skip navigation

2018-19 ATO Season: Week 3

By USA Hockey, 09/21/18, 6:15AM MDT

Share

QUESTION: Early during a game a shot was taken. The referee was right on the goal line and saw the puck come off the goalie directly to an attacking player. During the rebound, a second puck dropped to the ice in front of the goalkeeper (it was lodged in his equipment during warm-ups). The attacking player immediately shot the "rebounded puck" into the goal. Should the goal be awarded even though there were two pucks on the ice in front of the goal?

ANSWER: Rule 632(c) in the USA Hockey Playing Rules states,
 
“Play shall be stopped immediately if a puck, other than the one officially in play, shall appear on the playing surface and interferes with the progress of the game.”
 
Given the proximity and location of both pucks in relation to the goal it would be extremely difficult to confirm that the second puck did not “interfere” with the play in some fashion (e.g. the goalkeeper setting up to stop the rebound but is uncertain which puck is “live”).


QUESTION: Is whistling by spectators during play of a high school or middle school game a violation of any rule? Fans in one game informed me that unless I could show them a rule that pertained to whistling, they could, do whatever they want.

ANSWER: The USA Hockey Playing Rules govern the actual game and do not regard spectators with the exception of Rule 626.
 
That being stated, the USA Hockey Spectator Code of Conduct is listed on page “xix” of the USA Hockey Playing Rules. Any further code of conduct must be decided upon and enforced by the league or host association. Host associations are typically responsible for managing spectator behavior at games, and are in a far better position to address issues than officials who are located on the ice.


QUESTION: What guidelines should referees follow in requiring players to "untuck" their jerseys from their hockey pants so that their numbers are visible? (enforcing Rule 203 B). The "tucking in" is not done because the uniform is too big and would impede the player - it is some sort of fashion.

ANSWER: If the tucked in sweaters are a serious issue regarding identifying numbers during goals and infractions then the officials could speak with the coach regarding this. Rule 203(b) in the USA Hockey Playing Rules does state,
 
“ Each player and goalkeeper on the game roster shall wear a visible individually identifying number (only whole numbers 0-99 inclusive) that is proportionate to the size of the participants.”
 
Strictly speaking there is no penalty for this. This must be worked out between the officials and the coach.


QUESTION: I am looking for a definitive interpretation of the Intentional Offsides rule regarding a shot on goal with an attacking player in the zone. There are many referees who believe that every time this situation exists, it must be Intentional Offsides. It has been my understanding that if the official determines that the intent was not to secure a stoppage, the play should be stopped and a last play face-off occurs within the guidelines of the Offsides rule.

ANSWER: Intentional Off-sides should be called when the attacking team makes no attempt at a legal on-side play to enter the attacking end-zone. This can include shooting the puck back into the attacking zone “on goal” with an attacking player still in the zone, but this can depend on the location of the puck and players when the puck is shot into the zone.

If a defenseman attempts to keep the puck in the end-zone but the puck leaves the attacking zone by a few inches, this should not be penalized for Intentional Off-sides.

However, if the puck clearly leaves the attacking zone by 4 - 5 feet and the defenseman shoots the puck back into the end-zone knowing there are teammates still in the attacking zone, then this should be considered Intentional Off-sides.
 
The question the official must ask is, “Was there an attempt to make a legal play when the puck entered the end-zone?”

QUESTION: If a player is given a minor and a misconduct twice in the same game should that player be removed for the remainder of the game and is that player suspended from his/her next scheduled game?

ANSWER: Rule 404(a) in the USA Hockey Rulebook states,
 
“For the second misconduct penalty assessed to the same player during the same game, a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to that player in lieu of the second misconduct penalty.”
 
This means the player will receive a Game Misconduct in replacement of the second Misconduct and must be removed from the current game and suspended for the next game appearing on his/her schedule.