Reverse Quiz: Cheap Shot

[CoachRob]

Player A1 lines up B2 in his sights just as B2 is shooting. He already has four personal fouls 'cause he's a cheap shot artist like Snake~eyes was when he was a player. Just after B2 gets his shot off, A1 uses a take-out check from behind on B2. It is clearly an illegal shot, and the coach yells at the ref for SOMETHING to be done, who says "Sorry coach, I agree, but there's nothing I can do."

Player A1 serves no penalty time nor is he disqualified for what should be a fifth personal foul. What happened to the ref's integrity? Is this something LaxRef or eme would let happen? Hmmmmm.......

(Well, maybe there is something he can do, but he doesn't. But we won't go there at this particular time.) :nofear:

[Longpole5435]

Player A1 lines up B2 in his sights just as B2 is shooting. He already has four personal fouls 'cause he's a cheap shot artist like Snake~eyes was when he was a player. Just after B2 gets his shot off, A2 uses a take-out check from behind. It is clearly an illegal shot, and the coach yells at the ref for SOMETHING to be done, who says "Sorry coach, there's nothing I can do."

Player A1 serves no penalty time. What happened to the ref's integrity? Is this something LaxRef or eme would let happen? Hmmmmm.......

(Well, maybe there is something he can do, but he doesn't. But we won't go there at this particular time.) :nofear:

of course A1 doesn't serve penalty time, A2 used the take out check :chuckle:
I think you mean A1

[dram183]

unnecessary roughness?

[goalieskcickay]

unnecessary roughness?

Did you even read the whole thing???

[CoachRob]

of course A1 doesn't serve penalty time, A2 used the take out check :chuckle:
I think you mean A1

Ah, I corrected that little oversight. Sorry about that LP5435. :dummy:

Do you know the answer to the quiz, however??

[laxattack17]

Hmmm... first of all, is a take out check just a body check that lays someone out?
Second of all... I am not totally understanding the question

[CoachRob]

Yes, a take out check is intended to "take out" the player, which means to lay him flat on the ground. The purpose of this quiz is to determine why, if this is clearly an illegal check that deserves to be punished, A1 does not serve any penalty time. And no, in case you're thinking abut this, it's NOT the fourth quarter with 0.5 second left.

[LaxRef]

Yes, a take out check is intended to "take out" the player, which means to lay him flat on the ground. The purpose of this quiz is to determine why, if this is clearly an illegal check that deserves to be punished, A1 does not serve any penalty time. And no, in case you're thinking abut this, it's NOT the fourth quarter with 0.5 second left.

Okay, that was my initial thought: He does it after time expires. Of course, it's too late to make him serve a penalty, although you could eject him after the game and then he'd likely have to serve a suspension.

You never said that A1 checked a player from team B. It's possible he ended up taking out A2, for which there would be no penalty (unless he did it intentionally, in which case you could still take action).

[CoachRob]

Okay, that was my initial thought: He does it after time expires. Of course, it's too late to make him serve a penalty, although you could eject him after the game and then he'd likely have to serve a suspension.

You never said that A1 checked a player from team B. It's possible he ended up taking out A2, for which there would be no penalty (unless he did it intentionally, in which case you could still take action).

No, he took out B1, which I just added to the initial question. Think hard.

[laxattack17]

Was there a flag or a play on in progress?
Would this matter?

[ron_burgundy]

flag was thrown but the shot went in and because of the goal, the penalty is not served. the goal was scored pretty much instantaneously after the flag was thrown, but it is basically the same as if a flag was thrown and the other team took 15 seconds to dodge and then scored. so no time is served although the penalty was called.

yes or no?

[CoachRob]

Was there a flag or a play on in progress?
Would this matter?

No, there was not.

[LaxRef]

flag was thrown but the shot went in and because of the goal, the penalty is not served. the goal was scored pretty much instantaneously after the flag was thrown, but it is basically the same as if a flag was thrown and the other team took 15 seconds to dodge and then scored. so no time is served although the penalty was called.

yes or no?

Personal fouls are served whether or not the goal was scored. Technical fouls are not. A body check from behind would be a personal.

[blindbill]

No. I believe only techinical fouls are erased by a goal. Personal fouls are still served.

And for the moment, I'm stumped.

[CoachRob]

flag was thrown but the shot went in and because of the goal, the penalty is not served. the goal was scored pretty much instantaneously after the flag was thrown, but it is basically the same as if a flag was thrown and the other team took 15 seconds to dodge and then scored. so no time is served although the penalty was called.

yes or no?

TEACHING POINT: A personal foul penalty (illegal cross or equipment, body check, tripping, cross checking, UR, slash, etc.) is served even if a goal is scored by the offended team to end the FD/SW period. :nono:

A technical foul, however, is wiped out by the goal. But this was an aggressive illegal body check, which is a personal foul, and would normally be served despite the goal being scored.

So, no, this is not correct.

Keep trying!!

[laxattack17]

Did A1 have all his equipment? And would this matter? Is not having equipment considered a personal or technical?

[CoachRob]

Did A1 have all his equipment? And would this matter? Is not having equipment considered a personal or technical?
This has no bearing on the ruling.

Not having proper equipment from the get-go is a 1 or 3 minute NR personal foul.

If, however, a player loses a piece equipment during a play and continues to participate in play without said equipment, it is a technical foul (participating in play without proper equipment).

I hope this helps.

But again, this has no bearing on this play, nor do I see how it would even if he were lacking some piece of equipment. Try again.

[laxattack17]

Is there some reason the game must end after that goal? Is it in over time?

[CoachRob]

Is there some reason the game must end after that goal? Is it in overtime?

Why...INDEED!!! We have a winner!!! The goal is an OT goal, and as such, the game ends immediately. So, the penalty cannot be enforced and the players leave the field.

Good job fella.

I think I'm out of reverse quizes for the time being.

[LaxRef]

Why...INDEED!!! We have a winner!!! The goal is an OT goal, and as such, the game ends immediately. So, the penalty cannot be enforced and the players leave the field.

Good job fella.

I think I'm out of reverse quizes for the time being.

That is not significantly different from my proffered idea of the foul occurring after time expires. And, as I mentioned there, the foul can be asssessed as a flagrant misconduct ejection, which would likely end up in a suspension.

[laxattack17]

Yeah... I was thinking that CoachRob's it's NOT the fourth quarter with 0.5 second left. was an attempt at misleading us... very clever...