Increase in calls for how skaters leave the track for a penalty

Rules (Public Read-Only)
1

Minnesota has been having a discussion recently because we feel like there’s been an uptick in these calls within the past year or so while skaters feel like they are doing the same things they’ve always done.

Some calls have ben made using the following logic which we feel like perhaps weren’t previously called and we’re curious if other leagues have similar experiences.

  1. Exiting to the infield to let the pack pass or to move behind the pack and then cutting straight across the track towards the penalty box.

  2. Exiting at a less than 45 degree angle but it being in the direction of the penalty box.

  3. Exiting while moving forwards/backwards through the pack to try and avoid skaters.

Have other folks seen an increase in these sorts of calls despite feeling like they are doing the same thing that they have always done to exit for a penalty?

Have other folks seen new logic being used to make these calls that they don’t recall being used previously?

1 Like
2

I think you are mostly asking skaters, but as a referee I definitely call more of these penalties than I used to, so for my personal experience, I can confirm that this is happening.

The May 2024 clarification’s use of the word “immediately” changed how I call things. I used to ask myself “are they obviously trying to leave” but now it’s “have they done everything they can to get off the track ASAP.” So it’s sort of like:

  1. For an immediate exit to the infield, do they then position themselves to immediately get around the pack or are they just hanging out? I used to not penalize “just hanging out.” But now if it delays their “second exit” from the track, I would penalize it.
  2. Could they have taken a more direct angle than 45° and gotten off faster? If so, I now penalize it. Before, if their attempt to exit was “obvious,” I would have let it go.
  3. Same, since this is active gameplay and they cannot help but positionally block, there is now an immediacy concern I think about, versus just “obviously trying to leave but maybe taking longer than their first legal opportunity.”
1 Like
3

Was going to say the same thing, the “immediate” has a certain layer of expectation attached to it.

The big part I see as a referee is:

  • Have they acknowledged the penalty and are trying to find their way out?
  • Are they taking an intention stance to avoid serving the penalty?
  • Once safe and able, are they taking the most DIRECT ROUTE out? (in my case we describe this as perpendicular to the track).

For example, if I see white blocker who has a penalty disengaging, trying to move out of the pack and then moving direct to the outfield with no impact to the game, then there would be no call.

However, if they went direct to the box by cutting their trip significantly shorter (Rather than on radial degrees), then I would consider assessing a penalty if the impact warranted it.

3 Likes
4

I do not call this more often and, in my corner of the world, I have not observed that others do. What has changed is the verbal cue and hand signal.

The May clarification mentions:

but also:

There is a whole spectrum between these two, I do not see a reason to only look at the stricter end of that spectrum. And before all that, it mentions:

To me the concept of significance is key here, just like it was before the clarification. My understanding is that the clarification is about changing how to make these calls, not when to make them.

4 Likes
5

The rules have included the phrase “Upon completion of the correct verbal cue and hand signal from an Official, the penalized Skater must immediately leave the track.” as the first section of 4.4 since 2017, so I agree with WZ that no change in the rules was expressed or implied by that clarification.

The approved updates will change the definition of “immediately” from “first legal opportunity,” to “first safe and legal opportunity,” but I don’t think that’ll represent much of a change either.

1 Like