Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Delay of game penalty


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 wingsfan4795

wingsfan4795

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,651 posts
  • Location:Libertyville Illinois

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:05 PM

This rule seems to be getting a lot of attention and scrutiny lately. I want to know what you guys think of it.

I understand why the rule was put in place, but it's deciding way too many games. I think they should treat it like an icing and not let the guilty team change lines.

Thoughts?

Good rule of thumb is always take an octopus everywhere. Better to have one and not need it than find yourself thinking, "Damn, I wish I had that octopus".

 

-Buppy


#2 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,176 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:07 PM

Agreed.  Too many teams were relying on flipping the puck over the glass - it was getting insane.  They needed to do something, but this was overkill.  I hate that it gives them a power play.  Simple faceoff in your zone with no line change is sufficient.


Can't wait to read the "Phoenix: I still think it's a hockey market" chapter of Gary Bettman's autobiography. I'm guessing it's going to be chapter 11.

- mjlegend 3/9/2011

#3 DeGraa55

DeGraa55

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,586 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:08 PM

This rule seems to be getting a lot of attention and scrutiny lately. I want to know what you guys think of it.
I understand why the rule was put in place, but it's deciding way too many games. I think they should treat it like an icing and not let the guilty team change lines.
Thoughts?



I agree. I used to think just get rid of it. But I agree with you treat it like an icing.


I think a penalty is just stupid. Almost as bad as calling a dive AND a penalty.

#4 Datsyukian-Deke

Datsyukian-Deke

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:09 PM

I hate the penalty. There are better ways to increase scoring. Leave it up to referee discretion.

#5 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,913 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:11 PM

I hate the penalty. There are better ways to increase scoring. Leave it up to referee discretion.

I think leaving it to ref discretion would make it worse.  Consider how they are with goaltender interference and generally using their discretion. 

 

Not letting players change lines like with icing seems like a good solution. 



#6 Holmstrom96

Holmstrom96

    Banned Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • Location:Warren, MI

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:22 PM

1st offense - deep zone face-off and no commercial break allowed, offender cannot change line

2nd offense and beyond - minor penalty



#7 brett

brett

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,974 posts
  • Location:NJ

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:22 PM

Id keep it or leave it to the ref.

 

if theyre under a lot of pressure and intentionally put the puck out its a penalty

 

i liked old time hockey better too many pointless rules now. like cant change when theres an icing, penalty and you automatically get an offensive faceoff. trapezoid, cant use your hand on a faceoff

 

you want more scoring make the nets bigger or the goalie equipment smaller



#8 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,913 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:24 PM

1st offense - deep zone face-off and no commercial break allowed, offender cannot change line

2nd offense and beyond - minor penalty

 

 

Per player player?  Or for the team? 



#9 MabusIncarnate

MabusIncarnate

    The Truth Is Out There

  • Silver Booster Mod
  • 2,212 posts
  • Location:Monteagle, Tennessee

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:38 PM

This is one part of the "new era" NHL that I really don't like. I honestly don't recall it being a tremendous issue before the rule was put into place to begin with. I don't see why they can't do exactly as you suggested, treat it like icing, prohibit the line change and put the faceoff in the defensive end of the offender. 2 minute minor is kind of ridiculous and I continue to dislike this "penalty".  


13585921555_24551f5658.jpg


#10 wingsfan4795

wingsfan4795

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,651 posts
  • Location:Libertyville Illinois

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:48 PM

1st offense - deep zone face-off and no commercial break allowed, offender cannot change line
2nd offense and beyond - minor penalty

Ehh, I don't know. I think just treating it like an icing would do it. Maybe if it gets out of hand again they can go to a modified rule like you proposed, but for now I'd rather take as many penalties out of the game as possible

Good rule of thumb is always take an octopus everywhere. Better to have one and not need it than find yourself thinking, "Damn, I wish I had that octopus".

 

-Buppy


#11 RedStormRising

RedStormRising

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Location:St. Paul

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:12 PM

The AHL treats it like icing correct? That's really all it should be considered as since the player is trying to do the same thing in both cases which is to clear the puck out of the zone.. 



#12 MotorCityMadness

MotorCityMadness

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,579 posts
  • Location:Illinois / Wisconsin

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:13 PM

Agreed.  Too many teams were relying on flipping the puck over the glass - it was getting insane.  They needed to do something, but this was overkill.  I hate that it gives them a power play.  Simple faceoff in your zone with no line change is sufficient.

 

They use this in college hockey...as a ref I like this because it penalizes the offending team, but doesn't make so that even when it was accidental there is no power play awarded.


HEY HEY HOCKEYTOWN!

#13 Holmstrom96

Holmstrom96

    Banned Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • Location:Warren, MI

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:20 PM

 

 

Per player player?  Or for the team? 

 

Team



#14 St. Michael (the Red Wing)

St. Michael (the Red Wing)

    Heavenly With the Puck

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Location:Mankato, MN

Posted 18 May 2013 - 11:21 PM

Yeah agreed it's deciding way too many games.



#15 sean

sean

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 171 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:45 AM

From a purist point of view, I think some of the suggestions in this thread are right on the mark.

 

However, I seem to remember that at least part of the reasoning behind this rule was to maintain flow/pace of play.  In this case, a faceoff (and all the required hoopla) is just as detrimental.  The penalty also serves as another excuse for a powerplay (scoring), which was another point of emphasis after the lockout.

 

Also, I could see a lot of controversy/complaining if it were left to the refs to make a judgement call...


what

#16 thegerkin

thegerkin

    Statue of Liberty!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 19 May 2013 - 04:36 AM

Just adding myself to the "treat it like an icing" camp. This penalty needs to go away. Seems like a no brainer... :glare:



#17 Playmaker

Playmaker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 06:03 AM

From a purist point of view, I think some of the suggestions in this thread are right on the mark.

 

However, I seem to remember that at least part of the reasoning behind this rule was to maintain flow/pace of play.  In this case, a faceoff (and all the required hoopla) is just as detrimental.  The penalty also serves as another excuse for a powerplay (scoring), which was another point of emphasis after the lockout.

 

Also, I could see a lot of controversy/complaining if it were left to the refs to make a judgement call...

Most calls are "judgement" calls anyway.  I don't see why this would be any different. It's also too hard to tell whether it was deflected or not.  The LA/SJ game was a prime example. It reminds me a lot of the "in the crease" rule of a decade or so ago.  It was totally black and white until it decided a Stanley Cup Championship and then it was suddenly open for interpretation and then the rule was quietly modified and went away.  I see the same thing happening here.  It would make the league look totally idiotic (again) should this happen in a SCF OT game.  I haven't seen a noticable shortening of games or less whistles due to the icing rule or this rule.   Just silly to have games decided on it.



#18 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,612 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 19 May 2013 - 07:19 AM

Ice, boards, glass; there's an awful lot of territory to aim at.

Asking on-ice officials to decide if a player purposely flips a puck out of play would be like asking on-ice officials to decide if a player purposely dives.


"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#19 derblaueClaus

derblaueClaus

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 834 posts
  • Location:Rotenburg (Wmme), Germany

Posted 19 May 2013 - 07:21 AM

This is one part of the "new era" NHL that I really don't like. I honestly don't recall it being a tremendous issue before the rule was put into place to begin with. I don't see why they can't do exactly as you suggested, treat it like icing, prohibit the line change and put the faceoff in the defensive end of the offender. 2 minute minor is kind of ridiculous and I continue to dislike this "penalty".  

^This. Convert it into an Icing or get rid of the rule completely. But as I know the NHL we will have to wait till a ridiculus call based on this decides a Stanleycup-Final or something other important.


"I'd have my **** out if I scored four goals. Id have my **** out, stroking it." - "Jumbo" Joe Thornton

 

 

Monsterblue.jpg

 

Thanks MabusIncarnate


#20 Wingznut

Wingznut

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:57 AM

 Almost as bad as calling a dive AND a penalty.

 

You can definitely have both... Take a look at the Kronwall/Hossa play the other day. Kronner was definitely hooking Hoss, but then Hoss very much embellished it.

 

As for the Delay of Game penalty, I wonder if there are liability issues involved. You would think that a lawsuit could arise from a fan being hit with a puck intentionally (and game-legally) launched into the stands. Yes, I know there are disclaimers on the ticket, but those aren't 100%.


Edited by Wingznut, 19 May 2013 - 08:57 AM.






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users