|
In response to
"I hate it when an unfortunate hockey injury becomes a national story in the US"
by
Guy
|
ML - regarding your BB question. An interference penalty was assessed because the player being hit no longer had the puck.
Posted by
Guy (aka lostatlimbo)
Mar 10 '11, 14:11
|
You are not supposed to hit a player once they git rid of the puck.
The league made this rule not because of bad hits but because it was slowing the offensive speed of the game.
If the player still had the puck - interference would not have been called.
BUT, because the player was injured they likely would have assessed a different penalty (in addition to the game misconduct they tacked on). There's some pressure on the refs to do something when a player gets injured, even when a hit is legal (which it wasn't in this case).
|