Rules interpretation question

[Jerry Heyman]

I attended the game at the RBC on New Years Eve, and my son, wife, and
I are confused about a penalty situation that occurred almost midway in
the third period.

A delayed penalty was being called against the Islanders when a bit
of pushing/shoving match then occurred between the Islanders' Bergenheim
and the Hurricanes' LaRose. After penalties were assessed, it was
announced that Bergenheim got a double-minor (kneeing and roughing)
and LaRose got a minor (for roughing). At that point I would have
assumed that the teams would skate 4 on 4 for two minutes, and then
the Hurricanes would have a 2min powerplay.

Instead, a second Islander was put in penalty box, 2min for LaRose
AND 2min for the 2nd player were put on the board. Carolina then
skated with a 5 on 4 powerplay (not 4 on 3 as I would have expected
with two men in the Islander box).

When the 2min was up, LaRose and the 2nd Islander were freed from the
penalty box, but Bergenheim continued to sit in the box. At this point
there was no penalty on the board, and both teams were skating 5 aside.

In looking at the box score, I can find nothing that indicates WHY
two Islanders were in the box, or why Bergenheim stayed in at least
an additional 2min. I had assumed that the 2nd player was in the box
to work off Bergenheim's kneeing penalty, and that once the two min
were done, he would have been eligible to come back out.

I have 35+yrs of hockey fandom under my belt, and I'm still trying
to figure out what happened...

jerry

[Cynicor]

Post by Jerry Heyman
In looking at the box score, I can find nothing that indicates WHY
two Islanders were in the box, or why Bergenheim stayed in at least
an additional 2min. I had assumed that the 2nd player was in the box
to work off Bergenheim's kneeing penalty, and that once the two min
were done, he would have been eligible to come back out.

They actually post the official rulebook at
http://www.nhl.com/ext/0708rules.pdf, but I haven't figured this out either.

[Bob Levine]

Post by Jerry Heyman
I attended the game at the RBC on New Years Eve, and my son, wife, and
I are confused about a penalty situation that occurred almost midway in
the third period.
A delayed penalty was being called against the Islanders when a bit
of pushing/shoving match then occurred between the Islanders' Bergenheim
and the Hurricanes' LaRose. After penalties were assessed, it was
announced that Bergenheim got a double-minor (kneeing and roughing)
and LaRose got a minor (for roughing). At that point I would have
assumed that the teams would skate 4 on 4 for two minutes, and then
the Hurricanes would have a 2min powerplay.
Instead, a second Islander was put in penalty box, 2min for LaRose
AND 2min for the 2nd player were put on the board. Carolina then
skated with a 5 on 4 powerplay (not 4 on 3 as I would have expected
with two men in the Islander box).
When the 2min was up, LaRose and the 2nd Islander were freed from the
penalty box, but Bergenheim continued to sit in the box. At this point
there was no penalty on the board, and both teams were skating 5 aside.
In looking at the box score, I can find nothing that indicates WHY
two Islanders were in the box, or why Bergenheim stayed in at least
an additional 2min. I had assumed that the 2nd player was in the box
to work off Bergenheim's kneeing penalty, and that once the two min
were done, he would have been eligible to come back out.
I have 35+yrs of hockey fandom under my belt, and I'm still trying
to figure out what happened...

The Canes "earned" a powerplay by virtue of the orignal penalty. Once
that happened, the other penalties became offsetting. Because Bergenheim
got an extra two, the Islanders needed to put a second man in the box to
serve the original penalty.

Common occurrence. Think about the implications if it was made a 4 on 4
then a 5 on 4. What if it happened with 1:30 left in the game. You'd see
all types of crap with players trying to take someone off with them to
even it out for the rest of the game.

By doing it this way, you keep the players a bit more honest.

Bob

[Jerry Heyman]

[ ... description of penalty confusion deleted for brevity ... ]

Post by Bob Levine

Post by Jerry Heyman
In looking at the box score, I can find nothing that indicates WHY
two Islanders were in the box, or why Bergenheim stayed in at least
an additional 2min. I had assumed that the 2nd player was in the box
to work off Bergenheim's kneeing penalty, and that once the two min
were done, he would have been eligible to come back out.
I have 35+yrs of hockey fandom under my belt, and I'm still trying
to figure out what happened...

The Canes "earned" a powerplay by virtue of the orignal penalty. Once
that happened, the other penalties became offsetting. Because Bergenheim
got an extra two, the Islanders needed to put a second man in the box to
serve the original penalty.

Ok, I understand.

Post by Bob Levine
Common occurrence. Think about the implications if it was made a 4 on 4
then a 5 on 4. What if it happened with 1:30 left in the game. You'd see
all types of crap with players trying to take someone off with them to
even it out for the rest of the game.

Sure this makes sense. But what doesn't make sense to me is that
I thought the coincidental minors (and replacement of said players)
had been eliminated - but I guess not. In section 19 (19.1 to be
specific) of the NHL rule book we have:

Rule 19 ? Coincidental Penalties
19.1 Coincidental Minor Penalties - When coincident minor penalties or
coincident minor penalties of equal duration are imposed against
players of both teams, the penalized players shall all take their places
on the penalty benches and such penalized players shall not leave the
penalty bench until the first stoppage of play following the expiry of
their respective penalties. Immediate substitution shall be made for an
equal number of minor penalties or coincident minor penalties of equal
duration to each team so penalized and the penalties of the players
for which substitutions have been made shall not be taken into account
for the purpose of the delayed penalty rule (Rule 27). This rule only
applies when at least one team is already serving a time penalty in
the penalty box that causes them to be short-handed.

In the included table on how penalties are assessed/assigned (page 154
for coincident penalties), example 1 matches our scenario exactly:

Team A player A3 gets 2 min
Team B player B10 gets 2 + 2
On-ice Strength: Team B will play one player short-handed for two
minutes. Team B must place an additional player to serve the
extra minor penalty to B10.

So, if 2nd player has to sit for the 2min additional minor, why then
is B10 stuck in the box for 4min? I think it has to do with Rule 27
(specifically 27.2) concerning Penalty Expiration - I don't remember
if there was a stoppage in play between the expiration of the 2min
minors and when Bergenheim was allowed out of the box.

Post by Bob Levine
By doing it this way, you keep the players a bit more honest.

Thanks! I think I've got a handle on it now.

Post by Bob Levine
Bob

jerry