Sorry about that. I was just getting frustrated, but it was because we were coming from a misunderstanding of what each other thought the term “in the play” means. Does my other reply help? The 2 rules combine because he is “not in the play” (as in he fits the criteria for a line change of the too many men rule) but…

Sorry. I guess that was my fault. I get the confusion now. I used “in the play” and made assumptions that everyone knew what that term meant in ice hockey. The opposite of “in the play” is not “out of the play”, but instead “not in the play” or “behind the play”.

“B-b-b-but not if you arbitrarily decide that it’s not an objective thing according to the rules. You see, if you had played hockey, you would know this.”

Losing track of what? There is the rule “too many men” which has specific criteria that has to be met. You could say that criteria is “objective” except some of those criteria requires judgement calls by the refs (or linesmen, as it is one of the few penalties they can call).

NotSureIfSerious.jpg

I spent most of my life playing hockey.  The vast majority of it it, I was “on the ice” and not “in the play” :)

I stand corrected. Good catch. USA Hockey doesn’t have that clause.  My training is not applicable here.

The line change rule doesn’t say that players in the 5' halo are “off the ice”.

He can’t. He CAN, however, be “On the ice” (meaning position infractions are still in play, such as offside, icing, and interference), “out of the play” (meaning too many men, interference, and certain bench penalties have clauses), and “In the halo” (legal for line changes, too many men clauses) all at the same…

No, he is someone that read the entire rules for both the infraction (offside) and the penalty (too many men) and realized that they deal with different concepts (“on the ice” vs “in the play”) and can properly separate them in his mind and words.

They can both be right, as long as you understand that “On The Ice” and “In The Play” are 2 different concepts and not the same thing

Not true. I posted examples elsewhere in the thread. A team, within the rules, can legally (for a short period of time) have as many as 19 skaters physically on the ice at once and not be guilty of Too Many Men.

You can have one without the other. Last night showed exactly how.

For hockey terms, he was out of the play. He was not affecting the puck movement nor was he in contact with nor was he affecting his opponents play.

The last paragraph of rule 74.1 (which a lot of people are quoting, but aren’t reading all the way through) says:

This is Landeskog (I think) just being lazy and costing his team a goal because he’s not hustling off on a change and staying aware of the play.

This is the correct take. Offsides is objective. Too Much Man is subjective. The way the too many men rule is written, a team can have all 19 players (but not the back-up goalie as that is a different rule) on the ice at the same time as long as they do not play the puck nor directly affect the play of the opposing…

Common mistake, but all 4 horsemen of the apocalypse are incarnations of “Death”. They are avatars carrying banners of the worst causes of death. Pestilence and Famine each carry their own banner, but the banner for War is so large that it requires 2 horsemen to carry.

That has literally never happened.  See @Burner’s response below.  That is the correct answer.