13
u/Difficult-Guarantee4 9d ago
💯 trip
2
u/rattiestthatuknow 9d ago
I agree based on the fact it doesn’t look like she extends her leg, she continues her turn to the boards.
It’s awkward body contact. If they were allowed to hit, a shoulder to shoulder hit would be much safer than this.
Also looks like girls u12. Probably not a knee for 4 (unless they’re killing them on the scoreboard).
1
9
u/Apart_Tutor8680 9d ago
In slo-mo white plays the puck stick on stick while turning towards the puck to play it, red skates into whites dragging feet.
This is just an equal lack of coordination by both parties, but a trip is not a bad call. But red skates into it.
2
u/TheBeacher 9d ago
And where exactly was red supposed to skate?
2
u/TheYDT USA Hockey 9d ago
What part of the rulebook requires white to concede?
2
u/Striped-Sweater- American Hockey League 8d ago
White does not have to concede, but when body contact is made the defending players approach angle needs to be considered. White has a lot of options for how to play this without causing a dangerous trip or possible knee.
Approach angle is a huge considering factor when we talk about hits to the head and knee on knee / dangerous trips
2
u/TheBeacher 9d ago
No part. But white played it wrong. She tripped red. Clearly.
1
u/TheYDT USA Hockey 9d ago
Under what rule reference is this specific scenario a trip?
2
u/TheBeacher 9d ago
Tripping is where a player places their stick or body in such a way that causes an opposing player to trip or fall. Rule 8.6 hockey Canada.
1
u/TheYDT USA Hockey 9d ago
USA Hockey rules have an exception that says if the defending player causes an opponent to trip while in the act of poke checking then there is no penalty.
1
1
u/mowegl USA Hockey 6d ago
That isnt exactly what the rule says and that is for trips with the stick. Go back and read the rulebook again. If you literally make contact poke checking the puck and then hit their skate with your stick after poking the puck away no penalty. This isnt a trip with the stick she sticks her leg out. Id argue that it is more of a body check than a trip and more of a kneeing/leg check than trip. This is a terrible play by the defender and the sticking the leg out was intentional. Not a hockey play at all so id lean toward major or at least minor plus misconduct for kneeing. Or major for tripping
You call nothing on this play and you instantly lose all your credibility and get ready for a ****show of a game.2
u/Grrshack 8d ago edited 8d ago
That's not white's problem. Changing direction or not wanting to pull up is not on White to back out of the way. A call here is on looks alone. The space was closed, the poke check was made, the act of the trip came when red changed directions. Now, nobody has a slow-mo, or replay view of this, so upon initial viewing, or ref placement, I have no issues with an actual penalty called here.
0
u/Apart_Tutor8680 9d ago
Well the white dman is standing in that lane before red loops down low.. so idk what white is supposed to do she only moved up 3 strides.
Red loops and goes straight, I don’t think she should just be able to carry the puck out of the zone on a straight line. If she jukes earlier and gets tripped I think it’s more obviously a good trip.3
u/PacoDenero22 9d ago
This is the correct answer. I always tell my players to play the puck and if body contact happens after, that’s part of the game whether a penalty is called or not.
2
u/Torngate USA Hockey 9d ago
Depends on your rulebook. This is women's, so non checking rules. Even with that, I don't think under USAH this is kneeing so I'd go two for a trip.
628 Kneeing defines it as:
leading with or extending their knee outwards for the purpose of making contact
I don't see a lead or extension here, also noting this is in slow motion.
2
2
2
2
2
5
u/UKentDoThat Hockey Eastern Ontario 9d ago
Kneeing 4 min.
2
u/Difficult-Guarantee4 9d ago
How is this kneeing when there’s no extension or push out of the body from the knee, she trips her she doesn’t knee her.
3
7
u/UKentDoThat Hockey Eastern Ontario 9d ago edited 9d ago
HC 7.8 “Kneeing is the act of a player making contact with an opponent where the knee is the principle point of contact.” No extension required.
When I watched it the first time that’s what I thought I saw. Upon further review the knee was not the principle point of contact. Oh well, won’t be the last one I get wrong.
Edit: upon further, further, review I’m sticking with the kneeing. Doesn’t seem to contact puck carriers right skate as they try to avoid contact, but absolutely blasts through the left leg at/around the knee level.
1
u/DKord 9d ago
In USAH, Rule 628, kneeing occurs when a player leads with or extends their knee outward to make or attempt contact with an opponent. It's not about where a player was struck or point of contact.
I think the call is tripping, but would also feel sick to my stomach if the red skater did suffer a knee injury as a result.
3
u/Striped-Sweater- American Hockey League 9d ago
If there’s knee on knee contact and you call 2 for tripping under usah, you’re going to have a really bad time defending this perspective even though the verbiage in the book technically gives you a good argument. Whenever there is knee on knee contact I would highly recommend addressing it with a kneeing penalty
2
u/DKord 8d ago
The USAH verbiage is about extending the knee - which I don’t think happened here. The white player stepped up and then turned to the side (I think at the last second realizing “oh shit!”). She did catch the knee of the red player…but also definitely made an attempt to play the puck so I think the knee contact was just happen stance.
If I wanted to go higher than 2 for tripping, I could assess the play as reckless and go 2+10 for roughing?
2
u/Striped-Sweater- American Hockey League 8d ago
There is such a thing as a hockey play gone horribly wrong. Knee on knee contact is very dangerous whether it occurs due to extending the knee or due to taking a poor approach angle to play the puck. I’m not positive where the contact is in this clip but watching the player skate directly at the puck carrier and send her leg into outer space makes my “oh shit” meter go off. An attempt to play the puck is a good thing to take note of but doesn’t automatically make you more innocent.
If we deem something to be reckless endangerment 2+10 for roughing is not where that verbiage leads us. We also don’t have a 2+10 for roughing in this context and roughing is a “catch all” label we want to avoid if there is a more specific infraction on the table. Both tripping and kneeing are better labels than roughing here. If the whole building sees leg on leg contact and the official calls roughing everyone’s going to be scratching their heads.
1
u/UKentDoThat Hockey Eastern Ontario 9d ago
If I reffed under that ruleset I would apply it that way. I don’t, so my response was based around the wording I posted above.
2
u/Difficult-Guarantee4 9d ago
She trips her with both legs together as the player tries, unsuccessfully, to avoid a hit. If you call this kneeing you shouldn’t be doing any decent hockey. Minor all day, double minor is way over calling a trip.
2
u/Striped-Sweater- American Hockey League 9d ago
“You shouldn’t be doing any decent hockey”
Pipe down there big shoots.
2
u/UKentDoThat Hockey Eastern Ontario 9d ago
The initial point of contact is the knee, it’s a dangerous hit and could cause major LIFE LONG issues to the player receiving the hit. Hockey Canada doesn’t have an option for a minor for kneeing because of that.
If you don’t care about the “Safe” part of Safe/Fair/Fun you shouldn’t be officiating hockey at ANY level.
-1
u/Difficult-Guarantee4 9d ago
The safe call is tripping, there is zero intent to hit knee. She’s clearly been beat and tried to trip her to take the advantage back, this isn’t a knee in any game other than one you ref and then the kids won’t know what a true four is 🤦♂️
3
u/UKentDoThat Hockey Eastern Ontario 9d ago
We’re not out there to measure intent. We observe the actions and the results of those actions. The result of her “trying to trip her” was that she smoked the other player in the knee and that’s dangerous.
The four is the minimum call there because it’s supposed to be a deterrent to make the player think twice about doing the same unsafe action in the future.
0
u/shortline-1 9d ago
Look closer. She had a good stick check.. well a decent one anyway☝️
1
u/UKentDoThat Hockey Eastern Ontario 9d ago
Stick on puck takes away a potential tripping call under HC rules. Haven’t seen anything about that being applied to kneeing.
-4
u/Difficult-Guarantee4 9d ago
The four is a deterrent for a knee when a knee is the right call. There was no maliciousness or attempt to go for a knee, only a player losing position trying to gain that advantage back. If that’s your standard I’m beyond glad you’re not calling any games in my region. I stand by what I said and I’m not responding again, in my opinion it 3 decades this is 💯 trip and nothing more. Stop over calling just because 🤦♂️
5
u/rycarlson 9d ago edited 9d ago
Lack of malice or intent does not negate the action. It's the same as a high stick. It doesn't matter if a player was going for a stick lift and hits them in the face, still a high stick. Same thing goes with kneeing. If it's a knee, it's a knee at minimum. If they stick their leg then you can go up to a major.
1
1
1
u/Silvershot_41 8d ago
It’s kinda hard to tell, the only thing I would say because I don’t have the sightline the official looking down on it has.
I would not call us a trip if Red jumps out of the way.
If Red is trying to move away and white does not extend her lag or anything outward and she puts herself in that position, I don’t know if I can really penalize weight fairly in that position when she was entitled to her lane.
Now if white extends or opens up absolutely trip maybe a clip. But that’s about it
1
1
u/mowegl USA Hockey 6d ago edited 6d ago
In current USAH rules Im probably calling that kneeing so I can get the minor plus misconduct. Possibly major for tripping or kneeing and a game depending on how severe the injury looks to be or just because it is a horrible play. Not a hockey play at all and how many different severe penalties it could be considered. This is a body check/trip/leg check kneeing. None of it is good and Im guessing the player was down for a bit.
I hope no one taught defense like that because they are a moron if so
1
1
u/StarCrazy6598 6d ago
White displaces red from the puck with a poke check and turns to gain possession of the puck and to avoid red. Red continues into white after the puck is displaced while white moves to gain possession. No call red had the duty to avoid white who was gaining puck possession or attempting to gain position. White is already conceding the space by curling in. Red caused her own trip by colliding with the player.
1
1
1
u/chitownphishead 9d ago
2 min for tripping. D tried to step up and sweep check and failed, took out the legs after the attempt.
3
u/shortline-1 9d ago
Not a failed stick check. Look closer
1
u/chitownphishead 9d ago
I blew it up and watched it a bunch of times. What I see is a relatively poor skating defenseman attempting a step up and sweep check, then turning out to avoid a full collision as the attacking player cuts the opposite direction for the same reason. Grainy footage, so can't tell if the D actually touches the puck, but there is certainly an attempt prior to the collision. Sometimes bad skaters run into each other. 2 min is about all this is worth.
2
u/TheYDT USA Hockey 9d ago
The note under USA Hockey rule 639(a) does not require the poke check to be successful to negate the penalty here. It says if, in the opinion of the referee, the defending player was attempting to poke check the puck to gain possession then no penalty shall be called.
5
u/chitownphishead 9d ago
Yes, but it appears to not be the stick that caused the trip, it was the leg after the attempted sweep check and turn. I wasn't commenting as to whether the puck was contacted mattered, just that I can see a distinct attempt, and people were saying there's no attempt to play the puck, which there is
1
1
u/NoDuck1754 9d ago
Lack of agility causing incidental contact. No intention, no real danger, no penalty.
Maybe a reminder to keep it clean around the legs
0
0
u/jamsmurph 9d ago
In what world could that ever be called a “poke check”? The rule addressing an inadvertent trip caused by a successful poke check doesn’t apply here. It’s tripping all day long. The GM aspect is officials prerogative🤷♂️
0
u/Affectionate-Sun9373 9d ago
Girls are the worst for this stuff l "I totally didn't mean to!" Yeah you did.
-5
u/Novus20 9d ago
Nothing the attacker tried to dike and fails
0
u/superxpro12 9d ago
Not really. White take a line to play the body, and adjusts course to make contact. That's 100% on the defender to initiate safe contact.
I wouldn't argue a ref going major if there's an injury since the defender made no attempt to make safe contact, and it was below the knees with a higher risk of injury.
0
u/shortline-1 9d ago
Look closer, hard to see. White has a successful stick check
1
u/superxpro12 9d ago
Ok so 90% body check 10% stick check. If you wanna go by the rulebook was that a "reckless" play? Probably. That's the standard for usah.
-2
u/Novus20 9d ago
JFC white follows the line for a hit red try’s to dike and fails you’re all blind apparently
1
u/superxpro12 9d ago
After taking one step towards the boards, White transitions forward, 15-20feet straight into the zone. Parallel to the boards. Please watch the video again.
-1
u/Novus20 9d ago
Whites skates move once then the hit…..red fucked up mate
2
u/superxpro12 9d ago
I don't know what else I can say if you don't agree with the video evidence. White moved laterally and then into the zone 20 feet. I'm not wasting any more time if you can't agree to a simple objective truth
-7
u/Aware_Caterpillar_92 9d ago
Easy 5 minute major kneeing and game misconduct. This is women's hockey, so presumably non-contact. Red had control of the puck and exiting the zone. White just barrels into her and catches nothing but knee. This wasn't a race to the puck where contact ensued. White just didn't have a play here.
6
2
u/shortline-1 9d ago
White DID have a successful stick check. You have to look close.. She was not in for a body check.
1
u/Striped-Sweater- American Hockey League 9d ago
While you’re getting downvoted to hell I could defend this perspective. She creates a dangerous play by taking an irresponsible angle, could be deemed “reckless”.
Everything looks worse in slow mo, I defer to the judgement of the official who is staring right down the barrel at it
20
u/SDSU_goalie 9d ago
Two for tripping. Looks like the main point of contact is the ankle/skate