HFBoards

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

The Delay of Game Penalty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-02-2006, 07:27 AM
  #1
Netro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 819
vCash: 500
The Delay of Game Penalty

This new rule has been debated all year. Wondering what you guys think of the rule and if you don't like it, what would you do to change it. On TSN last night, Pierre McGuire, who dislikes the rule, thinks it is too punitive. He suggested that it be treated like an icing - i.e. no line change.

Personally, after watching hockey all year, I think this is a terrible rule and way too punitive. I really hope that this rule gets reviewed in the off-season because I feel that I see at least 1 penalty a game on this and it becomes a factor in the result. Just look at the game last night. Campbell is not trying to flip the puck in the crowd, all he is trying to do is go high off the glass and accidently he shot it too high. I know the Habs got burned several times this year.

I do like McGuire's idea of the no line change but I would take it a step further. I think it needs to be treated like the old 'illegal defence' in the NBA. The first time, no penalty, then the second time, a penalty. This gives the team the benefit of the doubt at least once. Let's face it, most times the puck is shot over the glass, it is an accident.

At the moment, I find the current rule impacts the game too much.

Netro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 07:50 AM
  #2
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Good point Netro. The rule affects the game too much. The thing I've noticed is the 5 on 3's. That just has too great an impact on the game. I like your idea about the illegal D rule. A ref can still impose a penalty on what he judges to be intentional. Yeah, an icing type of no change faceoff, then penalties after so many offences, seems smart to me.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 07:52 AM
  #3
Habs 4 Life
No Excuses
 
Habs 4 Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Italy
Posts: 34,324
vCash: 256
It's a pretty tough rule on players.I mean unless you pick it up and trow it in the crowd "Ulanov style" it should not be called. Take this rule out ASAP

Habs 4 Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 07:59 AM
  #4
hockey_hamster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 26
vCash: 500
My guess would be that every team this season has been adversely affected by this rule during the season. I think very few, if any, GM's will want this rule to be around next season. Not allowing a line change after this happens could be a viable option for next season if the league is afraid of players doing this intentionally. Last count I heard was that there have been 25 calls for this in the playoffs. Considering the quality of ice in most rinks with the warmer weather, I think it's unfair to punish a player with a 2 minute penalty.

hockey_hamster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 08:05 AM
  #5
Bryzga lol*
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Dave Hodge complained about this mid-season and demanded the NHL to remove the rule before the playoffs and they didn't even respond, and now look, the Canes won the series because of the rule. Maybe the would have won anyways, but lets hope the rule won't affect the finals too much, and by popular demand, it should be out next season.

I don't understand why referees can't use discretion on the call, deciding if it's intentional or not. The same way they use judgement for if a player is diving or not.

Bryzga lol* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 08:42 AM
  #6
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,424
vCash: 500
Sure the rule is punitive, but it's applied in a uniform manner and every team is a aware of it. Does anyone really believe that leaving the call in the Ref's discretion will reduce the controversy?

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 08:45 AM
  #7
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4
Sure the rule is punitive, but it's applied in a uniform manner and every team is a aware of it. Does anyone really believe that leaving the call in the Ref's discretion will reduce the controversy?
I guess the idea is to force teams to pass the puck out of the zone rather than blasting it out,not a bad idea,as it creates turnovers if your D isn't adept. It seems though, esp. on the penalty kill, that luck determines too much. If stats showed that certain teams avoided these penalties and certain teams were prone to them, I guess I'd agree with you and figure,it's up to the team to be well coached. Right now though, I like Netros idea.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 09:08 AM
  #8
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
I guess the idea is to force teams to pass the puck out of the zone rather than blasting it out,not a bad idea,as it creates turnovers if your D isn't adept. It seems though, esp. on the penalty kill, that luck determines too much. If stats showed that certain teams avoided these penalties and certain teams were prone to them, I guess I'd agree with you and figure,it's up to the team to be well coached. Right now though, I like Netros idea.
Is it really luck or a combination of the offensive team pressuring the puck well and the defensive player simply not taking that extra half second to make a safe play (easier said than done admittedly). Every team in the league practices PP and PK so I really don't see much in the way of legit excuses.

I guess my question is: Is it punitive enough (to not allow a change) if the defensive team already has it's fresh PK guys on the ice and they dump the puck over the glass to relieve pressure.

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 10:04 AM
  #9
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,264
vCash: 500
Don Cherry(yeah him) had a great poin the other day. If you get 2 minutes for dumping the puck in the stands...then following the same logic you should get 2 minutes for icing the puck.
He said that was just stupid and the penalty for throwing the puck in the stands should be the same as icing the puck ---> Can't change lines.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 10:27 AM
  #10
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,551
vCash: 500
No line changes or the illegal defense works fine. Heck, even just make the team that does it play shorthanded just on the defensive zone faceoff too, 5-on-4 with no changes on the faceoff, but they can put the 5th guy who shot the puck out back on the ice as soon as the puck drops.

Alternatively, if you absolutely have to keep it, then don't make it the kind of penalty that puts you down 5-on-3. If you're shorthanded and put it out of play, it just tags an extra 2 mins at the end of the first penalty, it doesn't make you 5-on-3.

I wouldn't say the penalty cost the Sabres the game, exactly, as I sort of felt that Carolina had outplayed them and generally deserved to win on that basis. But at least all the headlines it generated serves as a good way of focusing attention on the dumb rule. (Which I might add I have campaigned against since the first time I saw it in the exhibition games this season).

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 12:11 PM
  #11
beowulf
Not a nice guy.
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,510
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
I don't see what difference it has made in the speed of the game other then giving more pp's. I would not be against removing it all together. The change made later in the seasin helped a little but not enough.

beowulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 12:28 PM
  #12
Blades 0f Steel
Registered User
 
Blades 0f Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Tibet
Posts: 11,523
vCash: 500
Another sad case of zero-tolerance, we see it everywhere. As Bill Maher once said "I have no tolerance for zero tolerance."

Sometimes you just can't tell the difference between an accident and a cheat. That's why diving is alive and well in this sport, and always will be.


Last edited by Blades 0f Steel: 06-02-2006 at 12:36 PM.
Blades 0f Steel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 04:59 PM
  #13
sXe
Yuuuuuup!
 
sXe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,736
vCash: 500
In case Mr.Cherry didn't notice there's no ice on the other side of the glass. That's the difference between using a strategic play (icing) and throwing the puck out of play.
The best way to avoid those penalties is to learn to play hockey. I never saw " if all else fails throw it in the stands" in a hockey manual.
This year was obviously a transition year, give it time.
At the beginning of the year we thought players would never learn to control their sticks but are doing a much better job now ( and complaining less about it). It proves you can teach old dogs after all.

sXe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 05:15 PM
  #14
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sXe
In case Mr.Cherry didn't notice there's no ice on the other side of the glass. That's the difference between using a strategic play (icing) and throwing the puck out of play.
The best way to avoid those penalties is to learn to play hockey. I never saw " if all else fails throw it in the stands" in a hockey manual.
This year was obviously a transition year, give it time.
At the beginning of the year we thought players would never learn to control their sticks but are doing a much better job now ( and complaining less about it). It proves you can teach old dogs after all.

Many players accidently ice the puck when all they wanted to do was clear the zone...but they dont get a penalty. Many players accidently chip the puck over the glass but they get a penalty. That's the point being made.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 05:24 PM
  #15
sXe
Yuuuuuup!
 
sXe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk
Many players accidently ice the puck when all they wanted to do was clear the zone...but they dont get a penalty. Many players accidently chip the puck over the glass but they get a penalty. That's the point being made.
I fully understood the point. I happen to disagree and offered my own point of view.

There is a huge difference between icing and throwing the puck out of play (out of the ice surface where the game is played). The main one is that icing is not automatic everytime you throw the puck towards the other side but if you throw it towarsds the stands it prevents anyone from getting the puck before it crosses the line or your own player getting to it. A world of difference.

sXe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 05:27 PM
  #16
jcpenny
Registered User
 
jcpenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,878
vCash: 500
A lot of people here dont understand the rule. The delay of game penalty is the same as the intentional grounding in the NFL. Why would you be allowed to get rid of the puck when theres pressure? Its anti-sport. Its like rewarding a coward. Plus it pushes the Defensemen to make a play under pressure, so if you choke you pay.

Love it, keep it.


Last edited by jcpenny: 06-02-2006 at 05:32 PM.
jcpenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 05:30 PM
  #17
sXe
Yuuuuuup!
 
sXe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,736
vCash: 500
Agree JCP.
If it was only a line on the ground that rule would be ridiculous but there's a 10 feet high pan of glass, no excuse.

sXe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 06:01 PM
  #18
HabsoluteFate
Registered User
 
HabsoluteFate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,869
vCash: 500
I don't mind the rule but my girlfriend was somewhat watching the game last night and doesnt know much about hockey but was wondering why the play was not wistled right away when it was clerly icing...(I can't remember which period..i think the 1st or 2nd)

No touch icing would be nice....
Another thing i wouldnt mind is perhaps making icing ilegal even when your shorth ended...why give the guys killing a penalty an advantage?

Finally, another rule i hope they look at is the right to dispute a call with video replay...you get either one dispute per game or one timeout...up to you which one you use. If your wrong in whatever you dispute you end up getting slapped with a delay of game penalty
I probably would keep every rule they introduced this year except for the location behind the net that the goaltender is not allowed to touch the puck within...

HabsoluteFate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 06:03 PM
  #19
Azalichio
Registered User
 
Azalichio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,136
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Azalichio
I like the rule, always found stupid that a goaltender would get a penalty for doing just that but defensemen could throw it over anytime they wanted.

And let's face it, Buffalo didn't lose the serie because of that penalty, they lost it because they were missing their top 4 def.

Azalichio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 06:05 PM
  #20
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sXe
I fully understood the point. I happen to disagree and offered my own point of view.

There is a huge difference between icing and throwing the puck out of play (out of the ice surface where the game is played). The main one is that icing is not automatic everytime you throw the puck towards the other side but if you throw it towarsds the stands it prevents anyone from getting the puck before it crosses the line or your own player getting to it. A world of difference.
well...I dont think that missing the glass by 2" while trying to clear the puck is any different then accidentaly causing an icing. Also the glasses aren the same hight is every building wich adds to the problem.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 06:21 PM
  #21
sXe
Yuuuuuup!
 
sXe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk
well...I dont think that missing the glass by 2" while trying to clear the puck is any different then accidentaly causing an icing. Also the glasses aren the same hight is every building wich adds to the problem.
Glass height difference is a different issue but should be looked at.
Like I said the main difference is on one hand the puck stays on the ice with the players and on the other hand it leaves the ice where players can't follow.

It's like if a receiver in football could go over the sidelines 2" to make a TD since 2" is not that big of a difference, right?. Delay of game is justified, like pushing the net off it's moorings.

For the other poster, icing can be the result of a failed long pass and the referee can waive it off. It happened a couple of times last night.

sXe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 07:52 PM
  #22
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sXe
Glass height difference is a different issue but should be looked at.
Like I said the main difference is on one hand the puck stays on the ice with the players and on the other hand it leaves the ice where players can't follow.

It's like if a receiver in football could go over the sidelines 2" to make a TD since 2" is not that big of a difference, right?. Delay of game is justified, like pushing the net off it's moorings.
For the other poster, icing can be the result of a failed long pass and the referee can waive it off. It happened a couple of times last night.
When it's intentional....could you imagine giving a penalty each time the net went of its moorings?? That's what's happening with the puck in the stands rule.

And as for your football analogy...the football team dosent get a penalty for that.
There was an other footal comparaision with intetional grounding....well..that's cause it's intentional...there is not such thing as accidental grounding. That would be a fumble or something.

Delay of game penatlies should penalize the intention.

Heh...that just reminded me of one of the stupidest delay of game calls I have ever seen. It was when I was atom we were playing in a tournament. The NHL had a new rule it was something like where if a player froze the puck under his body there was a delay of game penalty. I'm not quite sure of the specifics of the rule tho...maybe some of you will remember it. Anyway right in front of our bench a kid from our team falls along the boards and breaks his clavicule. He's in pain lying on the ice on his back but the puck is under him. He got a 2 minute penalty for delay of game. The referee was prety young and I remember my father(he was the coach) going balistic over that call.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2006, 08:18 PM
  #23
x-bob
Registered User
 
x-bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,000
vCash: 500
It's an annoying penalty but a necessary one none the less.

x-bob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2006, 02:08 PM
  #24
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA via Montreal
Posts: 11,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sXe
Glass height difference is a different issue but should be looked at.
Like I said the main difference is on one hand the puck stays on the ice with the players and on the other hand it leaves the ice where players can't follow.

It's like if a receiver in football could go over the sidelines 2" to make a TD since 2" is not that big of a difference, right?. Delay of game is justified, like pushing the net off it's moorings.

For the other poster, icing can be the result of a failed long pass and the referee can waive it off. It happened a couple of times last night.
sXe, it is your turn to pick over at the All-time Habs mock draft...

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:08 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.