Otto Lindholm

@kripzzy67 @RobTheHockeyGuy I'll take that. You do have a point.

@0tt0M @RobTheHockeyGuy “A Minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who holds an opponent by using his their hands, arms or legs.” You forgot about this part, this is how you actually apply the rule in the games. Not just any restraining or impeding action, specifically holds.

#Canucks prospect Tom Willander got called for one of the softest penalties you’ll ever see in OT of a semi-final.

@HenryBesserwiss @RobTheHockeyGuy Nah... I would've been completely fine with that not being called a penalty. I just got curious if the call was possible under the Rulebook. It's just hockey. Nothing serious. Oh and I'm not a Swede.

@0tt0M @RobTheHockeyGuy Otto Lindholm… A Swede in a nutshell = guilt trip and virtue signaling

@hoomon26 @RobTheHockeyGuy If I'm about to outskate you and you push me off my balance because you're behind the play, I have no trouble seeing that as a penalty. It might be a soft one. But as long as the refs are consistent in being soft about the plays they call, it's up to them.

@0tt0M @RobTheHockeyGuy Right. Rules governing conduct typically apply no matter where they happen on the ice. This is not exception. A body check has a lot in common with a push btw. The only time you should get in trouble for pushing is when it's. Cross check.

@hoomon26 @RobTheHockeyGuy This was not a corner battle. Willanser was behind the play while the Finnish player was about to skates away. He shoved him of his balance, otherwise he would've lost the battle.

@0tt0M @RobTheHockeyGuy Absolutely not. You can push away from your body all day. You can't pull toward you or restrain. Pushing is the essence of corner battles.

@RobTheHockeyGuy @hoomon26 A lot of penalties end up missed, for sure. The question whether the call was possible under the Rulebook and whether it was necessary, are two very different questions. I'm only looking at whether the call was possible. Other plays and calls are not a testament to this play.

@0tt0M @hoomon26 Maybe there should be an investigation into the referees because by your strict interpretation of the rule book, they must have missed 100+ penalties yesterday.

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy The refs made the call. I'm trying to figure out if the refs made a call that is not possible under the the Rulebook. To me rule says the call is possible. And what I get is "autistic" and "crazy mental gymnastics". What a debate.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy Last respons. Whats absurd is your crazy use of mental gymnastics to try to justify a really bad call under the penalty ”holding” by pretending that the wording which is clearly structured to encompass all ways of holding on to a player to also encompass shoving someone.

@hoomon26 @RobTheHockeyGuy Pushes => Impedes. No?

@0tt0M @RobTheHockeyGuy Right but that's not what the video shows. "Impedes or restrains" - No. "Pushes or propels" - Yes.

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy I'm just looking at what the rule says. It's up to the refs, how they want to enforce it. To suggest that we shouldn't read the Rulebook for what it says is absurd. Let's just leave the discretion to the refs. It was a possible call. Was it necessary? Debatable.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy You are autisticly misinterpreting the wording on the rule to make the claim that the penalty ”holding” encompasses a shove leading to someone losing his balance, and falling from it. Do you not see how insane you are acting? Im done, take care

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy ...because he was pushed. Again, it was soft. But the rule allows soft calls.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy No, the fall was a result of him not being able to keep his balance.

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy The fall was a direct result of the shove. Nothing happened in between.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy It does, the rule states and action that restricts or impedes, it only points to the direct result of the action, which makes sense since it literally refers to holding the player stopping or slowing their movement

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy No. That is not what the rule says. Just read the rule.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy No the problem is that you are applying the rule wrong. You are looking at the outcome and from that deciding that the action was illegal because he fell. But penalised actions are illegal regardless of the outcome.

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy I agree with you that it wouldn't have qualified as holding. Scratch "probably" if that helps. You're not reading the rule. The call was soft but perfectly possible. The refs were calling soft penalties. You're arguing it "should not be" a penalty. But the rule can be called.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy Hahaha ”probably”. In no reality would it ever be talked about as even potential holding. Theres no point discussing this further, your either disingenous or insane

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy If he didn't lose balance then it probably wouldn't have counted as holding. But he did fall off balance. As a result the shove. A hypothetical course of events, which did not take place, is not a proof anything.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy No, you are making that up yourself, the fact that if he didnt lose balance and fall it would never result in a penalty or even be thought of as holding is proof that you are applying the rule completely wrong

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy Causality is already included in the rule's wording. The action (the shove) literally took the balance off of the Finnish player. It impeded the player (and thus resulted in the player's progress being impeded). The Finnish player didn't fall on their own.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy No, if it took outcomes into account it would be ”any action that results”. It clearly states that the action itself needs to impede or restrain, i.e not a shove that results in loss of balance, which leads to the impairment

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy "Any action... that... impedes the progress of an opposing Player..." The rule has both the action ("Any action") and the outcome ("impedes the progress"), as you refer to them. Just read the rule.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy No thats just not true, the rulebook regulates actions. The action should be illegal regardless of the outcome.

@BackCzech4Check @Christ0ffer @RobTheHockeyGuy The continental (or NHL v IIHF) difference is very obvious.

@0tt0M @Christ0ffer @RobTheHockeyGuy Here is an example of how the games are played in EU vs NA. We are taught early to push, pin, bump, take away lanes. My 2015 was in a camp with Strudwick (674gp) last year and he explicitly drilled pushing with the free hand.

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy Hypothetical alternative scenarios are irrelevant. We're looking at the play that happened. The Finnish player fell off balance as a result of the shove. It was literally an action that impeded the other player. Soft? Also true. But the Rulebook allows for soft calls.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy If the player hadnt lost his balance there would be no possibility for you to argue it is holding, i.e you are basing the call on the outcome and not the action.

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy His action literally impedes the Finnish player. The player didn't lose balance on their own. The rules penalize the action, not the outcome, exactly as you say.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy Exactly my point, his action doesnt impede his progress forward, the outcome that the player lost his balance impeded his progress.

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy Nope. That is not how the rule is written in the Rulebook. The rule literally starts with "Any action...".

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy No it still doesnt fit, actions are penalised, not outcomes, the outcome might fit in the rulebook, but not the action.

@Christ0ffer @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy The judges can definitely dictate how the game evolves through the 60min. But this call was nonetheless possible under the Rulebook. Outskate the opponent and battle the with your body, not your gloves. Willander was behind the play and decided to shove rather than skate.

@0tt0M @OfficialSqutzy @RobTheHockeyGuy And im arguing that it doesnt without and autistic analysis of the situation, the shove doesnt restrain or impede. Minor penalties regulate actions, not outcomes.