HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Opinions on delay of game penalties

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-19-2006, 04:44 PM
  #1
MiamiScreamingEagles
Global Moderator
A Fistful of Dollars
 
MiamiScreamingEagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 39,616
vCash: 1318
Opinions on delay of game penalties

Do you like the rule change this season of a delay of game penalty issued to a player who shoots the puck into the crowd?

I know some writers have mentioned icing should be a delay of game penalty as well or at least in limited situations. For that or no?

MiamiScreamingEagles is online now  
Old
03-19-2006, 04:59 PM
  #2
Roger's Pancreas*
 
Roger's Pancreas*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,363
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Roger's Pancreas*
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles
Do you like the rule change this season of a delay of game penalty issued to a player who shoots the puck into the crowd?

I know some writers have mentioned icing should be a delay of game penalty as well or at least in limited situations. For that or no?
I think that it's one of those penalties that need to be used with a tad of discretion. If you see a player blatanly dump the puck over the glass as a means of biding time then, yes, it should be a penalty. However, if someone chips the puck over the glass, and the ref can obviously tell it's a fluke, then it shouldn't be called. The problem is that the NHL officials are the worst officials pro sports has to offer, and consequently can not be trusted with a little thing called logic. So now we're back at square one where everything is in black or white, call it or don't. To answer your question though I really could care less about this rule change. It doesn't really improve the game at any and instead will cement Bettman's name into history as the putz who did everything possible to increase scoring.

OT: Can you believe that they actually show empty net goals on the NHL highlight machine? How pathetic!


Last edited by Roger's Pancreas*: 03-19-2006 at 05:09 PM.
Roger's Pancreas* is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 05:05 PM
  #3
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles
Do you like the rule change this season of a delay of game penalty issued to a player who shoots the puck into the crowd?

I know some writers have mentioned icing should be a delay of game penalty as well or at least in limited situations. For that or no?
I'm not for icing being called a penalty at all.

In an ideal world refs would have discretion calling the "delay of game" only for pucks intentionally being shot into the crowd. unfortunately, giving refs discretion becomes a major problem

IMO only intention pucks into the crowd should be a penalty ... too often a guy turns to make a quick pass or fire the puck off the boards and catches a rolling puck and it takes off and ends up in the seats.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 05:07 PM
  #4
Dig Out Your Soul
Ex Storm...
 
Dig Out Your Soul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles
I know some writers have mentioned icing should be a delay of game penalty as well or at least in limited situations. For that or no?
Holy crap, can you imagine how many penalties would be called in a game if icing was a penalty?

Dig Out Your Soul is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 05:16 PM
  #5
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,044
vCash: 500
imo the puck is rarely intentionally thrown over the glass. I think having a faceoff in your own zone is punishment enough.

For example, i forget what game it was but desjardins was on the PK and whipped it down the ice and it sailed out of play almost at the opposing blue line... which in itself shows he didnt try to throw it out of play. I think the rule should be done away with, i hate it

BringBackStevens is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 05:17 PM
  #6
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,482
vCash: 5792
The way it is, it doesn't hurt one team more than the other. It just depends when it happens.


What I like about the rule is that it is black and white, It's either a penalty or it isn't

GKJ is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 05:21 PM
  #7
fism
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 222
vCash: 500
I didn't think that it was even a problem before...not like the obstruction anyway. I don't like the penalty.

fism is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 07:13 PM
  #8
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
it forces the defensive team to make a play with the puck, as opposed to simply flinging it as hard as they can... it can be annoying, but i don't think it's a bad rule.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 08:19 PM
  #9
Lupul*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 7,815
vCash: 500
I don't mind the rule. It will just take some getting used to over the next few seasons.

Lupul* is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 08:27 PM
  #10
Gags1288
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,354
vCash: 500
Honestly, I hate the rule. I just envision big games in the playoffs being decided in a 2nd OT because a player accidentally shoots the puck over the glass with no one around. Ideally, it should be a discretionary penalty, but that obviously adds a subjective nature that we just don't need in officiating (it's already bad enough). Because of that, they need to just do away with the rule.

And a penalty for icing is insane, that would absolutely kill hockey. No one could attempt a pass from their own zone because of the risk of icing. That would completely defeat the purpose of eliminating the red line.

Slightly OT, but does anyone else realize how they've just stopped calling interference? They call the hook a lot more, but the biggest problem with the NHL over the past few years was always interference and I haven't seen one called in a long time (aside from a hit on a non puck carrier, but that's not really what i'm talking about). The officials need to stop calling phantom roughing, boarding, and hooking calls and start making calls on plays that negate or create scoring chances.

Gags1288 is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 05:59 AM
  #11
priceperlb*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 367
vCash: 500
Gotta go with Gags1288. Leave nothing to the discretion of refs. They cannot handle the responsibility. If they feel the need to keep this as a penalty then treat it like icing. No man in the box and same players on the ice and it doesn't matter on the PK. Simple, easy, nobody gets hurt just because a puck rolled on its side or someone in a pressure situation got too much juice under that sucka.

(sarcasm) Is interference a "new" rule? I know they're having a hard time with ALL the "new" rules and all. Garshk, we should give them a couple seasons to adjust to this thing called interference. It's pretty complicated. Player impedes forechecker. Neither player has puck. Just good hockey? (end sarcasm)

priceperlb* is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 08:42 AM
  #12
Pantokrator
Who's the clown?
 
Pantokrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Semmes, Alabama
Country: Guatemala
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylez19
imo the puck is rarely intentionally thrown over the glass. I think having a faceoff in your own zone is punishment enough.

For example, i forget what game it was but desjardins was on the PK and whipped it down the ice and it sailed out of play almost at the opposing blue line... which in itself shows he didnt try to throw it out of play. I think the rule should be done away with, i hate it
I agree. I didn't think it was a problem before.

Pantokrator is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 10:01 AM
  #13
capn89*
 
capn89*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,316
vCash: 500
You know what I have a problem with? Free-icing on the PK. If they want increased scoring, how about they call it icing if the shorthanded team fires the puck the length of the ice while killing a penalty. It's sort of a gift, "you may be shorthanded, but ****, we'll scrap a rule for two minutes and you can ice it all you want."

As for the delay of game penalties. I like the idea (in theory) but it's a bit out of hand, considering how many times teams go down to 5 on 3's. You know, if there was a league rule where they added some height to the glass, maybe a foot and a half to two feet, then I would be all for it if someone throws it over the glass. But half the time it's just a guy trying to clear the zone and it rolls on edge and ends up going out.

capn89* is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 10:29 AM
  #14
dalessam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Blackwood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 191
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dalessam
Quote:
Originally Posted by capn89
You know what I have a problem with? Free-icing on the PK. If they want increased scoring, how about they call it icing if the shorthanded team fires the puck the length of the ice while killing a penalty. It's sort of a gift, "you may be shorthanded, but ****, we'll scrap a rule for two minutes and you can ice it all you want."
But, IMO, that's the idea.. They are shorthanded. You try to skate one man down to the red line to dump it in. It would be almost impossible. Sorry, I just don't agree with that.

dalessam is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 11:22 AM
  #15
tytech
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
If you notice most of the over the glass penalties don't happen when the guy has no pressure on him. It's usually when they race for the puck or they think that they have to hit it hard because the opposing teams stick is about to hit theirs to stop the force. I don't mind it though because it goes both ways. It's usually clear cut and I wish the rest of the game could be called that way. Poor Brashear goes near someone and he gets penalties.
The new rule of measuring sticks is brutal-don't get me started on that one. Players will know to change sticks now right before they are chosen but we waste 10 minutes in measuring.

tytech is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 12:45 PM
  #16
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tytech
Players will know to change sticks now right before they are chosen but we waste 10 minutes in measuring.
Players are still getting caught with illegal sticks in shootouts now.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 01:16 PM
  #17
tytech
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
Players are still getting caught with illegal sticks in shootouts now.
For the first week maybe but not anymore. They aren't dumb. This info was spread quietly throughout the league.

tytech is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 03:59 PM
  #18
priceperlb*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 367
vCash: 500
Didn't Jagr get caught twice? That seems kinda dumb.

priceperlb* is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 04:46 PM
  #19
Olias of Sunhillow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jimtown, CO
Country: Nepal
Posts: 207
vCash: 500
I like the new rule -- putting the puck out of play from the defensive zone should be a penatly every time, no matter what. It forces the defender to actually make a decision, not mindlessly flip the puck over the boards.

The issue of whether or not putting the puck over the glass is "accidental" or not is irrelevant -- 99% of high sticking infractions are "accidental" but you still have to call them. It isn't "intent" that should matter. Any time you allow the refs to make assumptions about the intent of a play you're asking for trouble.

Olias of Sunhillow is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 06:26 PM
  #20
capn89*
 
capn89*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MjD0823
But, IMO, that's the idea.. They are shorthanded. You try to skate one man down to the red line to dump it in. It would be almost impossible. Sorry, I just don't agree with that.
And in my opinion, they are shorthanded because they broke the rules and are being penalized. Ever since I first started watching hockey back in the early/mid 90's I never understood why a penalized team was allowed free icing. If you can't do it at even strength why should you be able to shorthanded?

capn89* is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 11:30 PM
  #21
dalessam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Blackwood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 191
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dalessam
Quote:
Originally Posted by capn89
And in my opinion, they are shorthanded because they broke the rules and are being penalized. Ever since I first started watching hockey back in the early/mid 90's I never understood why a penalized team was allowed free icing. If you can't do it at even strength why should you be able to shorthanded?
It's just with the way the officiating is this year added to the fact that we're barely able to clear the puck as it is (though the PK was stellar last game) it's just like handing the other team a goal. I don't know maybe it's just me.

To each his own my friend.

dalessam is offline  
Old
03-20-2006, 11:34 PM
  #22
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by capn89
And in my opinion, they are shorthanded because they broke the rules and are being penalized. Ever since I first started watching hockey back in the early/mid 90's I never understood why a penalized team was allowed free icing. If you can't do it at even strength why should you be able to shorthanded?
this would make killing penalties near impossible.

BringBackStevens is offline  
Old
03-21-2006, 12:04 AM
  #23
capn89*
 
capn89*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MjD0823
It's just with the way the officiating is this year added to the fact that we're barely able to clear the puck as it is (though the PK was stellar last game) it's just like handing the other team a goal. I don't know maybe it's just me.

To each his own my friend.
Why have icing at all if you're going to give it free to teams who are supposed to be at a disadvantage?

capn89* is offline  
Old
03-21-2006, 07:23 AM
  #24
priceperlb*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 367
vCash: 500
I think being down a man is disadvantage enough. A regular shift being 30 or 40 seconds ideally, 2:00 minutes not only affects the powerplay, but even some time after since it takes that much more time to recover turning a 1 man down disadvantage to a 1 line down or juggled lines disadvantage past the 2:00 minutes. If a team can't clear for a line change then they create their own disadvantage that has nothing to do with the officials or rules.

priceperlb* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.