Hybrid Icing Question (Wave-Offs)

[timelydew]

Not exactly sure how to word this (in my head I know what I want to ask, but I worry that it won't make sense as I type it), but I have a question regarding hybrid icing. There are sometimes when I'm watching a game and think an icing could, or should, occur, but it gets waved off. The type of play I'm referring to is when the puck is shot in such a manner that it crosses the goal line just as or just after the defending player in pursuit has already passed by the dots, and this player is in close proximity to the goal line right as the puck crosses said icing/goal line. Assume the player made a reasonable effort in pursuing the puck.

 

Could it be that the linesman determined the player could have played it (which would make sense, and is likely the most plausible answer, since he's in such close proximity to the puck in his pursuit of it), or does the language about making the decision no later than the player reaching the dots play into it? In other words, if the player has reached the dots (or is a bit beyond them), but the puck hasn't yet crossed the goal line, does it just make sense to allow the play to continue? Assume the player coming back doesn't appear to be dogging it. Maybe in some of these cases the linesman didn't think the puck was going to cross the line (but it ends up just doing so) before the player coming back has a chance to reach it? That would make sense too, since wave offs should be done around the top of the circles (according to Paul Stewart).

 

Anyway, just wondering if some or all of these deductions I've made are valid. Speaking of Paul Stewart, this old blog by him - 5 Keys For Officiating

 

... kinda led me to ask some of these questions, specifically the one about making the decision to allow play to go on if the player has reached the dots and the puck hasn't yet crossed the line, although that point by Paul was made in regards to a foot race. ("In a foot race, if the puck in your judgment will cross the goal line when the players get to the dot, it is icing if the defensive player wins the race.") On the other hand, he also says, "Remember if a player can’t get to a puck before it crosses the goal line then it is icing," which seems to ignore the dots altogether.

So maybe read Mr. Stewart's blog before replying. Hope that this was clear enough. Basically, are these called off because of the "dot" language in the rule, or just because the puck and player are so close together, and the linesman either determined he could have played it or that the puck wasn't going to cross the line?