Definition of a Late Hit
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Definition of a Late Hit
Calling all refs... I am not a rules guy and have always wondered about the definition of a "late hit". I understand the concept of "finishing checks", but what is the line between the two? How do refs interpret this? Is it time based, or distance based? Thanks in advance to anyone for shedding some light.
-
iwearmysunglassesatnight
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:07 pm
There is no "late hit" rule. . . . the closest would be Interference. Rule 621(a) says "A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck. . . . . ." I think most refs look at several things when deciding if it is interference or not. . . 1) was the defensive player already making his check when the offensive player passed/lost control of the puck. . .2) was the defensive player trying to make a play on the puck (had he looked to the puck or "lined up" the offensive player. . . 3) how far is the offensive player separated from the puck. . . .4) as the game has gone on, have the gaps between puck and player increased as hits are being made (translated, are the hits starting to get out of control). . .
Basically, it comes down to referees discretion.
Basically, it comes down to referees discretion.
-
GoldenBear
- Posts: 746
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:38 am
I have to agree GB. 3 seconds is a long time.GoldenBear wrote:3 seconds? Now that is funny! A kid can skate from the goal line to the blue line in 3 seconds. If you think its 3 seconds no wonder people in bleachers get bent out shape and yell at the officials, they don't know the rules.
If a player is on the forecheck and the defender is just getting rid of the puck, the refs seem to allow some time, yet if the offensive player is coming into the offensive zone, chips the puck in, they do not give the defense much of a chance to hit the offensive player due to the perceived "interference" which impedes the offensive player from getting back to the puck. In reality though, in the forecheck situation, you are impeding the defensive player from getting back into the play.
I think there is a lot of ref interpretation involved here. The rule is pretty clear, it is interference if you do not have the puck. I would like to see it be ~1 second or if the defender is "within a sticks length at puck release" or something like that.
I have seen a couple of kids get hurt this year on hits after puck release when they "relax" a bit. Once the penalty was called, once it was not.
-
PanthersIn2011
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:27 am
Woodley quoted the rulebook. However, you also need to read the definition of "possession" to understand how the rule should be enforced. A player is still considered to have possession until another player gains possession. See the rulebook Glossary for the actual definition and read the note immediately following rule 621(a).mn man wrote:If a player is on the forecheck and the defender is just getting rid of the puck, the refs seem to allow some time, yet if the offensive player is coming into the offensive zone, chips the puck in, they do not give the defense much of a chance to hit the offensive player due to the perceived "interference" which impedes the offensive player from getting back to the puck. In reality though, in the forecheck situation, you are impeding the defensive player from getting back into the play.
I think there is a lot of ref interpretation involved here. The rule is pretty clear, it is interference if you do not have the puck. I would like to see it be ~1 second or if the defender is "within a sticks length at puck release" or something like that.
I have seen a couple of kids get hurt this year on hits after puck release when they "relax" a bit. Once the penalty was called, once it was not.
So, for example, when a player chips it off the boards and the puck is still lose, a forechecker can still legally body-check that player without it being interference.
Unless he goes out of his way to impede the progress and check the player in possession. The defensive player is supposed to make a natural hockey move towrds the puck. Those are the new standards of play. That is why a defensive player can no longer just keep skating backwards and shadow the offensive player after he has dumped the puck into the zone. The defensive player must turn and make a move towards the puck in order to gain possession.PanthersIn2011 wrote:Woodley quoted the rulebook. However, you also need to read the definition of "possession" to understand how the rule should be enforced. A player is still considered to have possession until another player gains possession. See the rulebook Glossary for the actual definition and read the note immediately following rule 621(a).mn man wrote:If a player is on the forecheck and the defender is just getting rid of the puck, the refs seem to allow some time, yet if the offensive player is coming into the offensive zone, chips the puck in, they do not give the defense much of a chance to hit the offensive player due to the perceived "interference" which impedes the offensive player from getting back to the puck. In reality though, in the forecheck situation, you are impeding the defensive player from getting back into the play.
I think there is a lot of ref interpretation involved here. The rule is pretty clear, it is interference if you do not have the puck. I would like to see it be ~1 second or if the defender is "within a sticks length at puck release" or something like that.
I have seen a couple of kids get hurt this year on hits after puck release when they "relax" a bit. Once the penalty was called, once it was not.
So, for example, when a player chips it off the boards and the puck is still lose, a forechecker can still legally body-check that player without it being interference.
A late hit could be defined as a hit that was avoidable and would most likely be penalized with a "charging" call. "If more than two steps or strides are taken, it shall be considered “charging.”, ie: late hit.
-
PanthersIn2011
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:27 am
RL:
Agreed. And good point.
I was thinking more of the scenario where a forechecker pressures the puck possessor, who in turn dumps the puck away. The forechecker still has the right to finish the check even though that player no longer has the puck on his/her* stick.
[*] Her could be a girl playing youth hockey where body checking is legal (PeeWees, Bantams, etc.)
Agreed. And good point.
I was thinking more of the scenario where a forechecker pressures the puck possessor, who in turn dumps the puck away. The forechecker still has the right to finish the check even though that player no longer has the puck on his/her* stick.
[*] Her could be a girl playing youth hockey where body checking is legal (PeeWees, Bantams, etc.)
The main rule is 640(b) under Unnecessary Roughness. Specifically it talks about avoidable checks. Quoting from the situation manual " An ""avoidable check"" is one which is primarily done to punish the player who just had possession and control of the puck. The checking player does not initiate the check until such possession and control is lost. Or, the check is initiated while possession and control applies, but the checking player has ample time to avoid completing the check without risking his own safety."
There are teams that violate this rule on virtually every possession of the puck. Their purpose is to intimidate the other team into hurrying their passes or making poor turnovers. The more times a player get hit the more nicked up they get and their game deteriorates. Some very highly skilled teams do this as an extra "tool" in their arsenal and there are some really poor teams that depend on this tactic as their only way to compete. In reality, the concept of "finishing your check" is just another way to say intimidate, bully, interfere, cheat, etc.
What most parents and many coaches don't understand is that there are rules that are based upon "possession" and others that are based upon "possession and control".
The example of the chip in was used in some of the earlier posts. If a defender stands his ground and the forward skates into him after a chip in (possession but not control), the defender is not committing a penalty. If the defender was backward skating at an angle towards the boards before the chip in and maintains the line while the forward attempts to squeeze through, there is no interference committed. The easy call is when the forward fakes inside, the D starts to go inside, then the forward cuts outside and the D adjusts and then finishes the check, it is an easy interference call. I agree with PI2011's comment on the D shadowing the forward.
As far as calling the penalty, I think it is more likely to be called in peewees or in the bantam B and C leagues. The players at the bantam A level are generally more physically mature or they are quicker and less likely to get checked without being prepared.
As a player, I never play and assume there will be no contact (even in adult no-check leagues). Expect to get hit whenever you are on the ice and you are far less likely to get hurt. When you let your guard down you eventually get an unwelcome surprise.
There are teams that violate this rule on virtually every possession of the puck. Their purpose is to intimidate the other team into hurrying their passes or making poor turnovers. The more times a player get hit the more nicked up they get and their game deteriorates. Some very highly skilled teams do this as an extra "tool" in their arsenal and there are some really poor teams that depend on this tactic as their only way to compete. In reality, the concept of "finishing your check" is just another way to say intimidate, bully, interfere, cheat, etc.
What most parents and many coaches don't understand is that there are rules that are based upon "possession" and others that are based upon "possession and control".
The example of the chip in was used in some of the earlier posts. If a defender stands his ground and the forward skates into him after a chip in (possession but not control), the defender is not committing a penalty. If the defender was backward skating at an angle towards the boards before the chip in and maintains the line while the forward attempts to squeeze through, there is no interference committed. The easy call is when the forward fakes inside, the D starts to go inside, then the forward cuts outside and the D adjusts and then finishes the check, it is an easy interference call. I agree with PI2011's comment on the D shadowing the forward.
As far as calling the penalty, I think it is more likely to be called in peewees or in the bantam B and C leagues. The players at the bantam A level are generally more physically mature or they are quicker and less likely to get checked without being prepared.
As a player, I never play and assume there will be no contact (even in adult no-check leagues). Expect to get hit whenever you are on the ice and you are far less likely to get hurt. When you let your guard down you eventually get an unwelcome surprise.
This is helpful. Thanks to eveyone who responded.Mac15 wrote:The main rule is 640(b) under Unnecessary Roughness. Specifically it talks about avoidable checks. Quoting from the situation manual " An ""avoidable check"" is one which is primarily done to punish the player who just had possession and control of the puck. The checking player does not initiate the check until such possession and control is lost. Or, the check is initiated while possession and control applies, but the checking player has ample time to avoid completing the check without risking his own safety."
There are teams that violate this rule on virtually every possession of the puck. Their purpose is to intimidate the other team into hurrying their passes or making poor turnovers. The more times a player get hit the more nicked up they get and their game deteriorates. Some very highly skilled teams do this as an extra "tool" in their arsenal and there are some really poor teams that depend on this tactic as their only way to compete. In reality, the concept of "finishing your check" is just another way to say intimidate, bully, interfere, cheat, etc.
What most parents and many coaches don't understand is that there are rules that are based upon "possession" and others that are based upon "possession and control".
The example of the chip in was used in some of the earlier posts. If a defender stands his ground and the forward skates into him after a chip in (possession but not control), the defender is not committing a penalty. If the defender was backward skating at an angle towards the boards before the chip in and maintains the line while the forward attempts to squeeze through, there is no interference committed. The easy call is when the forward fakes inside, the D starts to go inside, then the forward cuts outside and the D adjusts and then finishes the check, it is an easy interference call. I agree with PI2011's comment on the D shadowing the forward.
As far as calling the penalty, I think it is more likely to be called in peewees or in the bantam B and C leagues. The players at the bantam A level are generally more physically mature or they are quicker and less likely to get checked without being prepared.
As a player, I never play and assume there will be no contact (even in adult no-check leagues). Expect to get hit whenever you are on the ice and you are far less likely to get hurt. When you let your guard down you eventually get an unwelcome surprise.