Dion Phaneuf's hit on Denis Hamel

[3Jack]

Dion Phaneuf's hit on Denis Hamel was a great hit... but, was it interference?

Later in the game Roman Hamrlik was called for interferring with an Ottawa player on a very similar play - ie, Ottawa player dumps the puck in and attempts to go chase it and is prevented from doing so by Hamrlik.

I'm hard pressed to see the difference between the two plays.

Please note that I'm not a Sens fan, but an unbiased observer, who likes the new rules but can't understand why the Phaneuf hit wasn't interference.

[3Jack]

Dan, could you move this to the hockey section? Thanks!

[Big Johnny69]

I guess you could call me a Sens fan and I think it was a great hit. Hamel should have been better prepared for it. A great hit, and you'll see many more of those this year. Phaneuf is going to be a great D-man. And did anyone else notice it looked like he was ready to tangle with Neil?

[3Jack]

Agree with you that it was a great hit, and I love Phaneuf and look forward to him playing for Canada for years to come in the Olympics et al, but was it not interference under the 'rules'?

[dbleber]

I thought it was a great hit, shoulder down and almost text book. I do think with th enew rule changes that it was interference, given the fact that they call interference on a lot less then that lately. If you watch the hit it wasn't late, but it did stop his advancement and you can't do that anymore. I like the fast play but I miss the old time hockey as well.

Now what about the miss call on Schaffer right before the flames scored? The flames player had his stick around his legs and lifted Schaffer off the ice and onto his ass. No call and the Flames score on the rush. Bad break for the Sens and anoter example of how inconsistant the Refs are when trying to call these new rules.

[3Jack]

good point on the Schaeffer non-call dbleber... thanks for confirming that i'm not losing my mind - good to know that others feel it should have been obstruction / interference... Hamel had chipped the puck in and was going to chase, and all I have heard for the past year is how the forward can't be stopped from doing that...

[ghaakman]

Has anyone found a video of the hit? We were at the game last night but atthe opposite end. Would love to see it again.

[Big Johnny69]

good point on the Schaeffer non-call dbleber... thanks for confirming that i'm not losing my mind - good to know that others feel it should have been obstruction / interference... Hamel had chipped the puck in and was going to chase, and all I have heard for the past year is how the forward can't be stopped from doing that...

Then what's the point of a body check? There's body contact and body checking. Contact is incidental rubbing along the boards, checking is with the purpose of either removing someone from the puck or making them pay for watching their play. The old rule was you had 2-3 seconds to finish a check once someone got rid of the puck, Phaneuf hit Hamel well within that time frame. In my books, good hit, no interference. I'm with Denny on this one, if they start calling good, clean, hard boddy checks interference, not sure I'll keep watching.

[3Jack]

but then how do you explain the Hamrlik interference call in the third? exactly the same scenario / timing issue.

(geoff - thanks for moving this thread to its proper location btw!)

[Big Johnny69]

but then how do you explain the Hamrlik interference call in the third? exactly the same scenario / timing issue.

(geoff - thanks for moving this thread to its proper location btw!)

I didn't see the Hamrlik call. Was only flipping back and forth between other shows. But as usual it all comes down to interpretation of the rules by the individual refs.

[3Jack]

I didn't see the Hamrlik call. Was only flipping back and forth between other shows. But as usual it all comes down to interpretation of the rules by the individual refs.

Agreed - it's never going to be perfect because the refs are human after all... perhaps the refs were just like the rest of us on that play - in awe of what they just saw!

[Hacker]

I think you've got it 100% correct 3jack - under the new rules that was definately interference, Hamel didn't have the puck and he was interfered with in the course of trying to retrieve it - this is the problem that so many hockey purists (myself included) have with some of the new rules, they are basically mandating hitting out of the game.

One hell of a hit, but under the new rules a penality should have been called......the Schafer play, that was a penality under any set of hockey rules that I've ever seen - it is this inconsistency in officiating that drives me nuts

It was also a shame that it bit the Sens in the ass, they just can't catch a break lately....oh well, I for one am glad that they are struggling a little bit, last year in the early going it was just too easy and I think it went to their heads.

[3Jack]

It was also a shame that it bit the Sens in the ass, they just can't catch a break lately....oh well, I for one am glad that they are struggling a little bit, last year in the early going it was just too easy and I think it went to their heads.

Great point! Last year's 19-3 start lulled them into a false sense of greatness...

[Big Johnny69]

Great point! Last year's 19-3 start lulled them into a false sense of greatness...

Maybe so, but don't want to see them go 3-19 to start this year though. Too much catching up to do then.

[Hacker]

Great point! Last year's 19-3 start lulled them into a false sense of greatness...

EXACTLY

[Big Johnny69]

I think you've got it 100% correct 3jack - under the new rules that was definately interference, Hamel didn't have the puck and he was interfered with in the course of trying to retrieve it - this is the problem that so many hockey purists (myself included) have with some of the new rules, they are basically mandating hitting out of the game.

One hell of a hit, but under the new rules a penality should have been called......the Schafer play, that was a penality under any set of hockey rules that I've ever seen - it is this inconsistency in officiating that drives me nuts

It was also a shame that it bit the Sens in the ass, they just can't catch a break lately....oh well, I for one am glad that they are struggling a little bit, last year in the early going it was just too easy and I think it went to their heads.

Maybe so, but he had just dumped it. Different story if he never touched the puck and was skating in the zone to retrieve it. I think the NHL still has to keep that couple of seconds to follow through to finish checks. It has always been there, and should remain so.

[Indio]

but then how do you explain the Hamrlik interference call in the third? exactly the same scenario / timing issue.

Agree with you that it was a great hit, and I love Phaneuf and look forward to him playing for Canada for years to come in the Olympics et al, but was it not interference under the 'rules'?

In my opinion, both calls were properly made byt the refs. Hamel had just dumped the puck in the corner when Phaneuf finished his check. Yes it sent Hamel flying on his ass but it was a good, clean legal check within the rules.

Neil on the other hand, dumped the puck into the cornerand was chasing after it when Hamrlik put his stick in froint of Neil and rubbed him against the boards holding him there. That impeded his progress in chasing the puck, thus considered a penalty.

Just my 2¢ and observation.

[3Jack]

You're right, it was Chris Neil who tried to chip and chase past Hamrlik in the third... Neil had the puck, chipped it in, and was taken out of the play, though not nearly as violently, when he attempted to chase it just like Hamel was... it's simple, the NHL has to call it one way or the other... consistently!

[3Jack]

Neil on the other hand, dumped the puck into the cornerand was chasing after it when Hamrlik put his stick in froint of Neil and rubbed him against the boards holding him there. That impeded his progress in chasing the puck, thus considered a penalty.

Just my 2¢ and observation.

If you get a chance to see the replay again on the Hamel hit, look where the puck is... it's at the face-off dot inside the zone when Hamel gets hammered outside the blueline.

Hamel dumps the puck in, goes to chase it, Dion Dion's him. I'd say Hamel's progress was impeded

Seems to be interference by the definition you provided using the Neil play as an example.

[Moose Head]

That hit was awesome. Phaneuf is and will be good for a long time, or as long as his body handles it. The announcers refered to Dion and Robyn Regher as "Splat Man and Robyn".

I would have loved a Phaneuf and Chris Neil fight.

[Big Johnny69]

If Indio's description is true, the difference between the two calls was that Hamrlik held Neil on the boards. Even if for a second. You could argue that Hamel could just as easily ran right through the check of Phaneuf and continued on towards the puck. But being held, you can't continue pursuit.

[3Jack]

I don't think anyone's gonna be running through any Phaneuf check anytime soon though...

[Hacker]

You could argue that Hamel could just as easily ran right through the check of Phaneuf

OK Dude, you are obviously more sick than you originally thought - you aren't thinking rationally anymore......

Little Denis Hamel run through Dion Phaneuf??

[Big Johnny69]

Should I have put it in bold "You could argue" then? Just trying to analyze the ref's rationale. Hey, isn't that an oxy moron? Sorry to all you refs out there.

[Indio]

If you get a chance to see the replay again on the Hamel hit, look where the puck is... it's at the face-off dot inside the zone when Hamel gets hammered outside the blueline.

Hamel dumps the puck in, goes to chase it, Dion Dion's him. I'd say Hamel's progress was impeded

Seems to be interference by the definition you provided using the Neil play as an example.

Sorry 3Jack, I disagree, Dion already had him lined up for the hit and was just acrrying through on the hit within the 'unofficial' alloted time (at the referee's discretion) and he was not up against the boards, he was going to his right, which clould also be interpreted as not actually chasing the puck! that puck took about a half a second to get where it was. The other play there was not a lined up hit, he just came along and rubbed him out and put his stick intio the mid section to impede his progress..

What can I say, I guess everyone sees the same thing differently. Trust me, I am a Sens fan (although not a ribid fan) and would love to have seen a penalty on the play, but persoanlly didn't think it was warranted.... damned fine hit tho I think Hamel will keep his head up from now and and not cut to the centre of the ice without looking to see who is coming next time!

[Hacker]

Should I have put it in bold "You could argue" then? Just trying to analyze the ref's rationale. Hey, isn't that an oxy moron? Sorry to all you refs out there.

That might have helped, but some things are just sooooo far out of the realm of possiblilty......i.e. Alexi Yashin might, someday, earn the salary that the Islanders are paying him

Bold or no bold we all know that it ain't gonna happen

[3Jack]

Sorry 3Jack, I disagree, Dion already had him lined up for the hit and was just acrrying through on the hit within the 'unofficial' alloted time (at the referee's discretion) and he was not up against the boards, he was going to his right, which clould also be interpreted as not actually chasing the puck! that puck took about a half a second to get where it was. The other play there was not a lined up hit, he just came along and rubbed him out and put his stick intio the mid section to impede his progress..

What can I say, I guess everyone sees the same thing differently. Trust me, I am a Sens fan (although not a ribid fan) and would love to have seen a penalty on the play, but persoanlly didn't think it was warranted.... damned fine hit tho I think Hamel will keep his head up from now and and not cut to the centre of the ice without looking to see who is coming next time!

Some interesting stuff here... some of which I agree with... some of which I don't... ie - just because you have a guy lined up doesn't mean it's ok to follow through... (like if the guy has his back to you up against the boards or if you're taking a long run at him from across the rink)... next, he may have been moving to his right (well, actually, to his left), but his intent was to get into the zone and chase the puck - after all, he wasn't just going to go to the boards and stop - his progress was moving forward as illustrated by the resulting skid mark he left on the ice in the Flames end... next - i'd say a lined-up hit versus a hit that wasn't lined up calls more for interference than the latter, because lined-up = intentionally impeding progress...

I think the crux of the matter here is though, the timing of it as many of you fine chaps have mentioned to me... i can see now that it was much more of a 'bang-bang' play than the Hamrlik-Neil situation... but still - progress was impeded.

[3Jack]

this is a wicked-good discussion btw!

[dbleber]

All good points here fellas, but I think 3jack (correct me if I'm wrong, is playing a little bit of devil's advocate. The arguemnt isn't about Dions hit, it was perfect any hockey fan has to admit that, but with the new rules and the way the game is called today. A few years ago both plays would have been let go, now nodody seems to know what is going to be called or not. The same thing is happening at all levels of hockey across the country, refs don't know what to call and players don't know what kind of game they can play. I know in the leagues I play in, you're seeing guys just letting go of the agressive style hockey we all grew up playing because they are tired of spending their ice time in the box. Talking with some refs, they are just as frustrated. Most of them grew up playing and refiing the same style games as we did, now they have to call this wussy style game that my open the game up a bit but what's next no hit at all?

[dbleber]

I love that hockey is back! Nothing makes get fired up like a good old hockey discussion!