Skip to content

Devils coach vents about delay of game on Schneider: ‘I saw no penalty’

Dec 6, 2013, 11:59 PM EDT

The New Jersey Devils tied a franchise low with 11 shots on goal in a 3-1 loss to the Detroit Red Wings, so pointing fingers at the officials alone would be foolish. That doesn’t mean the Devils are happy with a controversial delay of game penalty on Cory Schneider, however.

Here’s video of the infraction:

DeBoer had a simple assessment regarding the penalty – which opened the door for a Red Wings goal – for The Bergen Record’s Tom Gulitti.

“I saw no penalty,” DeBoer said.

Cory Schneider told Gulitti that he’s never been called for that specific delay of game penalty before.

Here’s the exact language of the penalty that the Devils believed Schneider wasn’t guilty of (Rule 27.8):

27.8 Restricted Area – A goalkeeper shall not play the puck outside of the designated area behind the net. This area shall be defined by lines that begin six feet (6’) from either goal post and extend diagonally to points twenty-eight feet (28’) apart at the end boards. Should the goalkeeper play the puck outside of the designated area behind the goal line, a minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed. The determining factor shall be the position of the puck. The minor penalty will not be assessed when a goalkeeper plays the puck while maintaining skate contact with his goal crease.

Puck Daddy’s Sean Leahy passes along a screen cap of Schneider playing the puck:

source:

That Tomas Tatar power-play goal made it 3-1 Red Wings with a little more than a minute left, so there’s no denying it was a big moment in the game. And it’s tough to deny the Devils’ complaints.

  1. martysbetter - Dec 7, 2013 at 12:12 AM

    Not like it matters in the end when your team only generates 11 shots.

    That was probably one of the most boring hockey games I’ve ever watched, and I’m a Devils fan!

    • stakex - Dec 7, 2013 at 1:12 AM

      Yeah, but in fairness as a Devils fan you should be use to watching boring hockey games.

      • davidjhammer - Dec 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM

        yup. It was super boring watching my team win 3 stanley cups and 5 finals in the past 17 years. got any other brain busting comments? go learn some hockey and come back when your team actaully wins something.

  2. jkaplan11 - Dec 7, 2013 at 12:16 AM

    Terrible, terrible, terrible call

    More importantly, why is that even a penalty??? Could be one of the worst, if not THE worst, rule changes in the last decade…

    • nothanksimdriving123 - Dec 7, 2013 at 4:21 AM

      Yeah, but aside from it being a bad call and an incredibly stupid rule, it was OK. FWIW, the main reason for the incredibly stupid rule was sitting on the Devils bench.

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Dec 7, 2013 at 4:26 AM

        Oh, also FWIW, I have actually seen this called a penalty a couple times before in years past, but in those cases, the goalies actually did play the puck in the verboten zone. Still a stupid rule.

    • partsman193509 - Dec 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

      Did he or did he not have his right leg over the line , I think if you look a little closer you can see
      it.

      • nygnjd - Dec 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM

        From the rule: “The determining factor shall be the position of the puck.” Whether his leg was in or out is irrelevant. The puck was in the trapezoid when Cory played it. End of story. If the ref can’t see it clearly he has no right to make that call.

        They were probably going to lose anyway, but this killed the only chance of tying it up. This also comes only 2 days after NJ got hosed at the end of the Montreal game. The tying goal then happened directly after a slew-foot on Elias from Subban that wasn’t called.

      • jasonmcgill6687 - Dec 7, 2013 at 5:50 PM

        Both his feet could have been across the line, the only thing that matters is the position of the puck, which was clearly in play for him. Horrible call, and Im not a Devils fan.

  3. 950003cups - Dec 7, 2013 at 12:43 AM

    Whatever. They lost. If they lose tomorrow, I’ll lose any hope of a viable season.

  4. cheliostwin - Dec 7, 2013 at 12:58 AM

    Yes, a terrible call. The Red Wings announcers said the same thing, once they saw a replay. They did point out that the referee who made the call wasn’t in a good position to see the play, the net was between him and the puck. And the referee didn’t have the benefit of replays.
    Although it was a terrible call, you can’t really say that is why the Devils lost. It did greatly reduce the chance of the Devils scoring a goal to tie the game, and once the Red Wings scored on the power play, that just about sealed the game.

  5. stakex - Dec 7, 2013 at 1:15 AM

    Two words: Coaches Challenge.

    With more and more oddball rules being added, its getting harder and harder for the refs to get the calls right on the ice. Even though the outcome might not have been different here, it was still an egregious error at a critical time in the game that cost the Devils any chance to come back. That shouldn’t happen in professional sports, and if something as extreme as coaches being able to challenge calls is needed to prevent things like this, so be it.

    • 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Dec 7, 2013 at 1:20 AM

      No. No challenges in hockey, ever. It’s the one sport that does video review right.

      This should easily be a reviewable play because it’s so cut-and-dried. This could’ve been corrected in the time it would take a coach to ask for the challenge.

  6. beelza - Dec 7, 2013 at 3:20 AM

    Calm down everyone, Bettman already tweeted his executive mandate. A 3rd referee will be added – but no coaches challenge, b/c no one dare challenge Napolean 2.0. Detroit announcers were beside themselves. Next on Gary’s list, no more in-arena replay. Then he’ll outlaw booing of the refs.

    • partsman193509 - Dec 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM

      Buttmann would outlaw anything that has to do with the referees as far as he is concerned you can’t challenge anything the refs do.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. C. Price (1956)
  2. J. Harding (1895)
  3. J. Thornton (1844)
  4. J. Giguere (1652)
  5. A. Semin (1545)
  1. M. Staal (1543)
  2. J. Spezza (1541)
  3. C. MacArthur (1530)
  4. S. Crosby (1212)
  5. A. Ekblad (1188)