PRESS RELEASES
PETERBOROUGH FILES PROTEST TO OHA OVER GAME ONE RULING AND WINS PENALTY SHOT TO BE AWARDED AND 33 SECONDS TO BE PLAYED
February 19th, 2008
In what could only be described as an extraordinary situation the Ontario Provincial Junior Hockey League has ruled that game one of the Eagles and Stars series has officially been declared still live (not concluded) with the Eagles leading the game 2-1. Peterborough will be awarded a penalty shot and an additional 33 seconds will be added on the clock.
The end of game one will be played prior to game three scheduled tonight.
Peterborough filed a protest after game one of the series to the OHA Office. The Stars management claimed that the Referee David Sankey errored in his application of a penalty assessed to Eagles John Bull for knocking the net of its moorings at the 19:32 mark of the 3rd period.
Referee Sankey assessed a two minute delay of the game penalty to the Eagles. The correct application of the rule if the net was dislodged intentionally was a penalty shot.
In his response to the OHA office Sankey stated he did not believe that the net was knocked off intentionally. Therefore technically speaking no penalty should have been called against the Eagles.
The Eagles management countered the Peterborough protest with game film showing what they believed was the net being dislodged prior to Bull impacting with it. Further the Eagles believed that the contact was un-intentional and the game results should stand.
If the Referee ruled the contact was unintentional then no penalty should have been assessed, the Eagles spent the last two minutes of the game short handed.
The OPJHL protest committee met yesterday in Toronto and reviewed the decision and late last night Eagles General Manager Percy Harding was advised that Peterborough’s protest had been held up.
The decision by the OPJHL to declare the game not concluded and live with the awarding of a penalty shot sets an incredible precedent for over ruling referee’s judgement calls.
The Eagles also state Peterborough was correct in their interpretation of the rule about the penalty shot to be awarded if the net was dislodged intentionally.
The Eagles admit Sankey errored in awarding a delay of game penalty to Bull but if as his report indicates states the contact with the net was unintentional then his decision being reversed indicates a clear lack of respect for judgement calls by officials.
Simple game plan if you disagree with the decision made by the referee appeal it and let the league become the referee., what have you got to loose.
The OPJHL have opened Pandora’s box be prepared for what comes next.
"Referee Sankey assessed a two minute delay of the game penalty to the Eagles. The correct application of the rule if the net was dislodged intentionally was a penalty shot."
"In his response to the OHA office Sankey stated he did not believe that the net was knocked off intentionally. Therefore technically speaking no penalty should have been called against the Eagles."
Big time contradiction there. The penalty shot is the right call though, but it's a good question as to whether the league should have the right to overturn it. In my eyes since it's a pretty substantial error in the application in the rule then it should be replayed.
BTW, Peterborough was on the powerplay for the final 34 seconds.
Peterborough does not get a power play AND a penalty shot ... I would think it's one or the other. Especially since the Ref has admitted to an error in the first place.
It's one or the other. It's either a penalty shot because it happened in the last 2 mins or in overtime, or it's a faceoff.
Bottom line, it was a misinterpretation of the rule and the league decision is correct.
Game On!!!
Yes the ruling should be that Pete. gets a penalty if it was intentional. However Sankey admitted that a call should have never been made in the first place. So now they are replaying the last 34 seconds of the game as well as getting a penalty shot. This is very unfortunate for Bowmanville as they are getting punished twice. 1st by being penalized in the first place when the ref stated that the mistake he made was not not calling a penalty shot but by calling the penalty in the first place, but now the Eagles are being penalized again by having the win taken away and now have to play end over again and could go into multiple overtimes if Pete. does score. Shows the league really has faith in backing up their refs especially in such a crucial situation, and that all you have to do to potentially win back a playoff game is going whinning to the league when in fact your lucky you got a powerplay in the first place.
Even if the call was made in error, it's crazy to allow such a protest especially after game 2 has already been played. The ref is paid to apply the rules and if he can't apply the rules correctly then he shouldn't be there. What if Peterborough scores on the penalty shot or ties it up in the last 30 seconds and then the game goes two or three overtimes. Then they have to play another game right after that? Not a fan of either team but this has the potential to turn a bad situation into a completely ridculous one.
Also everyone I have spoken to about this situation believes that a decision should have been made prior to game 2 being played so that it had no effect on the ruling, if the stars had of won game 2 it may have been a totaly different decision, but the stars being down 2-0 this just gives them all the opportunity in the world to get right back into the series
Should've been corrected after game 2. I don't think the league can back up a call when it's made incorrectly. This is not a protest involving bad reffing, but a protest involing the application of a rule, which is competely different. The boxscore would suggest that Sankey did a pretty good job in this game.
If I understand this, the score is 2-1 for the Eagles at the time the penalty shot will occur for Peterborough. If they score and tie it, what do they do for overtime, as it is before game 3. Could be a tired night.
If the game is to be played before the start of game 3, the advantage definitely goes to the Stars. Not only do they get a penalty shot, but there will be a clean sheet of ice for the shooter to skate down. It is a lot easier to control the puck with a clean sheet of ice than itt is when the rink is all chopped up and snowy.
Right call yes, but maybe the game should be played directly after warmups without a flood... At least then there isn't a totally clean sheet for the shooter
has no choice but to enforce the rules to which the game is played. A delay of game call in the last two minutes of a game is a penalty shot.If the referee awarded a penalty for the delay then the shot should have occured.(whether he admits to an error now or not)
I have see this same situation in the WOAA senior league sveral years ago when the same error was made.
1) What was David Sankey's explanation for awarding a penalty if the dislodging was unintentional? I like David Sankey, he is a good person and good referee, but how did he justify the penalty call when questioned, if he thought it was unintentional?
2) Where were the linesmen during the call? The linesmen can alert the referee to a misinterpretation. They could have gone over and said "Dave, the call has to be either a penalty shot or nothing here. There is no DG penalty for doing it unintentionally." Then, perhaps, if he really thought it was unintentional, he could have explained to both teams and reversed his penalty call.
3) Why does the league certify referees whose decisions they have no intention of ever backing up? If the ref says he called the penalty incorrectly, because it was unintentional, then the CORRECT decision, no matter what interpretation others have posted on here, would have been to call the Stars and say "Look, you already got a PP you shouldn't have out of this, count yourself lucky." And then let the original decision stand as is.
4) Why did the Eagles send in a videotape? The burden of proof in a protest is on the protesting team. If the league didn't have a video, they would have had to take Sankey at face value when he said it was unintentional. Sending a tape was a huge mistake by Eagles management.
5) As others have posted on here, how do you implement the decision without changing the entire complexion of the series, and while maintaining the integrity of the finish of the game? I'm sure another ref has already been assigned to game 3, so does the same officiating crew (i.e. Sankey) have to suit up to finish game 1, then change up crews to play game 3? The ice issue is not an issue, because you just have to finish game 1 directly after the warmup and before the flood, but there is a huge can of worms here that has been opened.
Anyways, as I said, I think the correct decision by the league would have been to let it stand. It is absolutely ridiculous that just any call pulled randomly out of the air that a team disagrees with can be overturned by the league.
I'm curious, any chance video of the incident will make it to youtube, so we can all see what the league had to look at?
One thing I do know is that a couple of seasons ago, that rule was changed. I believe it was when the crackdown on rule interpretations came about.
It used to be that in the final two or in OT, intentional was a PS, and unintentional was either a minor or nothing, at the ref's discretion. I know Sankey should be aware of current rules, but like I said in my post, the linesmen could have reminded him of the rule, if he forgot, too.
This is completely unfair for the Eagles! The Eagles did what they thought was right which was provide proof that the net was knocked off by Clarke prior to Bull hitting it. The video obviously shows this or why would they submit it in the first place!! If they were to post the video it would create an even larger protest because it clearly shows evidence backing the Eagles.
if sankey felt the net was accidently knocked off he should not have called a penalty. once he called a penalty it had to be a penalty shot. if this game goes 1 or 2 OT periods it could influence the outcome of game 3. the eagles should maybe bring some fresh AP players to play game 3 if game 1 goes long.
what would have happened if the Stars had scored on the power play and won in OT ? would the Eagles have protested and had the game replayed with a penalty shot ?
I was at the game and all i can say is that paul mattucci and somes players from the stars asked for more explanation to Sank and the linesmen and it seems that the refs didnt want to do anything about it.... good luck to the eagles. could change the whole serie arround. the stars could lead the serie 2-1 after tonight. 5 secs could change the momentum and their season.......
If Sankey thought it was unintentional and mistakenly called a minor penalty under the old discretion rule, forgetting in the moment that that rule no longer existed, then the Stars got a power play they shouldn't have. Therefore, the league should have upheld the existing game result. I still get the feeling there is a lot more information here that we aren't being given though.
it's simple a delay of game penalty in the last 2 min is an automatic penalty shot ,what Sankey is saying is if he knew it was a penalty shot he probably does't call it . to bad a rule is a rule,
Mookie posted "
it's simple a delay of game penalty in the last 2 min is an automatic penalty shot ,what Sankey is saying is if he knew it was a penalty shot he probably does't call it . to bad a rule is a rule"
That is a common myth. Under delay of the game there are only 4 situations that in the last 2 min or anytime in OT result in a penalty shot. Rule 55(e)
1. Deliberate Illegal Substitution Rule 19 (f)
-NOT too many man, this has to be deliberately putting a 6th man on the ice to defend.
2. Deliberately removing helmet or facemask Rule 24c
-not to fight but say the goalie takes his mask off to get a stoppage
3.Deliberately knocking the net off Rule 55c
4. Refusal to start play (penalty shot plus major penalty) 78(a)
All other delay of game penalties are 2 min. For example, faceoff in the neutral zone with 1 min left, a player drops to the ice and covers the puck purposely to gain a stoppage. 2 min for delay of game. (however if the puck was covered in the crease thats a different story)
Another example, goalie shoots the puck over the glass in the last 2 min of the game, 2 min for delay of game, no penalty shot.
Dave Sankey is an excellent referee....and I can't believe the league didn't back him on this. For Peterboro to have already had a power play AND a penalty shot on the same play is outrageous.
overall this is rediculous. for the league to overrule a ref sets a precedent that in the end they will wish they didnt set. now appeals will be much more frequent. the league has just made a lot more work for themselves.
"it's simple a delay of game penalty in the last 2 min is an automatic penalty shot ,what Sankey is saying is if he knew it was a penalty shot he probably does't call it . to bad a rule is a rule,"
As somebody already posted, this is incorrect and not at all based in fact. This situation is only a penalty shot if the infraction is DELIBERATE. Sankey said it was UNINTENTIONAL. That is all they need, and should result in the protest being thrown out. Therefore, the league is way out of line in upholding the protest and hanging Sankey out to dry. Like the other post said, Peterborough already got a power play that they shouldn't have, and now they get a penalty shot as well on the same play.
craigshaw45 (Login craigshaw45) Registered Members
Re: Press Release - Taken form the Eagles Website
February 19 2008, 7:09 PM
hanging him out to dry is right. i bet sankey is probably not too keen on refereeing for this league anymore. since people are saying he is a good ref its too bad since this league has very few good ref's.
when he called the penalty he is saying it is deliborate ,there is not a penalty for the net being accidentally or incidentally knocked off just it's just a face off in the nuetral zone
"when he called the penalty he is saying it is deliborate ,there is not a penalty for the net being accidentally or incidentally knocked off just it's just a face off in the nuetral zone"
That is the current rules, yes. But sometimes in the heat of the moment, especially with a situation that doesn't occur very often, a referee might forget a rule change on such an obscure rule. A few years ago, as I pointed out earlier, there was an option of a 2 minute minor for unintentionally dislodging the net, and it was a referee's discretion call. So if he says he erroneously called the penalty because it was UNINTENTIONAL, then calling a penalty does not mean he was saying it was deliberate at any time. You can keep trying to spin this all you want (although spin usually involves using the FACTS to twist the way the story is being presented, not MAKING UP facts), the league's decision to not back Sankey up is still wrong.
GAME ONE NOW OFFICIAL EAGLES WIN 2-1
February 20th, 2008
Its official fans the Eagles just stopped the penalty shot and stayed off the 33.7 second attack by Peterborough. The Eagles win game one AGAIN for the second time!!!!!!!
the appeal was not about whether or not the call should have been made.
the protest was that the referee did not apply the rule properly after making the call.
what has to be kept in mind is that during the hearing the only issue that can be discussed or considered is whether or not the proper rule was applied based on the call that was made -- because that was the basis for the appeal
in this case a delay of game penalty was called for pushing the net off. at this stage of the game the call for delay of game for pushing the net off is for a penalty shot.
whether the ref felt he should have made the call, or whether the video shows someone else pushed the net off is actually irrelevant at the hearing.
the protest was about the penalty applied to the call.
thus the proper decision was made.
would i have liked it if it happened against us, nope... but it was still the right decision
Dale West
Assistant General Manager
Collingwood Blues Jr "A"
Hockey Club
Sharpie you must like typing ,he made an honest mistake ,I don't have anything against the eagles ,I still think the league made the right call . good luck westy
Dale, I agree with some of what you said, however...
The call the referee made was a misinterpretation of what he believed was the rule for an UNINTENTIONAL dislodging of the net. The protest the league was considering was for a DELIBERATE dislodging of the net. There is a difference there. The league was therefore comparing apples to oranges. The ruling about a DELIBERATE dislodging was not misinterpreted during the game, since there is no indication that was ever even considered by the referee. Therefore, a protest based on that has no relevance to the game situation, and should have been thrown out. The league's decision was incorrect.
As I said in an earlier post, there was something we weren't being told. My brother-in-law works with one of the linesmen who worked game one (the first time it was played). Having just heard his explanation, the original post here was extremely inaccurate. Sankey never once said it was unintentional. I stand corrected on my previous opinion.
