Technical question on how too many men gets called.

[timelydew]

Hey, I have a question about how too many men on the ice is called as far as a player's skate(s) being on the ice. Seems easy enough, but I'll go into detail with some rulebook references to make sure my question is clear, because the info isn't quite enough so for me.

 

Here's a part of the rule from Hockey Canada:

"Note 1: If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player leaving the game intentionally plays the puck with her stick, skates or hands or intentionally checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while the player respectively leaving or entering the game is actually on the ice, then the infraction of “too many players on the ice” shall be called."

 

So does "actually on the ice" mean even just one skate of the player leaving or entering? Need that player be completely on the bench? I ask because in the HC case book, and in the NHL rule (the HC and NHL rules are nearly verbatim for the parts I'm referencing), there is a reference to a player not being officially on the ice until both skates are on:

"A player coming onto the ice as a substitute player is considered on the ice once both of his skates are on the ice. If he plays the puck or interferes with an opponent while still on the players’ bench, he shall be penalized under Rule 56 – Interference."

 

That was the NHL rule, and make note that the exact same thing is alluded to in the Hockey Canada casebook under change of players. The HC rule also mentions how that same rule for needing two skates on to make a play applies to a player leaving on a change as well, and I assume the NHL sees it the same way even though it just mentions a player coming on.

 

Also, might I add that the IIHF says that any player who has one skate on, and one off, is considered "off the ice" for line change purposes, unless they participate in game action in this position. Neither the NHL nor Hockey Canada expressly mentions this (at all), although the NHL rule for interference and the HC casebook reference seem to suggest it could be the case. However, I think that interpretation could just have to do with the IIHF, and no other governing body, since the other books don't mention it outside of the reference to playing the puck whilst having one skate on and one off. It makes things all the more confusing, however.

 

Anyway, all I really want to know is, do I forget that two skate thing unless that actual interference situation arises? What does "actually on the ice" mean semantically? Do I forget anything the IIHF rule says?

 

Say there's a scenario whereby a player coming onto the ice for a change (with both of his skates on the ice), plays the puck, and the player about to come off on a change still has one skate on, and one off at the same time the player coming on plays it. You can imagine it the other way around, as well, with the player leaving on a change (with both skates on the ice still) playing the puck while the player coming onto the ice only has one skate on and one on the bench as this happens. Are these too many men penalties -- I.e., a skate "actually on the ice"?

 

Thanks, wanted to be detailed for accuracy. I also know the USA Hockey rule says "actually on the ice" too, so anyone who knows, fill me in. That interference reference and the iihf rule make this all very unclear to me for the NHL and HC.

 

Edit: Ignore the actual situation here (goalie substitution), but pay special attention to the bolded text as it relates to my question. It may just be the actual answer to my question... From the HC casebook again:

 

"SITUATION 3 Rule 2.5 (f) Note 3: If either the goaltender coming off, or the player coming on the ice plays the puck while the other one is still on the ice, a penalty for “too many players on the ice” shall be assessed, regardless of whether or not the goaltender is within the 3m (10 ft) area. Before either player can play the puck, the other player must be on the bench. This situation supersedes Note 3."

 

So applying what the bolded text says to a normal line change, I guess the skater must be fully at the bench? I apologize for the length of my post, but wanted to fill it with information instead of speculation.

 

If I had to guess, I would say having one skate on the ice (whether it be the player coming on or going off) in the scenario presented is considered "actually on the ice", and that the interference reference is there only to inform you that that particular play is illegal in its own right. I think the iihf rule stands alone, all by itself, with no friends to play with.