It is if the puck is playable and the hit interferes with the players ability to get to the puck. Interference takes precedence over finishing a hit. Especially when the guy being hit is moving towards the puck, and the guy who hit him is not.

As in, the right to finish a hit does not void an infraction.
- joel878

He was fair game, that was not interference

Always with the weird calls, only the Leafs would get a video review against them on a high sticking double minor with blood dripping from Hyman's nose....
- 13sundin13

Lucic was outraged that they'd call a 2 hander to the face. As a respectable veteran of the league they had to appease him.

Campbell robbery

Captain Jack

I thought we were getting a penalty


*cracks another pint*

He was fair game, that was not interference
- burn

It was 100% textbook interference. Lucic was going for the puck, Simmonds hipchecked him and as a result he couldnt get to the puck. If that hit doesn't take place, he gets the puck.

Im all about poopting on the refs, trust me.

Finishing a hit does not negate a penalty. You can't hit someone from behind and say you did it because you were finishing a hit. Same with boarding, same with charging. It's a penalty regardless of whether you were finishing a hit or not.

Lucic was moving towards a playable puck, Simmonds was not... And Simmonds hit him, which stopped Lucic completely from being able to get to the puck. That's as interference as it gets.

I thought we were getting a penalty


*cracks another pint*
- annoyed

It was a safe assumption

Lucic was outraged that they'd call a 2 hander to the face. As a respectable veteran of the league they had to appease him.
- TheMussel

Pretty sure Hyman tripped the guy 1st, which was what they were mad about.

It is if the puck is playable and the hit interferes with the players ability to get to the puck. Interference takes precedence over finishing a hit. Especially when the guy being hit is moving towards the puck, and the guy who hit him is not.

As in, the right to finish a hit does not void an infraction.
- joel878

This is just not true.

If a player chips the puck off the boards, he is now fair game to be hit. His intent to skate forwards after the puck does not change the fact that he's fair game. Being hit isn't reserved to players standing still.

It wasn't interference.

It was a safe assumption
- burn

Goalie heads for the bench and we’re on the PP. Dont see that too often.

Pretty sure Hyman tripped the guy 1st, which was what they were mad about.
- annoyed

Tripping is a penalty now?

It was 100% textbook interference. Lucic was going for the puck, Simmonds hipchecked him and as a result he couldnt get to the puck. If that hit doesn't take place, he gets the puck.

Im all about poopting on the refs, trust me.

Finishing a hit does not negate a penalty. You can't hit someone from behind and say you did it because you were finishing a hit. Same with boarding, same with charging. It's a penalty regardless of whether you were finishing a hit or not.
- joel878

He chipped the puck past Simmonds and not a second later Simmonds hit him, he was fair game. That hit literally happened 20 times tonight (minus the dramatic hip check).

This is just not true.

If a player chips the puck off the boards, he is now fair game to be hit. His intent to skate forwards after the puck does not change the fact that he's fair game. Being hit isn't reserved to players standing still.

It wasn't interference.
- Monkeypunk

And because he's fair game to be hit does not mean you are allowed to take a penalty on him. He interfered with him getting to a playable puck. You don't get to slash someone on the arm and say he was fair game to be hit either.

The boys were sloppy as frank, but two points is two points.

Good night.

Pretty sure Hyman tripped the guy 1st, which was what they were mad about.
- annoyed

Imagine if the rules changed and you could 2 hand a guy in the face if he tripped you? Can’t wait too long though...3 Mississippi’s.

This is just not true.

If a player chips the puck off the boards, he is now fair game to be hit. His intent to skate forwards after the puck does not change the fact that he's fair game. Being hit isn't reserved to players standing still.

It wasn't interference.
- Monkeypunk

I don’t think the refs think Lucic played the puck. I’m not rewinding to review it

Leafs are back, baby

Result

Imagine if the rules changed and you could 2 hand a guy in the face if he tripped you? Can’t wait too long though...3 Mississippi’s.
- Woderwick

Regardless, leafs should have had 2 also..maybe?

And because he's fair game to be hit does not mean you are allowed to take a penalty on him. He interfered with him getting to a playable puck. You don't get to slash someone on the arm and say he was fair game to be hit either.
- joel878

If he’s fair game it’s not interference. He was eligible to be hit. The hit wasn’t a penalty (ie high, knee, from behind, boarding)

It is if the puck is playable and the hit interferes with the players ability to get to the puck. Interference takes precedence over finishing a hit. Especially when the guy being hit is moving towards the puck, and the guy who hit him is not.

As in, the right to finish a hit does not void an infraction.
- joel878

Wrong

Regardless, leafs should have had 2 also..maybe?
- annoyed

I’m still thinking about the pro’s and cons of a rule change.

I don’t think the refs think Lucic played the puck. I’m not rewinding to review it
- annoyed

Lucic did play the Puck, fair game.

Imagine if the rules changed and you could 2 hand a guy in the face if he tripped you? Can’t wait too long though...3 Mississippi’s.
- Woderwick

3.5 and it’s not good, off to the box to feel shame.