Delay of game penalty

[wingsfan4795 552]

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?

[vladdy16 2,154]

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.

[Guest DeGraa55]

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.

[Datsyukian-Deke 722]

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

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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.

[Holmstrom96 347]

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

2nd offense and beyond - minor penalty

[brett 1,029]

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

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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?

[MabusIncarnate 5,359]

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".

[wingsfan4795 552]

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

[RedStormRising 7]

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..

[MotorCityMadness 388]

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.

[Holmstrom96 347]

Per player player? Or for the team?

Team

[St. Michael (the Red Wing) 422]

Yeah agreed it's deciding way too many games.

[sean 19]

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...

[thegerkin 189]

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

[Guest Playmaker]

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.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

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.

[derblaueClaus 1,668]

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.

[Wingznut 14]

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 May 19, 2013 by Wingznut

[dobbles 252]

i saw a good post in a gdt thread on this topic the other day, and it was replying to pierre whining about this issue. pierre said its a stupid rule because no one ever intentionally clears it over the glass anymore and the post replied that the reason no one intentionally does it now is because of the rule.

im not crazy about the penalty myself, but the constant whining about how its just an accident when it happens is total b.s. most penalties are accidents. when do you see someone purposely high stick someone in the face for a 4 minute penalty? its always a missed stick lift or something that causes a high stick;an accident. same with slashing. like a player goes in and says to himself 'im going to break this guys stick in half and take a penalty'... once again, the player is attempting a clean play and through bad luck, a penalty occurs.

most penalties are accidental. players dont go around trying to put their team shorthanded. these rules are there to keep players responsible for their actions on the ice. just as its the players responsibility to keep his elbows down when hitting, just as its a players responsibility to keep his stick down, its also a players responsibility not to clear the puck out of play. is that too much to ask?

[TheXym 2,606]

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%.

That's why there are nets. A young Blue Jackets fan named Brittany Cecil was fatally injured by a puck that deflected over the glass.

Follow up article about the player.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/03/21/brittanies-legacy.html

Article about the accident

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/20/sports/hockey-girl-13-dies-after-being-hit-by-puck.html

Edited May 19, 2013 by TheXym

[Buppy 1,720]

i saw a good post in a gdt thread on this topic the other day, and it was replying to pierre whining about this issue. pierre said its a stupid rule because no one ever intentionally clears it over the glass anymore and the post replied that the reason no one intentionally does it now is because of the rule.

im not crazy about the penalty myself, but the constant whining about how its just an accident when it happens is total b.s. most penalties are accidents. when do you see someone purposely high stick someone in the face for a 4 minute penalty? its always a missed stick lift or something that causes a high stick;an accident. same with slashing. like a player goes in and says to himself 'im going to break this guys stick in half and take a penalty'... once again, the player is attempting a clean play and through bad luck, a penalty occurs.

most penalties are accidental. players dont go around trying to put their team shorthanded. these rules are there to keep players responsible for their actions on the ice. just as its the players responsibility to keep his elbows down when hitting, just as its a players responsibility to keep his stick down, its also a players responsibility not to clear the puck out of play. is that too much to ask?

True, "it was an accident" isn't a good argument against a penalty, but that doesn't make it a good rule. Not every rule violation has to be a penalty. Imagine if they made icing a penalty, or a hand-pass, or offsides, or shooting the puck out of play in the offensive zone...

Back when this used to only apply to the goalie, I don't recall any notable issues with players flipping the puck out of play all the time. Nor do there seem to be any problems in leagues that don't have this rule. This rule needs to go.

[dobbles 252]

True, "it was an accident" isn't a good argument against a penalty, but that doesn't make it a good rule. Not every rule violation has to be a penalty. Imagine if they made icing a penalty, or a hand-pass, or offsides, or shooting the puck out of play in the offensive zone...

Back when this used to only apply to the goalie, I don't recall any notable issues with players flipping the puck out of play all the time. Nor do there seem to be any problems in leagues that don't have this rule. This rule needs to go.

and thats exactly why i am on the fence personally. when i think about the number of times a game a team ices the puck intentionally just to relieve the pressure, it seems like its only a few times. so im not sure it would incite an epidemic of puck over glass incidents.

i just hate when the argument centers around the 'i didn't do it on purpose' angle. and thats all pierre ever talks about on those national broadcasts. and it negatively influences the ability to have a legit discussion on the issue.

[Rhah 195]

Didn't Eddie O disagree with Pierre when he suggested that the refs make judgment call? Oh, that's right, because it has been called on the Wings like 3 times vs the Hawks this year (one PP goal after such a penalty allowing them to take us to OT). I am sure the first time it gets called on the Hawks his opinion will mirror Pierre's.

Or maybe it was Emrick, shrug