Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Delay of game penalty


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 dobbles

dobbles

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Location:Tulsa, OK

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:58 AM

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?


I love Maltby, but to say he wasn't a ****** is a dis-service to his career of douchebaggery.


#22 TheXym

TheXym

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,060 posts
  • Location:PA

Posted 19 May 2013 - 10:12 AM

 
 
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....ies-legacy.html

Article about the accident
http://www.nytimes.c...it-by-puck.html

Edited by TheXym, 19 May 2013 - 10:14 AM.

It's pronounced "Zim" not "Exim". Aw heck with it, just call me Scott.

#23 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 11:18 AM

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.



#24 dobbles

dobbles

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Location:Tulsa, OK

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:15 PM

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.


I love Maltby, but to say he wasn't a ****** is a dis-service to his career of douchebaggery.


#25 Rhah

Rhah

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 503 posts
  • Location:Champaign, IL

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:28 PM

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 :)



#26 SouthernWingsFan

SouthernWingsFan

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 24,609 posts
  • Location:Mandeville, Louisiana (Greater New Orleans area)

Posted 19 May 2013 - 02:19 PM

Either the current or ice it is fine with me.

 

9 times out of 10 you can pretty much safely conclude that in a pinch nobody purposefully wants to put it in a crowd, but this is something where there can be absolutely no grey area for a discussion - even if it is all but obvious that the player didn't mean to do so.

 

It's either a penalty all the time or treat it like icing all the time.  I understand if people think a penalty for it is too strict, but either method works for me.



#27 MidMichSteve

MidMichSteve

    Thanks to #5

  • HoF Booster
  • 4,239 posts
  • Location:Silver Lake, WA for a spell

Posted 19 May 2013 - 02:29 PM

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 :)

It was Eddie. He also said that the refs shouldn't have another judgement call about whether it was intentional or not. I hate to agree with Eddie, but I feel the same way.

 

I taped the game so I will find an exact quote when I watch it.


From now on, Patrick Roy will be rolled out to and from the Avs' bench like Hannibal Lecter. - BottleOfSmoke


#28 Playmaker

Playmaker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 03:27 PM

The officials have to judge in a split second if the puck was deflected or not.  It's still a jugdement call.  I don't know why this should be the only black and white call when really, no other penalty is.  I've seen players taken down on a clear breakaway with no penatly shot.  A defenseman diving for the puck and getting it, but a penalty is still called for tripping.  It's endless. 

 

I agree with whoever compared it to icing, a puck played with a high stick, a hand pass or offsides.  The whistle is blown, and a faceoff occurs deep in the zone or whatever, but it isn't a 2 minute penalty.  The same should apply for a puck over the glass. 



#29 MidMichSteve

MidMichSteve

    Thanks to #5

  • HoF Booster
  • 4,239 posts
  • Location:Silver Lake, WA for a spell

Posted 19 May 2013 - 05:20 PM

The officials have to judge in a split second if the puck was deflected or not.  It's still a jugdement call.  I don't know why this should be the only black and white call when really, no other penalty is.  I've seen players taken down on a clear breakaway with no penatly shot.  A defenseman diving for the puck and getting it, but a penalty is still called for tripping.  It's endless. 

 

I agree with whoever compared it to icing, a puck played with a high stick, a hand pass or offsides.  The whistle is blown, and a faceoff occurs deep in the zone or whatever, but it isn't a 2 minute penalty.  The same should apply for a puck over the glass. 

 

Players defending their zone will intentionally chip the puck over the glass when they are gassed and/or outmatched by their opponent. That's the purpose of the penalty.


From now on, Patrick Roy will be rolled out to and from the Avs' bench like Hannibal Lecter. - BottleOfSmoke


#30 Rhah

Rhah

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 503 posts
  • Location:Champaign, IL

Posted 19 May 2013 - 06:18 PM

It was Eddie. He also said that the refs shouldn't have another judgement call about whether it was intentional or not. I hate to agree with Eddie, but I feel the same way.

 

I taped the game so I will find an exact quote when I watch it.

 

I do agree about making them have to assume what a player was thinking (same as with some of these body checks with intent to injure)... I couldn't remember if Pierre brought up how it was just icing in AHL and it should be that in NHL too. But if they won't bring that rule up then lesser of two evils of always having it be a PP is let refs choose PP or icing... but refs need clearcut rules, because they apparently suck at most other judgement calls, so I think it should just be auto icing.

 

Although, I just thought of something while typing this, On the PK, would it be too easy to flip over boards and get the icing you want when sometimes you can't get a true icing? Would you suspend the icing rule for PK?



#31 Playmaker

Playmaker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 06:24 PM

The team that is shorthanded is allowed to ice the puck.

 

 

Players defending their zone will intentionally chip the puck over the glass when they are gassed and/or outmatched by their opponent. That's the purpose of the penalty.

Isn't that why players ice the puck too?  Is that a two minute delay of game penalty?  No.  I would think if a player had full control of the puck and it was on his stick, why would he put it over the glass and not ice it? 



#32 Rhah

Rhah

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 503 posts
  • Location:Champaign, IL

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:11 PM

Well, I was just thinking on the PK, it would seem a little cheap to just glass it because to ice it you still sometimes have to wing it past some defenders at the blue line. If its just skied over the glass, the defenders get no chance to try to keep it in not to mention you can just glass it over any part of the ice you want, back, sides, 3/4's, etc...







Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users