ANOTHER one of those things that make ya go "hmmmm"...lolNo idea, never heard of that one before tonight.
Edit:
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
ANOTHER one of those things that make ya go "hmmmm"...lolNo idea, never heard of that one before tonight.
Edit:
It's got to be weird...trying to figure out what's going on inside a hockey player's head... LoLSeems like a crappy rule - and I'm not just saying it because the Pens had the infraction. It's a rule that you can't measure or really enforce consistently. Total judgement / intent rule.
"derrrrrr puck!"It's got to be weird...trying to figure out what's going on inside a hockey player's head... LoL
Seems like a crappy rule - and I'm not just saying it because the Pens had the infraction. It's a rule that you can't measure or really enforce consistently. Total judgement / intent rule.
That makes a lot more sense than the way the handbook explains it. Thanks!I disagree. Whenever I've seen this called, it's been when the puck was obviously offsides and there was no way that the player didn't know that.* Players have the obligation to clear the zone while the play continues. If the player, instead, touches the puck to stop play then it's ruled "intentional offsides".
It's really not a big deal, anyway. No penalty is called and the only result is the faceoff takes place in the defensive zone instead of the neutral zone. Same as "icing" the puck.
* I played league hockey and no players ever had a problem with this rule. It keeps everyone honest and moves the game along.
