Womens Olympic Ice Hockey

[Chadd 916]

I think IIHF rules define control as "Propelling the puck", which does not mean "Puck on your stick". Pushing it 5 to 10 feet in front of you in my mind is still control, but dumping it down the ice and chasing it is not exhibiting control. Either way, I'm glad the ref had enough sense not to call a penalty shot. A gold medal being decided on a questionable penalty shot call would be terrible.

By definition she had possession, not possession and control. Control requires it to be on or very near your stick blade. If it is 5-10 feet away, it is no longer "control" by rule.

[IPv6Freely 2083]

Thanks Chadd, that was the clarification I was looking for.

[boo10 323]

By definition she had possession, not possession and control. Control requires it to be on or very near your stick blade. If it is 5-10 feet away, it is no longer "control" by rule.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Here are the official definitions of "Possession" and "Control", directly from the IIHF rule book.

“Possession” means that the puck shall have come into the possession of, and has been controlled or intentionally directed by, a player or goalkeeper of the opposing team, or has been frozen. No rebound off of any player of the offending team or goalkeeper, or off the goal or boards, shall be considered as possession.

(Edit: the only spot I could find the definition of possession was section 512 "Coincidental Penalties").

“Control of the puck” is the act of propelling the puck with the stick. If the puck is touched by another player or his equipment while it is being propelled and hits the goal or goes free, the player shall no be longer considered to be in control of the puck

When I look at these two definitions together, I would say Wickenheiser had both possession and control.

[Larry54 243]

Correct me if I'm wrong. I always distinguish possession from control by looking at the way the offside rule is applied. If you skate across the blue line backward and have control of the puck, then you're not offside even though both skates crossed the line before the puck. But if you lose the puck just for a moment before crossing the line ahead of the puck, even though you remain in possession of the puck, you're not considered in total control of the puck, so it's called offside. So in this case, control seems to have a rather specific definition.

Also, I've always had the impression that possession of the puck is by a team, and control of the puck is by a player.

[boo10 323]

I would say the offside application of the rule is not quite the same as a breakaway, (Even though the definition would be the same) for the following reasons:

1) When the player "fumbles" the puck, it is not "Intentionally directing" as outlined in the definition of possession.

2) If the player were to intentionally push the puck ahead 5 feet, the puck would cross the blue line first, so no problem.

3) if the player intentionally pushed the puck 5 feet towards his/her defensive zone, they could not cross the blue line before the puck and still retrieve it. They would have to "clear the zone" to retrieve the puck.

It's just my personal opinion, but I would loosely interpret possession and control as follows;

- Player propels (intentionally directs) the puck

- Puck remains within a reasonable distance from the player (I'll arbitrarily pick 10 feet because that is one stride when combined with stick reach).

- Player remains the closest player to the puck

I love these types of discussions. I've been playing hockey for close to 4 decades and the one constant throughout the years is that every referee interprets the rules differently. Furthermore, a given official will call the exact same play differently within the same game. :)

[zebra_steve 11]

From the glossary of the USA Hockey rulebook:

Possession and Control of the Puck -
The last player or goalkeeper to make contact with the puck and who is also propelling the puck in a desired direction. (emphasis mine)

IIHF rules do not specifically define it.The IIHF rule book mentions possession and control under Penalty shot (Rule 508a-4 and 508a5) as well as Rule 490 Stopping/Passing the puck with hands.

NHL Rule book:

Possession of the Puck under Interference 56.1:
The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

Restraining fouls section 7

“Control of the puck” means the act of propelling the puck with the stick, hand or feet. If while it is being propelled, the puck is touched by another player or his equipment, or hits the goal or goes free, the player shall no longer be considered to be “in control of the puck”.

Larry - on you backwards offside scenerio - You can go in backwards, but if you are pretty much doing anything but having the puck physically on your blade - IE: making any sort of stickhandling move as you cross the line - then I am calling you offsides. The decision is made the instant your skate blades are off the and\or in the attacking zone. Either the puck is on your balde and in posession or it isn't. In this instance, you definitely are not in control of the puck unless it is on your stick. The basis for this is that otherwise you are technically making a pass to yourself, be it 3 inches or 3 feet. Maybe you'll say I'm nit picking, but that is what I teach in the semanars too....

[Larry54 243]

So the puck has to be in constant physical contact with the stick during the whole time that you and the puck are crossing the blue line. Thanks for clearing that up Steve.

Can I assume that the same thing applies to a toe drag with the puck crossing the blue line after the skates while skating/coasting forward?

[Chadd 916]

Interesting, there used to be a USAH video and with a clip that specifically said that a player in that situation was not in control of the puck. I recall the instructor stating explicitly that you can't be in control of a puck that is beyond your reach.

[psh 25]

Looks like Noora Raty has the professional contract she was looking for. It doesn't address her larger concern about a professional league that would advance women's hockey as a whole, but at least it will allow her an opportunity to continue practicing and playing. The U.S. and Minnesota will really miss the training she was providing girls and young women here, but I'm happy for her. I hope she has many years of playing ahead.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/finnish-goalie-noora-raty-signs-1-year-contract-with-men-s-team-130533671.html

[hunterphfr 12]

Glad to see her get a shot.

Canada's goalie signed on with a team in the SPHL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/shannon-szabados--women-s-hockey-star--signs-with-u-s--men-s-pro-team-204120954.html

[psh 25]

Excellent. They don't do anything to help the systemic problem, but at least two talented hockey players will be able to continue their personal development.