skip navigation

Officially Speaking: Icing

01/21/2019, 9:00am CST
By Mark Lichtenfeld

The icing washout is basically a subjective determination


Let’s Play Hockey photo by Mike Thill

For this writer, and hundreds of other veteran referees throughout the country, the first controversy in any game normally results from an icing washout.

You know what I’m talking about. The back official raises his or her hand for a potential icing call and approximately two seconds later, the front guy gives the washout signal.

Now, as the icing washout is basically a subjective determination, there are four main reasons why the front official keeps play going:
• Quality of game
• Score of game
• Time of night (beer league non-codified amendment – otherwise known as common law in most jurisdictions, and which will not be in effect for purposes of this article)
• USA Hockey rule.

OK, let’s review the USA Hockey rule for additional clarification. You low-level JV coaches do have a copy of the rulebook with you at all times, right?

Rule 624 Icing the Puck:
(b) Icing shall be nullified if any of the following conditions have been met: 
• If, in the opinion of the Linesman, an opposing player – except the goalkeeper – has an opportunity to play the puck, and has not done so, prior to the puck crossing the goal line.

Now, here’s what usually happens: In most of OS’s games, a player shoots the puck from his defending zone and the opposing defenseman neglects to give a legitimate effort to intercept the puck, hoping for an icing call. The veteran official can easily spot the lack of effort and aggressively washes out the potential icing.

At which point the swearing and 601 abuse commences.

Look, OS has seen players from all levels slow-foot-it in an attempt to gain an icing call. I’m talking AA midgets, PeeWees and of course, the adult league wise-guy. OS will have none of it.

And the same player that lifts her stick in a feeble attempt to play the rubber is usually the player that busts for all she’s worth to gather a loose puck breakaway in the neutral zone. OS sees it all.

Unfortunately, too many coaches in particular seem to assume that just because a puck is shot from one end of the rink into the opposite corner, an icing has automatically occurred.

To that, OS says, “Look at the Icing Casebook, Situation 17.”

The Official must make his decision based upon the proximity of the puck to the player, the speed of the puck, and whether or not the defending player had a reasonable opportunity to play the puck.

See, the official is given substantial authority to make a subjective determination concerning any potential icing. And, as most fans, players and refs prefer to see continuous action, the veteran zebra knows when to apply the tools that USA Hockey has afforded him or her.

In fact, OS can often be seen sprinting down the ice in an effort to beat a puck to the goal line, a la Ray Scapinello, with a precision hockey stop and six feet of spray onto the plexiglass, just to exhibit that a puck is playable. You know, hustle matters.

And if a guy 40 years older than a AA Bantam can outskate a potential icing, you better believe there’s a lack of player hustle and that particular icing is getting washed out.

Just something to think about next time your coach or beer league captain objects to the correct call.

 

Questions and comments can be sent to editor@letsplayhockey.com, via Twitter @OSpeaking or through the Let’s Play Hockey Facebook page.

Top Stories

Tag(s): State Of Hockey  News  Officially Speaking