| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bonfire420 |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 08:21:16
I was watching the Nucks/Rangers game last night and made an interesting observation. During the third period Henrik Sedin decided he wanted to stop the play so he simply sat on the puck for a few seconds and the play was whistled dead. I found it interesting that a player doesn't get a delay of game penalty in that situation, but is penalized when he unintentionally flips the puck out of play when trying to clear the defensive zone. This leads to my question: how do you feel about the current rule pertaining to the delay of game penalty? |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| tbar |
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 06:13:55
Alex have you ever played on a subpar sheet of ice? I know I have in my many years playing the game and I know a bad sheet of ice will change the way you move the puck. If you play in Edmonton your used to supper ice every night now you go down to Dallas for a game where there ice is bad at best, and your telling me the only way the puck goes over is because a. the player did it on purpose or b. the pressure situation caused him to lose control? Let’s add another factor the ice was sloppy with 3 min left in the period and the puck jumped on the D-man as he was shooting and it sailed over the glass. It doesn't matter where your playing this can happen to any player in any game. Now let’s take it a step further. Stanly Cup final game seven 1-1 5 min to go, puck jumps on Lidstrom sails over the glass and they get scored on and lose the game. Guaranteed that rule is thrown out the next day kind of like the foot in the blue ice rule (remember Brett Hull's Stanly Cup winner). |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 01:03:42
I think the rule should be at the refs discretion because somtimes it is not about the player just trying to get themselves out of a tight situation. I remember the first year the rule was in play the Canucks were on the PK and Bryan Allen had the puck wasn't under pressure he took his time and slaped the puck all the way down over the other teams goalies head and out of play, now you explain to me how that warrents a delay of game penalty? He was NOT trying to stop play or just trying to get out of pressure he was just clearing the puck because he was killing a penalty.
Also in the VAN/NYR game last night a Rangers player shot the puck over the glass and hit a camera stand above the glass if the camera hadn't been there it would have been out of play yet the Ref didn't call a penalty and that to me shows the Ref useing his discretion on what should be an automatic call, what the hell?
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
| J-Dog |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 21:09:17
I think if you watch the games where there is a play with the puck going over the glass, you will see that the puck is not spiraling horizontally, but flipping over vertically (I'd say this happens about 80 - 90% of the time). Which means it is likely that it was the puck hitting the ice in a certain way when the player shot, that made the puck go over the glass. Unintentional things like that to me shouldn't be penalties. Face-off in the defensive zone, no change for the defensive team, you know, a no brainer, the ones that the league cant ever seem to fix quickly enough! Of course some players have better control than others and they might actually try to flip it over the glass if they take away the penalty part of that specific play. Who knows? I don't.
-J-Dog |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 16:44:37
Another thing that makes the rule stupid, in my humble opinion, is the differences rink to rink. I remember a couple of years ago when Edmonton and Carolina were in the playoffs, they talked about the difference in the height of the glass in different arenas. The showed that from ice to the top of the glass, there was a different of 1' between Rexall and RBC Place. RBC was 1' lower.
Alex, I do agree that NHL players have an amazing control over the puck, however, if a defensemen in Edmonton clears the zone using the top 1' of glass in Edmonton, he can't do the same thing in Carolina without getting a penalty.
That is completely unfair. If the rules it to be automatic, the glass needs to be a consistant height from the ice in every arena in the league.
Even with that, I think it's a stupid rule as well. I like the idea of treating it like icing. Always have. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 14:43:29
[quote]Originally posted by Alex
'Anyone who says definitively that the penalty is stupid doesn't properly understand the nature of the game.'
Ouch! I would have thought that playing at a Tier 1 or higher level of hockey for the 10+ plus years I did as a kid gave me a pretty good understanding of the game... Apparently an, albeit intelligent, 13 year old can afford to make snap judgements on other's knowledge and experience.
Just teasing Alex...don't take offence...too much. 
I said the rule was stupid, because it became automatic, as opposed to a judgemental call. I think we have all seen examples of the puck clearing the glass inadvertently as well as purposefully. why not let the refs use judgement as, they used to be able to , as to what was intentional and what wasn't? Then penalize the offenders with the appropriate dealy of game call. To say that NHL players are able to control the puck as Alex stated, makes me wonder how they ever miss the net, and they do, frequently, just think Russ Courtnall.
I would think as a defensemen trying to clear the zone by playing the puck off the glass, while being pressured by a power forward ready to wallpaper you, you are lucky you don't fire the puck over the glass more often than not............and leave a stain on the ice.
Just my thoughts..
|
| Alex |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 14:28:15
To decide what penalties are dumb and what aren't we need to understand the purpose of the ''delay of game penalty''. The purpose is to make sure that the fast pace or intensity of the game isn't deterred.
Therefore, there is merit to the ''over the glass'' call. There is no question that it serves, at the very lest, the purpose of raising the intensity, by giving one team a power play. So from that standpoint, I think it's very effective.
However, that's easy to say from objective lens. If your team is the one penalized, maybe you wouldn't mind a game that's a little less dull. The question becomes, is this fair?
Yes and no. Most people are completely against it, but think about it: these guys are in the NHL. They should be able to fully control the way they dump/pass/shoot the puck. If they are firing it over the glass, it means one of two things.
1) They needed to end a bad situation, because they were under pressure.
In such a scenario, I do not think anyone would disagree that a delay of game call is warranted.
2) They were under some sort of pressure that caused them to make a mistake.
Even in this case, there is a degree of pressure. Whether it be a strong forecheck, a poorly recieved pass from their part, which meant they had less time to get it up the ice - whatever the case. The point is, any time a player is directly sending the puck over the glass, it's due to a certain degree of intensity.
Anyone who says definitively that the penalty is stupid doesn't properly understand the nature of the game.
Make sure to cast your votes in the PickUpHockey Hall of Fame |
| Guest6013 |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 14:14:02
dumbest rule ever is delay of game same thing should happen when u ice it when u flip it over |
| tbar |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 14:08:40
If I were to write the rule for some of the delay of game scenarios that could happen it would be as so.
Icing-Face off in your end with no change (I like this rule)
Shooting the puck over the glass in your own end-Same as Icing no change allowed (get rid of the penalty, its gay because you could potentially lose the Stanley Cup because the ice was bad and caused the puck to stand on end as you were shooting it)
Offensive player sitting on the puck as Sedin did or offensive player freezing the puck on the boards-Rule in effect is good enough (Faceoff outside the zone)
Defensive player freezing the puck on the boards or sitting on puck-no change allowed for defensive team.
I think this would keep the game flowing and it would have enough consequence to prevent teams from slowing down the flow too much. One reason is the way teams are scoring off the faceoff this year. If I have a center out their with me that’s won 30% of his draws that game I’m going to make sure I don’t cause a faceoff in my zone by freezing the puck or anything like that.
Those are my two thoughts.
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 09:54:10
That's very ingenious by Sedin, as long as opponents were trying to get at the puck. Nifty idea to circumvent the icing/no change rule and the, in my opinion, stupid delay of game penalty for clearing the puck over the glass rule.
It's funny how the players always find a way to 'get around' the plethora of silly new rules...
I would think if the opposiing were not scrumming for the puck when Sedin sat on it, it would be a true delay of game penalty, but who can tell anymore.
I for one, am getting tired of watching the 'exhibition of special teams', that has become the NHL. When I check the previous games box scores each morining and notice that it seems the bulk of goal scoring is beginning to be on the power play, it makes me wonder if the rules are getting carried away. |
| Guest4735 |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 08:50:03
I say for the accidental puck clearing it should be like an icing instead of a penalty. You can't change. Cause icing the puck is just as much of a delay of game. |
|
|
