Can someone define interference for me?

[theohall]

In the 'Hawks-Caps game, a Hawks player lost his stick. A Caps player pushed the puck into the zone and was following it making him the puck carrier. The player who lost his stick checked that Caps player right next to the puck. Isn't that a legal check?? Instead, interference was called.

Don't really care about the Caps or Hawks, but the way they have called interference this season has me completely befuddled, since several times the puck carrier has been the one supposedly being "interfered" with.

[Guppy]

my understanding is that would be legal since the defender touched the last player to touch the puck. But there are countless times where a player that was not the last to touch the puck was interfered with and does not get called. It is confusing as to what is called and what isn't.

[cardsfan04]

Here's the NHL definition: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348

I didn't know that possession of the puck was defined in that way. The way I'm reading it, you can dump and chase, be 100 feet from the puck, and still be considered the player in possession if no other player has touched it.

Anyway, hope that link helps.

[theohall]

Here's the NHL definition: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348

I didn't know that possession of the puck was defined in that way. The way I'm reading it, you can dump and chase, be 100 feet from the puck, and still be considered the player in possession if no other player has touched it.

Anyway, hope that link helps.

This is the way I always thought it was (going on the past 40 years), but it is clearly not the way officials call interference, as demonstrated today in the Caps-Hawks game on the very first penalty called. Just because the defender doesn't have his stick, doesn't make the contact interference.

Heck, there have been Blues games where an opponent dumps the puck, no one has touched it, a Blues player hits the guy and interference has been called. It's ridiculous. (It's happened the other way, too.)

IMO, the officials need to be re-taught the definition of puck-carrier, so these idiotic interference calls will stop.

[Guppy]

and you will also see two guys go into the corners or behind the net and bump each other. Neither one of them were the last ones to have the puck or be in "possession". They bump each other and by my understanding of the rule, it should be called, but never is. It is one of those very grey areas to say the least.

[WaukeeBlues]

Well the rule also says it has to be immediate, so you can't wait for a guy to dump the puck, wait a few seconds and then lay him out just because he's technically the player "still 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.

As for the Hawks/Caps I'd have to see it to comment on it, but if he pushed it forward with his stick and he was following it, I don't know how that'd be interference if he got it, that confuses me.

[210]

IMO, the officials need to be re-taught the definition of puck-carrier, so these idiotic interference calls will stop.

Well, fans really need to do it more than referees.

If I'm a puck carrier and dump the puck in, an opponent is allowed to finish his check if he started it before I released control of the puck. If he begins a check after I release it, even though no one else has touched the puck, he is interfering with me and that's a minor penalty.

[theohall]

IMO, the officials need to be re-taught the definition of puck-carrier, so these idiotic interference calls will stop.

Well, fans really need to do it more than referees.

If I'm a puck carrier and dump the puck in, an opponent is allowed to finish his check if he started it before I released control of the puck. If he begins a check after I release it, even though no one else has touched the puck, he is interfering with me and that's a minor penalty.

So define "immediately after loss of possession" as the rule reads. You released the puck, then got hit. Note, the rule doesn't state when the check has to start. Just that the check must happen immediately after loss of possession.

And how does this apply on dump-ins? Both players are going to the puck. If they are both reaching the puck about the same time and one hits the other before the puck is touched, isn't that "interference" the way that rule reads?? Although that is never called.

[210]

So define "immediately after loss of possession" as the rule reads. You released the puck, then got hit. Note, the rule doesn't state when the check has to start. Just that the check must happen immediately after loss of possession.

"Immediately after loss of possession" means exactly that. Once I no longer have the puck you cannot touch me unless you are finishing your check.

And how does this apply on dump-ins? Both players are going to the puck. If they are both reaching the puck about the same time and one hits the other before the puck is touched, isn't that "interference" the way that rule reads?? Although that is never called.

As you describe it that wouldn't be interference because neither player is throwing check, they are both attempting to claim the puck, and you're allowed to "out muscle" your opponent in trying to gain possession.

[cprice12]

What about when puck carriers initiate checks on defenders? Wouldn't that technically be interference? Oshie does that a lot...never gets called. The Nash hit was a good example of that.
Forsberg was a master at it...and again, never called.

I guess you could argue defending yourself against a check falls into that grey area.

[cardsfan04]

So define "immediately after loss of possession" as the rule reads. You released the puck, then got hit. Note, the rule doesn't state when the check has to start. Just that the check must happen immediately after loss of possession.

"Immediately after loss of possession" means exactly that. Once I no longer have the puck you cannot touch me unless you are finishing your check.

And how does this apply on dump-ins? Both players are going to the puck. If they are both reaching the puck about the same time and one hits the other before the puck is touched, isn't that "interference" the way that rule reads?? Although that is never called.

As you describe it that wouldn't be interference because neither player is throwing check, they are both attempting to claim the puck, and you're allowed to "out muscle" your opponent in trying to gain possession.

This is how I have always understood it, but had never read the rule until a few days ago. It seems to be poorly written. As it is written, the person in possession does not have to be carrying the puck.

[210]

As it is written, the person in possession does not have to be carrying the puck.

Well, he doesn't have to be carrying the puck as long as he was the last player to touch the puck and the contact is "immediately after loss of possession"...

[cardsfan04]

As it is written, the person in possession does not have to be carrying the puck.

Well, he doesn't have to be carrying the puck as long as he was the last player to touch the puck and the contact is "immediately after loss of possession"...

You see the contradiction there, right?

If the last person to touch the puck automatically has possession (which is the exact words of the rule), and he dumps it into the corner, a hit on him "immediately after he dumps it into the corner" isn't the same as "immediately after loss of possession." That is why it is poorly written.

[210]

As it is written, the person in possession does not have to be carrying the puck.

Well, he doesn't have to be carrying the puck as long as he was the last player to touch the puck and the contact is "immediately after loss of possession"...

You see the contradiction there, right?

If the last person to touch the puck automatically has possession (which is the exact words of the rule), and he dumps it into the corner, a hit on him "immediately after he dumps it into the corner" isn't the same as "immediately after loss of possession." That is why it is poorly written.

I don't see the contradiction. When you read the rule in its totality it's actually pretty clear.

[theohall]

So define "immediately after loss of possession" as the rule reads. You released the puck, then got hit. Note, the rule doesn't state when the check has to start. Just that the check must happen immediately after loss of possession.

"Immediately after loss of possession" means exactly that. Once I no longer have the puck you cannot touch me unless you are finishing your check.

Show me in that rule where it says you have to be "finishing your check." All it says is contact must be "immediately AFTER loss of possession. It never states when that check had to start - ie pre-loss of possession or post-loss of possession. Your statement adds something to the rule which is not written.

[210]

So define "immediately after loss of possession" as the rule reads. You released the puck, then got hit. Note, the rule doesn't state when the check has to start. Just that the check must happen immediately after loss of possession.

"Immediately after loss of possession" means exactly that. Once I no longer have the puck you cannot touch me unless you are finishing your check.

Show me in that rule where it says you have to be "finishing your check." All it says is contact must be "immediately AFTER loss of possession. It never states when that check had to start - ie pre-loss of possession or post-loss of possession. Your statement adds something to the rule which is not written.

I've not added anything to the rule, I'm telling you how it's called on the ice.

[theohall]

So define "immediately after loss of possession" as the rule reads. You released the puck, then got hit. Note, the rule doesn't state when the check has to start. Just that the check must happen immediately after loss of possession.

"Immediately after loss of possession" means exactly that. Once I no longer have the puck you cannot touch me unless you are finishing your check.

Show me in that rule where it says you have to be "finishing your check." All it says is contact must be "immediately AFTER loss of possession. It never states when that check had to start - ie pre-loss of possession or post-loss of possession. Your statement adds something to the rule which is not written.

I've not added anything to the rule, I'm telling you how it's called on the ice.

So the officials call stuff on the ice that isn't in the rules.

[kodos]

This might help clear some of this up...

[youtube][/youtube]

[210]

So the officials call stuff on the ice that isn't in the rules.

They call stuff based on how those rules are supposed to be applied.

If every possible action was in the rulebook it would look like a phone book.

[theohall]

So the officials call stuff on the ice that isn't in the rules.

They call stuff based on how those rules are supposed to be applied.

If every possible action was in the rulebook it would look like a phone book.

I understand exactly what you are saying. It's just annoying seeing how inconsistently interference is called and knowing it's basically up to the judgement of the referee and tends to have little at all to do with the rules as they are written - especially when it comes to guys "battling for the puck" and interference being called on one of them.