Penalties by the Replay and the Rule Book

If you watched theCaps game against San Jose on Monday, you may have noticed two occurrences thatwere a little out of the norm for a regulation NHL game. One that seemed totake forever and one that happened in the blink of an eye.

The first was thegoalie interference penalty against Joel Ward that was delayed for almost oneminute of play. Here’s how it began: Two minutes into the first period, JoelWard crashed into the Sharks goalie Thomas Greiss. (Speculation from Caps fanswas that Ward was actually pushed into Greiss by Sharks center Logan Couture;at least it looked like that to the Caps faithful watching the replay.) So, atthe 18:00 minute mark on the clock, the ref raises his arm to signal a penaltywill be called. So, why didn’t he just blow the whistle then instead of waitinguntil the 17:03 mark? Here’s why.

Perthe NHL rulebook:  Should an infractionof the rules which would call for a minor, major, misconduct, game misconductor match penalty be committed by a player of the team not in possession of thepuck, the Referee shall raise his arm to signal the delayed calling of apenalty. When the team to be penalized gains control of the puck, the Refereewill blow his whistle to stop play and impose the penalty on the offendingplayer or goalkeeper.

What this breaks downto is this; when the penalty against the Caps occurred, San Jose was inpossession of the puck, and upon review of the game footage, kept possession ofthe puck for another 57 seconds. It wasn’t until San Jose made an attempt ongoal that was deflected by Braden Holtby and Roman Hamrlik, that the puck was finallyno longer in San Jose’s possession. Yes, it seemed like the delay lastedforever. I actually rewound the DVR several times just to make sure my eyesweren’t playing tricks on me. So, while we all may disagree with the penaltyitself, the delay of the penalty for 57 seconds was by the book. The NHLrulebook, that is.

The second out of thenorm occurrence was the 10 minute misconduct penalty called on Joel Rechlicz.How can a guy who only played on the actual ice for 1:30 do something worthy ofa 10-minute penalty? To explain that, you need the replay and a little history.Joel “The Wrecker” Rechlicz is a right wing on the Hershey Bears and is knownfor the enforcer role he plays. (He even dropped the gloves with DonaldBrashear back in 2010 when Wrecker was playing for the Bridgeport SoundTigers). Apparently, Coach Hunter brought Rechlicz up from Hershey for thisSharks game to keep Brad Winchester from being a factor in the game, as he hadpreviously when he was penalized for charging on Alex Semin in January. PerDale Hunter after practice on 2/14, “The Wrecker eliminated any effect fromWinchester”; so, job well done.

But, as to the misconductpenalty, we really have to go back to the replay, because if you blinked – youmissed it. At the 16:23 mark in the second period, Ovechkin is skating alongthe boards when he comes in contact with Ryan Clowe. “Contact” meaning theusual forceful body hit from Ovi that sends Clowe flying. A few seconds later,Clowe tries to return the favor by slamming Ovi into the wall along the Capsbench. Now, you have to watch really closely to what see happens next. While thesetwo hits occur, you can see Rechlicz standing up from his seat on the bench.Just after the hit from Clowe, Rechlicz appears to take offense to Clowe’s hitand seems to be having words with him. Before you know it, the commentatorsannounce Rechlicz and been removed from the bench for a 10-minute misconductpenalty, and nobody seems to know why.

So, what constitutes amisconduct penalty?

Per the NHL rulebook:

75.4 Misconduct Penalty - Misconduct penalties shall be assessed under this rule for thefollowing infractions:

(i) Any player who persists in using obscene, profane or abusivelanguage directed towards any person after being assessed a minor or benchminor penalty under this Rule.

(ii) Any player who deliberately throws any equipment out of theplaying area. At the discretion of the Referee, a game misconduct may beimposed.

(iii) Any player who, after warning by the Referee, persists in anycourse of conduct (including threatening or abusive language or gestures orsimilar actions) designed to incite an opponent into incurring a penalty.

(iv) Whena penalized player challenges or disputes the ruling of an official after hehas already entered the penalty bench and play has resumed. 



(v) In general, participants displaying this type of behavior are assessed a minorpenalty, then a misconduct penalty and then a game misconduct penalty if theypersist.

While fans may neverlearn the full story of what exactly transpired, we could probably assume (iii)was the reason why.  But what may be moreimportant here is the affect The Wrecker had on the game. Looking back, tenminutes in the locker room isn’t too big a price to pay to ensure theopposition knows who and what they are dealing with.