Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Video- You Make The Call

Brad Stuart on Anze Kopitar…

Filed in: NHL Teams, Detroit Red Wings, Los Angeles Kings, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: anze+kopitar, brad+stuart

Comments

redxblack's avatar

The biggest problem I had with this was the arm didn’t go up until the save was made. It wasn’t a play from behind, but from the side. It was a bad call.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 11/19/11 at 10:52 PM ET

The Hurricane's avatar

Lousy call….they should allow video review for penalty shots IMO.

Posted by The Hurricane on 11/19/11 at 11:03 PM ET

Avatar

I’m a Red Wings fan, and I think that penalty shot was completely deserved. Can’t trip a guy on a breakaway. Nice save by Howard though.

Posted by Elliot on 11/19/11 at 11:16 PM ET

Avatar

It was almost worth the sh*t call just to see Jimmy’s “Fu*k you Anze” puck toss after he made the save…and for that quick little smirk on Babs’ face right after the save.

Posted by godblender on 11/19/11 at 11:17 PM ET

Avatar

Can’t trip a guy on a breakaway.

Yeah, and? No one was tripped on the play. The call sucked.

Posted by godblender on 11/19/11 at 11:20 PM ET

dougie's avatar

I thought it was a good call. There was contact with the skater, and no contact with the puck. I can’t quote part and parcel from the rule book, but I know if the roles were reversed, we would have been screaming for a penalty shot.

Posted by dougie on 11/19/11 at 11:31 PM ET

Avatar

Shouldn’t have been a penalty shot.
Penalty shots are supposed to be reserved for when the puck carrier has no opportunity whatsoever to make a play with the puck due to intentional inhibitory contact by a defensive player.Stuart was trying to o for the puck. He did NOT intentionally trip or hook Kopitar.
I think this call would have been difficult to uphold if someone read the rule book.


I wasn’t positive about a penalty as Kopitar wasn’t tripped or obviously interfered with by a hook. I guess they could have called it hooking, but not tripping.

Posted by teldar on 11/19/11 at 11:59 PM ET

CRoy's avatar

Thats the right call to the letter. You have to get the puck first on a breakaway. Kopitar did a good job protecting and he didnt dive it either. The problem is that they dont call it the way its supposed to be called most of the time.

Posted by CRoy from Redford MI on 11/20/11 at 12:25 AM ET

Paul's avatar

I think you may have hit it on the head CRoy.  Some games we hav seen much worse and nothing called, others we have seen it called.

Consistency is the main issue here.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 11/20/11 at 12:28 AM ET

Gumby's avatar

There is nothing in the rules that state that you have to hit the puck first.  It’s was up to the referee as to whether a foul was committed on a clear cut breakaway.

Posted by Gumby from the city with more ruins than Rome on 11/20/11 at 02:36 AM ET

Avatar

Close call, he had pulled away and the move was mostly from behind.  Too bad it was Anze Kopitar and not “Andre”.

Posted by timbits on 11/20/11 at 03:43 AM ET

The Hurricane's avatar

According to the official NHL rule book….table 13 of rule #25 which pertains to what constitutes the incursion of a penalty shot:

“(ix)  Player on a breakaway who is fouled from behind”

Near as I can tell, that is the ONLY infraction that is in play here. I see no penalty here.

Further…the other 4 criteria that MUST be in play are:
“(i)  The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line);

(ii)  The infraction must have been committed from behind;

(iii)  The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded);

(iv)  The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper.”

Fans have bemoaned #3 for ages and will always do so as it is as arbitrary as it is vague. I do not believe that was met here. Kopitar was not impeded, he was not fouled, he was not denied a more reasonable attempt at scoring. Indeed, the defenseman made EVERY reasonable effort to avoid player contact.

BAD call. No penalty, and no penalty shot.

Posted by The Hurricane on 11/20/11 at 12:04 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image