Schaefer tripping on Pinto for penalty shot – Tough Call Review
Matthew Schaefer tripped Shane Pinto on a breakaway and Pinto was awarded a penalty shot. Schaefer also got the puck though so was a penalty shot the right call? Here’s my Tough Call Play Review.
The main reason why rules and penalties even exists are to prevent injuries. "Puck first" is irrelevant, because hazardous play is enough reason for penalty.
He hit the skate first, puck 2nd. That's an unfortunate penalty shot. Also, the tripping minor penalty rule gets overwritten by the penalty shot rule. Penalty shot rule says incidental trip leads to a penalty.
The broadcast showed a different slow motion view from the opposite side where it was clearly puck first. It’s a hockey play made to the puck and it makes contact with the puck first rendering the subsequent “trip” irrelevant. By rule no penalty shot or penalty.
Look, I'm a Sens fan. Schaefer touched the puck before he touched Pinto. Shouldn't have been a penalty shot since Pinto didn't have control of the puck when he was tripped. It is still a penalty because it was a clear trip afterwards. But yes, in the slow motion, does seem that he did hit the skate first. So effing hard to call this game as it is so fast.
Excellent breakdown. What most people miss on this play, and the reason why the tripping penalty would still be called by rule (though I agree this is a PS), is that by lunging like this, even if you get the puck first, the tripping action takes the opponent completely out of the play. As a longtime referee, I learned to make a distinction between “tying a player up” (which is often allowed at high levels) and “taking a player out” which should most always be penalized.
16 Comments
Facts
The main reason why rules and penalties even exists are to prevent injuries. "Puck first" is irrelevant, because hazardous play is enough reason for penalty.
He hit the skate first, puck 2nd. That's an unfortunate penalty shot. Also, the tripping minor penalty rule gets overwritten by the penalty shot rule. Penalty shot rule says incidental trip leads to a penalty.
Agreed
in the frame by frame you're showing, he literally gets the puck and skate in the same frame.
The broadcast showed a different slow motion view from the opposite side where it was clearly puck first. It’s a hockey play made to the puck and it makes contact with the puck first rendering the subsequent “trip” irrelevant. By rule no penalty shot or penalty.
Not so tough call. Haha
Puck or no puck he still trips him. It's hockey not soccer.
Had he just waited a little more he could've lunged clean and got the puck from the other side.
Need to change the rules to make this a legal play again that was such a good play on defense
It's a clear penalty, bro is beat and reaching.. end of story
Look, I'm a Sens fan. Schaefer touched the puck before he touched Pinto. Shouldn't have been a penalty shot since Pinto didn't have control of the puck when he was tripped. It is still a penalty because it was a clear trip afterwards. But yes, in the slow motion, does seem that he did hit the skate first. So effing hard to call this game as it is so fast.
Excellent breakdown.
What most people miss on this play, and the reason why the tripping penalty would still be called by rule (though I agree this is a PS), is that by lunging like this, even if you get the puck first, the tripping action takes the opponent completely out of the play.
As a longtime referee, I learned to make a distinction between “tying a player up” (which is often allowed at high levels) and “taking a player out” which should most always be penalized.
A little hard to tell due to white stick tape, but ya, so close that benefit goes to the offensive player.
At full speed only getting it right is amazing and the ref’s are right 90% of the time.
Let me guess, Schaefer gets a fine and a 3-game suspension for putting Pinto in danger of injury himself and possibly his goaltender, as well?