Delay of Game Penalty

[KrazyGangsta 79]

I was wondering how this rule is applied. I understand that if a player in his own zone shoots the puck out of play it's an automatic penalty, that's if the puck has not been deflected or hit anything to cause it to leave the play. Now I don't understand how this rule doesn't imply if the puck has been shot in the benches. People might argue that the puck leaves your zone and then leaves the play but think about it that's a delay of the game because if a player does this it's usually because there tired and getting forechecked hard so it's either that or assuming that would count it as a penalty that would probably be an icing. I hope you guys understand what I mean.

Can someone clear it up for me if I'm catching something wrong or unaware of something.

[betterREDthandead 58]

The puck is a lot more likely to go into the benches because there's no glass. The glass is behind the bench. You have to actively try to get the puck up into the air to get it over the glass. Doesn't get there by accident.

[Frozen-Man 144]

Since the top of the boards in front of the glass is so much lower than the top of the glass it is much easier for it to go into the bench so they decided not to make it an automatic penalty.

[zata20 4]

This is a retarded penalty and should be takin out of the game. They should do what the AHL does which is when it happens the team can't change and the faceoff stays inside the defensive zone. (treated like icing kinda). Most of the time when this penalty happens, the player doesn't intentionally shoot it out. This is whats so frustrating. Ya I of course I like it when Detroit gets a powerplay but none the less it is still dumb. When Kronwall did it last night he just turned around and shot it trying to clear the zone, only the puck was on edge and it went over the glass.

[CenterIce 83]

Also, if the puck goes into the benches, but still cleared the glass in the defensive zone, it is considered a penalty.

[betterREDthandead 58]

This is a retarded penalty and should be takin out of the game. They should do what the AHL does which is when it happens the team can't change and the faceoff stays inside the defensive zone. (treated like icing kinda). Most of the time when this penalty happens, the player doesn't intentionally shoot it out. This is whats so frustrating. Ya I of course I like it when Detroit gets a powerplay but none the less it is still dumb. When Kronwall did it last night he just turned around and shot it trying to clear the zone, only the puck was on edge and it went over the glass.

Also most of the time a high-stick isn't intentional, but you wouldn't want that taken away as a penalty, would you?

The penalty absolutely needs to stay. The players shouldn't be purposely flinging pucks at people in the crowd in the first place.

[zata20 4]

Also most of the time a high-stick isn't intentional, but you wouldn't want that taken away as a penalty, would you?

The penalty absolutely needs to stay. The players shouldn't be purposely flinging pucks at people in the crowd in the first place.

Sorry, but you cant compare hitting a guy in the face with your stick with accidently shooting the puck over the glass. What stops a player from shooting it in the bench? It serves the purpose of putting out of play doesn't it? That isn't delay of game.

[Guest Shoreline]

I like this delay of game penalty. However, don't like any proposed idea of it being called for the benches, unless it could be demonstrated that it's rampantly being used to incite a line change or as a defensive bail-out.. which would be hard to do given it's on one side of the ice and at an angle. I could understand the logic behind the AHL rules (from what someone said, no penalty but no change), and if the NHL switched to that I wouldn't complain, but I see nothing wrong with this one either.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Shoreline

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Sorry, but you cant compare hitting a guy in the face with your stick with accidently shooting the puck over the glass. What stops a player from shooting it in the bench? It serves the purpose of putting out of play doesn't it? That isn't delay of game.

That's not fair criticism of the penalty. It is much, much, much easier to put the puck into the benches than over the glass.

I don't and have never liked the puck over the glass call since they implemented it. The concept is noble, but the execution is poor in my opinion. An icing isn't a penalty, and is essentially the same thing. I realize that players undoubtedly put the puck over the glass to get a whistle before the lockout and that they obviously don't do it intentionally now because of the penalty, but it's still just too easy for a puck that's on edge to go up and over at the wrong time (like a PK) and completely screw a team over that doesn't deserve it.

I could understand the logic behind the AHL rules (from what someone said, no penalty but no change)

Well, there you go. That would be a much more elegant and consistent way to handle that.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Heroes of Hockeytown

[zata20 4]

That's not fair criticism of the penalty. It is much, much, much easier to put the puck into the benches than over the glass.

I don't and have never liked the puck over the glass call since they implemented it. The concept is noble, but the execution is poor in my opinion. An icing isn't a penalty, and is essentially the same thing. I realize that players undoubtedly put the puck over the glass to get a whistle before the lockout and that they obviously don't do it intentionally now because of the penalty, but it's still just too easy for a puck that's on edge to go up and over at the wrong time (like a PK) and completely screw a team over that doesn't deserve it.

I'm not sure if you saw my post above that but I was saying that it shouldn't be a penalty and I was trying to say it is easier to put the puck in the benches. Sorry if that wasnt clear.

Edited May 13, 2009 by zata20

[betterREDthandead 58]

Sorry, but you cant compare hitting a guy in the face with your stick with accidently shooting the puck over the glass. What stops a player from shooting it in the bench? It serves the purpose of putting out of play doesn't it? That isn't delay of game.

What stops a player from shooting it in the bench? Potential unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and/or punch in the face for shooting at the other team, and possibility of Icy Hot in the jockstrap or your suit being replaced with a housedress if you shoot it at your own.

Joking aside, there's still a fair amount of self-policing by the players and no player would want to set a precedent of purposely putting the puck in the bench and risking somebody getting hurt, because you're fairly defenseless there with no room to move and the next target could be you, purposely or not. Sure, they could try and flip it harmlessly high but then they risk putting it over the glass, right? There's your deterrent.

but it's still just too easy for a puck that's on edge to go up and over at the wrong time (like a PK) and completely screw a team over that doesn't deserve it.

Then just don't flip it up in the air. Keep it on the ice. If it's too hard to clear the zone that way, then that's probably good, since I think a team that's able to keep the pressure on in the offensive zone should be rewarded. It's a subtle way to encourage scoring, and that's exactly what the NHL should be trying to do (as opposed to something drastic like biggering the nets.)

Plus, and I'll probably restate this ad nauseum, there's no good reason to incentivize the players intentionally sending the puck at the spectators. I imagine the rule is just as much to protect the spectators (think: netting and Brittanie Cecil) as it is about avoiding icing.

I like the rule, I think it does quite a bit more good than harm (admittedly it can be frustrating to go down 5-on-3 for this reason) but the only way to keep the benefits and further mitigate the harm, that I see, is to ask the refs to determine the intent of the player and not whistle it when they think it's accidental. They already screw up enough judgment calls - the more black-and-white rules in the book, the better.

[zata20 4]

What stops a player from shooting it in the bench? Potential unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and/or punch in the face for shooting at the other team, and possibility of Icy Hot in the jockstrap or your suit being replaced with a housedress if you shoot it at your own.

Joking aside, there's still a fair amount of self-policing by the players and no player would want to set a precedent of purposely putting the puck in the bench and risking somebody getting hurt, because you're fairly defenseless there with no room to move and the next target could be you, purposely or not. Sure, they could try and flip it harmlessly high but then they risk putting it over the glass, right? There's your deterrent.

Then just don't flip it up in the air. Keep it on the ice. If it's too hard to clear the zone that way, then that's probably good, since I think a team that's able to keep the pressure on in the offensive zone should be rewarded. It's a subtle way to encourage scoring, and that's exactly what the NHL should be trying to do (as opposed to something drastic like biggering the nets.)

Plus, and I'll probably restate this ad nauseum, there's no good reason to incentivize the players intentionally sending the puck at the spectators. I imagine the rule is just as much to protect the spectators (think: netting and Brittanie Cecil) as it is about avoiding icing.

I like the rule, I think it does quite a bit more good than harm (admittedly it can be frustrating to go down 5-on-3 for this reason) but the only way to keep the benefits and further mitigate the harm, that I see, is to ask the refs to determine the intent of the player and not whistle it when they think it's accidental. They already screw up enough judgment calls - the more black-and-white rules in the book, the better.

For our sake lets just hope the wings are in their zone the whole time tomorrow and we wont have to worry about it.