| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Reeder17
Rookie
Canada
112 Posts |
 Posted - 01/16/2009 : 07:01:43
|
Bettman and the new NHL want scoring, fast paced games and an overall new NHL. However, this is getting ridiculous.
In the beginnings of the new NHL, they introduced the rule, stating if a puck was shot directly over the glass in the teams own defensive end the player responsible would receive a minor penalty. Seemingly harmless at first, this penalty has grown into an utter nuisance. A plague in our games. I speak from experience. Game 7 Conference Finals Buf v. Car, GWG scored on a power play because of this rule. This rule continues to drag the game down and lose good teams games that they rightfully deserve. Now I am not a Cherry fan myself, I find his rants are sometimes a little ridiculous, however, there are times where I do agree. The most knowledgable thing I have ever heard him say was his interepretation of the rule. He argued that the rule of giving them a minor penalty was a joke. The main point that perked my ears up was his idea. He stated that we take out the minor penalty. And instead disallow the team to change, similar to the icing rule. A perfect idea! It penalizes the players who delyaed the game without over penalizing them.
The puck over the glass penalty is not my real point I would like to discuss. It is important but whether they leave it in or not, is not really going to affect my watching the game. The main point I would like to discuss is the recent stream of penalties for disrupting the flow of the game. Now I have heard examples from other games but I have only personally seen from Buffalo games.
Example 1
In a game against Pittsburg, Ryan Miller, had made a glove save on a point shot from Goligoski. Miller curled his arm into his chest for the hopes of a whistle. However, the referee felt he needed to prompt Miller to play it. Pittsburg still occupying the zone and feeling his defense were tired he held the puck. The ref than proceeded to blow the whistle and assess Miller a delay of game penalty.
Example 2
In the next game, after the Penguins game. I currently can not remember who they played. There was a scrum in the corner. This scrum involved Vanek, a long with two opposing defenders. In the process of this battle for posession Vanek got hit and feel in the middle, along the boards and onto the puck. After trying to get up, Vanek failed because of the lack of room, and the two defenders around him. In his failed attempt he fell back onto the puck in which the ref blew the whistle and assessed him a minor penalty for delay of game.
This is ridiculous I understand cotinuing the flow of the game but c'mon. I am a ref myself, it is often when I tell a goalie to play it. However, if he chooses to hold it, as he as a right to, I blow it down and give him the whistle he wanted. Example 2 could be argued either way as it is the interpretation of how Vanek fell, and why he could not get up I understand that. I know this is Bettman and his 'cronies' work. Trying to keep the game flowing. But I mean c'mon.
Please respond with any examples you know of, and/or feedback.
Crosby is not the Jesus Lord & Savior of the NHL, get over yourself McGuire.
|
|
|
Avalanche_17
Top Prospect
Canada
27 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 07:11:12
|
| Ya, I completely agree. This minor penalty is not so minor when the game is tied and is in the dying minutes of the third. I see why they made this penalty but it is going too far. I hadn't heard of Don Cherry's suggestion about replacing the Delay of game penalty. I think it is a brilliant idea. That way a game isn't decidied by a puck being flipped over the boards... |
 |
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 07:50:15
|
I always thought the rule was pretty lame. Cherry's suggestion is great. Make it like an icing, faceoff in your zone with no change. Say, if you get 3 in a game than it could be a minor penalty.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
|
|
|
Guest9838
( )
|
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 08:19:05
|
| Matt, now you're getting into basketball territory with 4 fouls and then the team goes to the line. No need to complicate the game. But the treat as icing idea is great. Immediate impact, but not too heavy handed. If a team keeps flipping it over the boards and never gets to change, eventually they'll wear down and the advantage will build appropriately. I think a key thing would also be that the defending team can't call a timeout either or anything like that during that time and it would have to be played as a hurry up faceoff |
|
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 10:09:33
|
meh, i guess. I wasnt implying that if they do it 3 times in a row, just 3 games in a game. If you have to flip the puck over the glass 3 times in a game, then you are delaying the game and should be penalized for it. But it wouldnt bother me if it was just a faceoff without a change.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
|
|
|
Axey
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 11:39:09
|
I think this rule is far over penalized. I mean you could imply the same type of discipline with the no change rule. The reason why if intentional is because the lines are tired and need to change. Otherwise no player purposely means to put the puck over the glass. I seen one penalty, the puck was comin at a guy and he swatted his glove at it and it ended up takin a funny deflection off of his glove and going over the glass.
It is not right for games to be decided on a powerplay because the puck was put over the glass. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 12:15:49
|
I don't think the NHL thought this one through when they came up with it. Here's why.
In the old NHL, it was a tactical move to flip the puck over the glass and get a whistle. It serves to accomplish the same thing as a defender who waits behind his net with the puck while the lines are changing.
But the minute you make a penalty for it, it loses its purpose. The purpose is to rejuvenate your team and end a bad situation. Getting a penalty would be the last thing you want to do.
It follows, then, that any player who flips the puck over the glass is by definition not doing it intentionally! No one (!) would purposely dump the puck over the glass when they know they'd get a penalty. That, without anything else (although there are tons of practical examples) is why this penalty is stupid.
Go Habs Go! |
Edited by - Alex on 01/16/2009 12:20:46 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Delay of Game Penalties 
