The refs will be twice as likely to call a penalty on a foul if the foul is committed by a player on a team whose IIHF World Ranking is lower than their opponent's.
Based on yesterday's games, this is still true. The Finnish referees in the Belarus-Canada game gave us some particularly shocking examples yesterday.
I don't intend to suggest Belarus had a particularly realistic chance of beating Canada, but the game was deadlocked at 0-2 for a long time. During that time, the Belarus team was constantly playing uphill. The Finnish refs would call three Belarus penalties for every single Canadian penalty, no matter what actually happened on the ice.
By far the most shocking instance was when Mike Fisher took a run at a Belarus player and checked him squarely in the head. The Belarus player was hurt and seemed to be bleeding from his cheek on the bench afterward.
Let's look at the IIHF rulebook.
540 – CHECKING TO THE HEAD AND NECK AREA.
a) A player who directs a check or blow, with any part of his body, to the head and neck area of an opposing player or ”drives” or ”forces” the head of an opposing player into the protective glass on boards, shall be assessed, at the discretion of the Referee, a:
➤ Minor penalty + Automatic Misconduct penalty (2’+10’)
or
➤ Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct penalty (5’+GM)
or
➤ Match Penalty (MP)
b) A player who injures an opponent as a result of checking to the head and neck area shall be assessed a
➤ Match Penalty (MP)
Fisher should have been assessed a match penalty. It's as simple as that. Of course, neither Finnish referee called one.
Later that night, Slovakia played Hungary and Switzerland faced France. Switzerland led 1-0 in the second, and the French equalizer was called back because a French forward was deemed to be interfering with the goaltender by, well, standing in front of him. At the same time, Slovakia went ahead 2-1 on a goal where Michal Handzus ran the Hungarian goaltender over and Lubos Bartecko scored on the empty net.
It absolutely defies belief that Handzus running over the Hungarian goalie wasn't goaltender interference, but a French forward standing in front of Gerber was. Again, let's look at the rulebook:
471 - DISALLOWING A GOAL
a) No goal shall be allowed:
6. If an attacking player initiates contact with the goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease and a goal is scored.
7. If an attacking player initiates any contact with the goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while goalkeeper is outside his goal crease and a goal is scored.
8. Where an attacking player enters or takes a position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal net and a goal is scored.
There is absolutely no question that by the rules, Bartecko's goal should never have been allowed. In the Switzerland-France game, this rule was interpreted so strictly that a goal that would even have been allowed in the NHL if it was Tomas Holmström standing in front of the goaltender was disallowed. But in the Slovakia-Hungary game they allowed a goal after Handzus bowled over the Hungarian goaltender and was lying on top of him when Bartecko scored.
Hungary ended up losing by a single goal. It's hard to overrate how important the Slovak tiebreaker was.
**
The fact that this happens from year to year is simply shocking to me. The skill difference between countries like Canada and Belarus is big enough as it is; why do the referees think they need to make the playing field even more uneven?
Bear my rule in mind when watching big and small countries meet up at this year's champs. You'll find it's still true more often than not.
If the small countries got equal treatment at the world champs, we'd have a more exciting tournament and better hockey. At times, the way the tournament is called now is nothing short of disgusting. Letting major penalties go uncalled and permitting goals like Bartecko's is making a mockery of the sport.
No comments:
Post a Comment