View Single Post
Old
05-18-2013, 12:30 PM
  #185
BlowbyBlow
Registered User
 
BlowbyBlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
The intent of the rule is to abate clear and conscious delay of game. The type of cynical play where a player just wanting to get off the ice and end play for any reason could just dump it over the boards even if he had time. Basically it was just get a linechange play.
Usually occurring when a tired line was out there and wanting a change.

The trouble is, as with many things, once a rule is developed theres a slippery slope that ends with what happend last night. Where a player, with no intent, and pressure, and who's stick was interfered with, and was being physically challenged at the moment ended up INADVERTENTLY dumping the puck slightly over the glass. Slightly.

There was no intent, none, it wasn't intent to delay game.


See how the spirit of the rule and application of the rule end up being different things?

I kind of like the rule. But I have zero faith in how NHL zebras define and apply it. Also, is the glass height exactly standardized in all NHL arenas.
The reason a rule like this is dumb to some is because most rules in the NHL fall into different categories. Puck over the glass is a technical penalty, as where open ice head shots are subjective (was it shoulder first, was the defending player vulnerable, did player leave his feet, was there intent, was there an injury, did player have past history, and so on).

The NHL has to follow one of the 2 paths to ever get any reasonable understanding from fans.

Perhaps will all these headshots x player who gave the shot is out of the game regardless of injury to the other player, just based on eliminating that type of play. I think the only way that they get removed is that these type of hits ABSOLUTELY have to go under review (much like a goal or not a goal) in that game.

I am probably one of the few that feels the war room is a better suited place to make these calls then Shanahan making that call in that moment, (I am not for eliminating shanny's job but lets make things less complicated). Watching afterward what happened changes interpretation, and also its antithetical to weigh everything on Shanny with the expectation he has to do something for a call being asked to review when maybe it doesn't merit a review or punishment yet your asking him to do so - While I can imagine at that same time Shanahan has seen piles of calls in the game not called that should be under review.

Its like two diametrically opposing positions on circumstances that have over taken the game. You want to be subjective yet your weighing in other factors like injury, and past history.

BlowbyBlow is offline