Louisville 112 Report post Posted April 3, 2011 were both crap....I know this is a really picky thing after a win, but both cost us goals. I was rewatching the game with my dad, and with the beauty of DVR I noticed Holmstrom's delay of game shot went off a Nashville players stick. Even more clearly was the second one (Stuart's), it CLEARY went off of a Nashville player's head before leaving the defensive zone. It's subtle, but if you slow it down it's clear as day that the puck changed direction. Holmstrom's was not as clear because of the angle of the replays, but it's still pretty obvious. Anybody else notice this? Ken and Mick said nothing, which was kind of suprising, in fact Ken said something to the effect "yeah he knows he did it." Do you guys think this should be reviewable on what should supposedly be a cut and dry call? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GSBrooks13 204 Report post Posted April 3, 2011 I am not sure it really warrants a review, they already allow all of the officials to come together and decide what the right call is, most of the time they will make the right call because of the four officials one was bound to see it clearly. In any case, it's pretty rare to see this many in one game for one team so I don't think it's a big deal in the end. The only time it would ever consider being looked at as a singular issue is if one was a bad call in game 7 OT and cost somebody a cup. Other than that the only way I see it being reviewable is if they start allowing coaches to "challenge" penalties, then if a player was 100% certain it was deflected he could let the coach know and he could challenge it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Louisville 112 Report post Posted April 3, 2011 Fair enough, like you said it's not a huge deal. Both were the wrong call and both cost us a goal so I just thought it warranted discussion. I would really like to see a challenge type option for coaches in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hooon 1,089 Report post Posted April 3, 2011 Honestly, amidst all of the s***-awful reffing in that game, those delay of game mishaps went completely unnoticed by me. I haven't watched them in replay but I'll take your word for it. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind that not being reviewable... for the most part, its an easy call and at least they get all 4 dudes together to make the decision. But the rest of the reffing.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) No reviews, no challenges. I'd rather ditch the delay of game penalty entirely than sit there like the NFL (a bogged down league with too many stoppages and no decrease at all in ambiguity) with a ref seeing if it touched someone. No thanks. Edited April 3, 2011 by Shoreline 1 Frozen-Man reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tman77 40 Report post Posted April 3, 2011 Yep, this is exactly where challenges would come in handy and would help prevent the situations where a power play goal could have happened and help prevent to some degree where the game is one of those "decided by officials." I would love to see challenges inserted much like Football. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACallToArms 270 Report post Posted April 3, 2011 I only saw Homer's and the last one (not sure who got it, Stuart?) I thought Homer's was questionable, but looking at the replay I could see how the ref's could call it. Yes, the refs were being pedants about it, but whatever. The last one was complete bulls*** to call. Even Mickey thought it might have hit the glass on the way out. With a tied game, chance for the Wings to clinch the division, you call a bulls*** delay of game penalty with 4 minutes left in the game? I rarely yell at the TV, but I think the neighbors could hear my barrage of 4 letter words directed towards the zebras... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisdetroit 189 Report post Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) No reviews, no challenges. I'd rather ditch the delay of game penalty entirely than sit there like the NFL (a bogged down league with too many stoppages and no decrease at all in ambiguity) with a ref seeing if it touched someone. No thanks. I'd rather have to sit and wait out a review than have a game decided by a bad call. As far as the puck over the glass rule, can we just please get rid of this stupid penalty already? Before the lockout, it was only a penalty if the goaltender did it. Now we have games being decided because of an accident. Nobody intentionally clears the puck over the glass in order to delay the game. And before anybody argues that players will routinely do this if it's not a penalty, think back to before we had the rule, it wasn't an issue. This and the stupid trapezoid rule needs to go. We tried them, they didn't work, now repeal them. Edited April 3, 2011 by chrisdetroit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted April 3, 2011 I'd rather have to sit and wait out a review than have a game decided by a bad call. As far as the puck over the glass rule, can we just please get rid of this stupid penalty already? Before the lockout, it was only a penalty if the goaltender did it. Now we have games being decided because of an accident. Nobody intentionally clears the puck over the glass in order to delay the game. And before anybody argues that players will routinely do this if it's not a penalty, think back to before we had the rule, it wasn't an issue. This and the stupid trapezoid rule needs to go. We tried them, they didn't work, now repeal them. I agree. This is a dumb rule, it doesn't delay the game anymore than an icing. No reason the penalty should be worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lovin Jiri Fischer 147 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 I agree. This is a dumb rule, it doesn't delay the game anymore than an icing. No reason the penalty should be worse. But if that wasn't a penalty, then what would stop a player from simply shooting the puck over the glass every time the puck comes into his own zone instead of trying to make a play to get it out? 4 commadore183, dobbles, Z Winged Dangler and 1 other reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drwscc 212 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 And what would stop Chris Chelios from quickly taping the puck to his stick, and stiff-arming all the opposing players to score multiple goals? 1 55fan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z Winged Dangler 2,082 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 But if that wasn't a penalty, then what would stop a player from simply shooting the puck over the glass every time the puck comes into his own zone instead of trying to make a play to get it out? that's exactly why the rule was brought in. and the game is alot more intense when there's less intentional stoppages. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rrasco 1,312 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 I don't have a problem with the delay of game penalty. It's a strategical matter, make the defense make a play instead of taking the easy way out. Example: Wings get pinned in their zone and are tired, trying everything to clear the puck and get a change. Oh well, just dump it over the glass, get a change, take the face off, and be on our way. Nothing to lose right? It makes things more interesting strategically. Same reason there is off sides and icing. To keep the game interesting and teams from using boring tactics. Imagine if a player could just stand by the goal all game and wait for his team to get possession of the puck, breakout pass every time. Or you'd end up with a forward and a defenseman standing in front of the net all game long. Now, do I like it when they get them wrong? Of course not, but I don't like that they keep calling back goals either, what is that, four this month? Bad calls are just another part of the game. 1 commadore183 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmamolo 287 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 Personally I don't really mind the rule all that much but I think most people would rather see the rule be slightly changed. Obviously no one wants to see any player intentiaonlly clear the puck over the glass when their team is pinned in their defensive zone - that'd be crap. If the NHL were to get rid of the rule (as it stands now) they could always have it so that it is at the ref's discretion of intention delay of game calls. So if a player is deemed to have cleared the puck over the glass intentionally he is given a penalty. If the ref feels as though it was legitimately an accident than no penalty is awarded. From what most people seem to say on the topic that would probably appease both sides. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lovin Jiri Fischer 147 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) Personally I don't really mind the rule all that much but I think most people would rather see the rule be slightly changed. Obviously no one wants to see any player intentiaonlly clear the puck over the glass when their team is pinned in their defensive zone - that'd be crap. If the NHL were to get rid of the rule (as it stands now) they could always have it so that it is at the ref's discretion of intention delay of game calls. So if a player is deemed to have cleared the puck over the glass intentionally he is given a penalty. If the ref feels as though it was legitimately an accident than no penalty is awarded. From what most people seem to say on the topic that would probably appease both sides. You don't see a problem with that, considering the awful job of officiating that they already do? That's just giving them one more ounce of power so they can determine who wins the games. Hooking, interference, holding, etc. are already left up to the ref's discretion and we can all see how those penalties are working out. Edited April 4, 2011 by Lovin Jiri Fischer 1 commadore183 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown0001 7,652 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 Personally I don't really mind the rule all that much but I think most people would rather see the rule be slightly changed. Obviously no one wants to see any player intentiaonlly clear the puck over the glass when their team is pinned in their defensive zone - that'd be crap. If the NHL were to get rid of the rule (as it stands now) they could always have it so that it is at the ref's discretion of intention delay of game calls. So if a player is deemed to have cleared the puck over the glass intentionally he is given a penalty. If the ref feels as though it was legitimately an accident than no penalty is awarded. From what most people seem to say on the topic that would probably appease both sides. That used to happen all the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 Don't worry; the officiating becomes better and more consistent when the playoffs arrive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted April 4, 2011 Seriously? You take discretion from a ref, you then give discretion to a ref and then discretion to some replay body official. Why does this merit adding another bureaucratic layer? If the refs are ******* up delay of game calls by any pertinent margin, remove the penalty altogether. Now you can't possibly get any mess-ups, satisfying a large chunk of those who want to make a useless attempt to perfect delay of game calls, and those who think that this is a silly thing to penalize someone for in the first place. It is just as futile seeking perfect or near perfect accuracy (how many times have people declared replayed goals or non-goals to be the opposite?), because by the time you get to that margin (and I can't imagine how many further implemented rules and stoppage time it would take to get there) the NHL product will be just as boring as the NFL, people will still be bitching about refs ******* up calls, and this will still sound as ridiculous as the NHL attempting to remove hits to the head without compromising a major aspect (and draw) to this sport and league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 But if that wasn't a penalty, then what would stop a player from simply shooting the puck over the glass every time the puck comes into his own zone instead of trying to make a play to get it out? I hardly think it was an epidemic before the lockout. The same penalty as icing would be appropriate in my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lovin Jiri Fischer 147 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 I hardly think it was an epidemic before the lockout. The same penalty as icing would be appropriate in my opinion. But it's such an easy way out. If it was OT in game 7 of they playoffs and the puck was in your zone and you couldn't get it out, wouldn't you be tempted to shoot it over the glass? Since the rule is already in place, if they take away the rule then people will probably start doing it a lot. Kind of like how if we got rid of the drinking age then a ton of teenagers will start drinking a lot just because they can now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 But it's such an easy way out. If it was OT in game 7 of they playoffs and the puck was in your zone and you couldn't get it out, wouldn't you be tempted to shoot it over the glass? No more than icing it. It's easier, but not so much so that I prefer a real penalty to an icing-type infraction. If there were an intermediary punishment I'd use that, but I can't think of one, and a penalty has always been too severe for me. Anyways, hockey seemed to get along just fine without it for a century or so. I don't believe the product has been greatly improved by cheesy 5-on-3s and unlucky breaks off rolling pucks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted April 4, 2011 But it's such an easy way out. If it was OT in game 7 of they playoffs and the puck was in your zone and you couldn't get it out, wouldn't you be tempted to shoot it over the glass? Since the rule is already in place, if they take away the rule then people will probably start doing it a lot. Kind of like how if we got rid of the drinking age then a ton of teenagers will start drinking a lot just because they can now. I don't like the logic of "if they take it away people will do it more". Best compromise I can think of is.. it's hard enough to lift the puck out of play especially toward the goaltender. since players tend not to have much time. If they did have time, they'd either clear it out, ice it, or nearly ice it attempting to clear it out (like a chip shot meant to drive the puck back far enough to allow a line change or regrouping). It is quite frequent that someone just trying to clear off the glass ends up accidentally clearing it over. I don't see much reason to penalize that. However, concerning most of the stuff in the offensive zone, well, every arena has netting, so if you want to prevent a delay of game, just make the rules so the netting is still in play -- if it bounces back on the ice, and doesn't get stuck in the netting, or the ref doesn't lose sight of it or can't find it, play on. There's reasonable compromises that doesn't include staring at a video screen over every possible delay of game penalty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firehawk 305 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) I'd rather have to sit and wait out a review than have a game decided by a bad call. As far as the puck over the glass rule, can we just please get rid of this stupid penalty already? Before the lockout, it was only a penalty if the goaltender did it. Now we have games being decided because of an accident. Nobody intentionally clears the puck over the glass in order to delay the game. And before anybody argues that players will routinely do this if it's not a penalty, think back to before we had the rule, it wasn't an issue. This and the stupid trapezoid rule needs to go. We tried them, they didn't work, now repeal them. Chelios used to do it all the time, deliberately. Obvious when there was zero velocity on the puck and it was lobbed over. I liked the rule at first honestly, but seeing it in action I don't like it. I think nowadays it's definitely an accident. Maybe they could make it like an icing, if you clear it over the glass, you have to take an immediate faceoff with no line change in your own zone. That's penalty enough. Goalies should still have a penalty IMO. That or maybe if you're already on a PK you cannot be penalized again for that. So it could warrant a penalty 5 on 5 but not 5 on 4 or any other odd man situation. Edited April 4, 2011 by Firehawk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 But if that wasn't a penalty, then what would stop a player from simply shooting the puck over the glass every time the puck comes into his own zone instead of trying to make a play to get it out? This is just the reason why the NHL put this in the rules. There were certain players who were good about just tossing the puck out of play. This rule stopped those players from doing it. Oh, and the rec hockey league I play in has the same rule. I like it personally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MGreenberg 105 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 I don't see the problem with the Delay of Game penalty, it isn't like the Wings do it every single game. No reason to freak out about the DoG penalty after the Wings have one bad game with three penalties when they rarely do it. The trapezoid rule though I do agree with, stupid and needs to be removed. 1 commadore183 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites