Bertangna on penalties (USCHO)

Ex-Cantab goalie Joe Bertagna wrote on the unhappiness in some parts of the college hockey world with all the penalties being called in [www.uscho.com]:
[q]As has been observed by many, "LTP" [Let Them Play] usually means let a defender play. Rarely, does it apply to an offensive player, except, perhaps, when an offensive player tries to "pick" a defender in a set play off a face-off. And so the "LTP" phenomenon, when taken to the extreme, comes at a cost to the offense more than the defense.[/q]
He also has thoughts on people who complain when the penalty is called by the assistant referee rather than the head referee.

I finally got through the article...Good article but he doesn't mention diving. I'm not going to look up penalties and compare with past box scores because I think they miss the diving and therefore there won't be any sort of record (there was a diving penalty called against Vermont...but don't get me started about Femenella and holding...). It's just an instinct I have from watching a lot of Cornell games. And about the assistant referees...I don't mind them making calls, but in the example where I was bitching, the one assistant referee made a bunch of calls the entire game and the other made none. Why is that? Does Bertagna really think Sylvester has more guts than Carusone? I think one was trying to impress the head of officiating who was attending the game.

Senator Lincoln Chaffe (R-RI) to Condolezza Rice: "I think trust is built with consistency, and I don't see consistency in some of your comments."

The desire isn't for predictability. It's for consistency.

If asst ref one makes lots of calls and asst ref two makes zip, then something is amiss. Good point.

Speaking of penalties, I think Kotyra's a good ref, but when did "Obstruction" and "Contact To the Head" become penalties? I think the scoreboard operator called him back after he called the latter on Saturday asking for a clarification, to which he replied, "Contact To the Head."

They've both been in the rules since at least 2002. Although those penalties are typically presented as a prefix (e.g. obstruction-hooking or contact to the head-roughing), the rules don't indicate that they have to be a prefix for a separate infraction. Obstruction does say something about making the call "obstruction-hooking" or something, but maybe Kotyra thought obstruction-interference just sounds dumb so he didn't bother, although I'm not sure why he wouldn't call interference. Personally, I prefer a penalty called "obstruction" to one called "obstruction-interference."

Contact to the head is not presented in the rules as a prefix. It just says something like: contact to the head shall be a penalty, major or minor at the discretion of the official.

From HR-70 of rule book:
[q]Obstruction: Obstruction shall be assessed in front of the infraction (i.e. obstruction-holding).[/q]

From HR-97 of rule book:
[q]Obstruction: Hands in the middle of body in shape of an "O". Additional infraction following obstruction.[/q]

From HR-55 of rule book:
[q]Contact to the head: Contact to the head shall be assessed in front of the infraction (i.e. contact to the head - elbow).[/q]

"Obstruction" is not a penalty by itself, but interference certainly is, and "obstruction - interference," while an actual penalty is silly and redundant.

[q]Obstruction: A player shall not interfere with a non-puck carrying player.[/q]
[q]Interference: A player shall not interfere with or impede the progress of an opponent who is not in posession of the puck...[/q]

So, while you can call "interference," by the rules, every interference is "obstruction - interference."

One point about consistency that Joe touches on, but does not fully clarify, is "so-called 'make-up' call(s)." From what I've seen of games before the NCAA crackdown, reasonable fans don't so much get bothered by games getting called tightly so much as when they are called in a lopsided manner. Though he writes tongue-in-cheek, the example of 5 penalties in a row for one team and none for the opposing only legitimately infuriates when the opposing team does commit the same infractions, but doesn't get called for them.

So it seems to me the issue isn't LTP, but LTP-Fairly.

While we're messing with the ref system, what do you suppose would happen if the only penalty called was fighting as an immediate DQ? Pandemonium?

[q]While we're messing with the ref system, what do you suppose would happen if the only penalty called was fighting as an immediate DQ? Pandemonium?[/q]Come on Darren, that's a silly question to ask. If there were no penalties other than fighting there probably wouldn't be any hockey. Stickwork would lkely escalate in short order. There would be plenty of dangerous hits along the boards and elbows. You'd probably end up with plenty of DQs when guys couldn't take it anymore.

I'm not trying to paint hockey players as bad guys or anything. But it's a highly physical game with lots of ways to hurt people. Human nature being what it is, there will always be the temptation to slash a little more to get an edge. Then the other side needs to retaliate to protect themselves. You see this in hockey already, with enforcers.

Of course it's a silly question, obviously meant to either provoke or ponder, depending on your viewpooint. The real question is whether or not people are able to self-regulate. There would be loads of dangerous hits, lots of tripping and all kinds of mayhem. Fighting would ensue, benches would clear, and people might rapidly learn that injuring and pissing each other off with overly aggressive play is no longer "play." God forbid that people begin to respect one another a little more on the ice. Or is it that the crowd demands the violence and won't watch without it? Women's hockey, anyone?

Interesting. I saw the obstruction reference re: preceding the call that you quoted when I scanned the rules, but did not find a similar one for contact to the head. The copy of the rules I found just said it was a penalty, major or minor, but I may have just missed it. I have seen obstruction - just plain obstruction - called, and always assumed it was effectively interchangeable with interference.

At any rate, it really doesn't matter. These things struck me as a way for the NCAA to track the success of the directives to crack down on obstruction and contact to the head, which is why nearly every penalty for the 2002 (?) season was preceded by obstruction (I was just waiting for the obstruction-boarding call but alas it never happened), and there were a whole slew of contact to the head - X penalties in 2003(?). I may have the dates wrong on the directives, but I do remember the bizarre combination penalty calls. I never really saw any difference in the way the games were called or played in those years.

This year, I've seen exactly two games. It does seem like there's more flow to the games and less hooking and holding, but that may just be the way those two games were played. Certainly, for UVM, it probably reflects on the Cats' improvement, but it may also be that the new directive - to actually call games by the book - is having some effect.