By Kerry Fraser

Twitter blew up Wednesday night after St. Louis forward Ryan Reaves was ejected from the Wednesday Night Rivalry game on NBC (Hawks vs. Blues) for allegedly charging Chicago defenceman Christian Ehrhoff. Replays showed Reaves delivered a shoulder check with his skates on the ice and contact through the body (chest and shoulder) of Ehrhoff and that the penalty was called in error.

The subsequent reaction by Ehrhoff, combined with the fact that Reaves’ skates clearly left the ice after delivering the check, gave senior referee Dan O’Halloran the visual impression that a violent hit had resulted from a charge.

It is important to note that the referee was forced to judge the play from the opposite side of the net, looking through the back of Ehrhoff. That prevented O’Halloran from gaining a complete and accurate visual perspective of where and how contact was delivered by Reaves. This is not to say that the ref was in a bad position, just that he was located on the opposite side of the play through the natural ebb and flow of the game.

You be referee O’Halloran’s eyes from his location in the following images and judge what your most reasonable perception of the play might have been. As Reaves delivered the shoulder check you draw a bead on the play but are forced to look through back of Ehrhoff and perhaps some secondary obstruction from the two players in your foreground. You are unable to see the direct point of contact of the check and quite possibly whether or not Reaves has his skates on the ice at impact.

We know that Ehrhoff was aware of the impending contact and pulled back in an effort to avoid Reaves, but from your position that might not be evident. You are intently focused on the aftermath of the hit to form an opinion of the legality of the contact and to make a judgment.

As Ehrhoff recoiled from contact, you would observe that the player’s head snapped quickly and his body rotated 180 degrees in a fall that resulted in a rather violent face-first crash to the ice. You should also observe that Reaves’ skates are clearly off the ice and that he extended his elbow and hands through the finish of the check. If you had to make a split-second judgment based solely on this visual information what would be your most logical conclusion?

While you might not be certain if there was illegal contact to the head, I suspect that with the visual information presented above (skates off ice, extended hands, violent rotation and crash to ice by Ehrhoff) the majority of you might reasonably judge that a violation of Rule 42 (Charging) had occurred.

So my new referee associates, you have made your call and even through you conference with your colleagues on the ice to gain their perspective, you stick to your guns and eject Reaves from the game, albeit incorrectly.

In the speed of the game and the attention being properly given to dangerous high hits, mistakes of this nature will happen. Presently they can’t be fixed in the moment. But what if an expanded coach’s challenge allowed for a review when a player was incorrectly ejected from the game?

As a referee, I would want the opportunity to see a replay from a completely different angle, especially if it proved my decision was incorrect. In the best interest of the game I would welcome the opportunity to change this incorrect ruling and allow the player to remain in the game. It doesn’t matter if the player wrongly ejected plays on the first or the fourth line; wrong is wrong.

You saw the play from the perspective of referee O’Halloran and made the most reasonable judgment on the visual information gained from that location. Would you like the opportunity to reverse you initial decision to make it right?

I would hope the answer to that question is yes. The goal is always to keep the players who legitimately deserve to remain in the game on the ice and eject only those who violate a major infraction worthy of a game misconduct or match penalty. There are times and situations where it just might take a coach’s challenge to get it right.