should be fun and challanging all in one!

[WordsOfWisdom]

20 hours ago, timelydew said:

Hey, in the USA Hockey casebook, I came across an interesting little nugget.

"Player A1 pushes teammate A2 into an opponent who is thrown against the boards violently enough to warrant a boarding penalty. Which Team A player is assessed the penalty?"

In this, a1 is called for boarding, instead of a2, unless a2 does something on his own that might deserve the call. Like applying "additional force."

 

Talk about a blown call! It was player A1 that pushed his teammate, not player a1!  

[timelydew]

On 4/2/2017 at 9:16 PM, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Talk about a blown call! It was player A1 that pushed his teammate, not player a1!  

Hmm? A1 pushes a2. If it's reckless, I'm sure the call is justified.

[timelydew]

Why oh why won't hockey rules leave me alone, haha. I thought I was done but stupid usa hockey and their casebook for jerks

[WordsOfWisdom]

8 hours ago, timelydew said:

Hmm? A1 pushes a2. If it's reckless, I'm sure the call is justified.

 

I was joking about the capitalization of letters.

 

[timelydew]

On 4/4/2017 at 10:00 AM, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

I was joking about the capitalization of letters.

 

Ah jeez, my bad. Sometimes my Spidey sense isn't very good.