Rule Changes

[hopeleslyobvious]

http://www.nhl.com/news/2006/02/261368.html

 

Two rule changes in effect for the rest of the season...Here are my thoughts:

 

1. I think it's good that they can finally measure the sticks in the shootout, but it looks like if you have someone you want to use an illegal stick, you can just have him take the second shot. Am I reading that wrong, or is the second shooter getting a free pass? Maybe it is just a typo?

 

2. I read this to give the refs discretion on pucks that take funny bounces. Anyone else reading it differently? I think this is definately a good rule change. I think they should go one step further and give the refs even more discretion. Maybe say that when the player shoots the puck over the glass from the defensive zone it is a penalty, unless there is conclusive evidence that the player did not intend to delay the game. This would make it a penalty 9 out of 10 times, but give the officials discretion in those freak situations when the puck just accidentally goes over the glass.

 

I remember several plays like this throughout the year in the NHL:

 

On the Penalty kill I believe Tallinder (maybe Lydman?) Shot the puck all the way down the ice, and it went over the glass all the way at the other end of the ice.

 

I don't like that a play like this is automatically a penalty (no matter what team it is on). I think the officials should be given some (not much) discretion on these plays.

[Taro T]

http://www.nhl.com/news/2006/02/261368.html

 

Two rule changes in effect for the rest of the season...Here are my thoughts:

 

1. I think it's good that they can finally measure the sticks in the shootout, but it looks like if you have someone you want to use an illegal stick, you can just have him take the second shot. Am I reading that wrong, or is the second shooter getting a free pass? Maybe it is just a typo?

 

2. I read this to give the refs discretion on pucks that take funny bounces. Anyone else reading it differently? I think this is definately a good rule change. I think they should go one step further and give the refs even more discretion. Maybe say that when the player shoots the puck over the glass from the defensive zone it is a penalty, unless there is conclusive evidence that the player did not intend to delay the game. This would make it a penalty 9 out of 10 times, but give the officials discretion in those freak situations when the puck just accidentally goes over the glass.

 

I remember several plays like this throughout the year in the NHL:

 

On the Penalty kill I believe Tallinder (maybe Lydman?) Shot the puck all the way down the ice, and it went over the glass all the way at the other end of the ice.

 

I don't like that a play like this is automatically a penalty (no matter what team it is on). I think the officials should be given some (not much) discretion on these plays.

1. On the radio they said the 2nd shooter's stick is measured during the 1st shooter's shot, so I am assuming that was simply missed in what was posted on the NHL's site.

 

2. I don't think bounces figure into the delay of game penalty as the automatic delay of game is only supposed to occur when the puck is shot out without touching anything else before going over the glass. My guess is that it was put in place to cover your Tallinder / Lydman example and only pucks that are fired out over the defensive zone glass will get the automatic delay of game and refs will have discretion for pucks launched from the defensive zone that go out cleanly in the neutral / offensive zones.

 

Considering in a Game 7 of a playoff series Kasparitis was given "the benefit of the doubt" when he grabbed the puck and THREW it over the boards and got no penalty, I don't want the refs to be given any discretion on pucks that go out cleanly in the defensive zone.

[hopeleslyobvious]

1. On the radio they said the 2nd shooter's stick is measured during the 1st shooter's shot, so I am assuming that was simply missed in what was posted on the NHL's site.

 

2. I don't think bounces figure into the delay of game penalty as the automatic delay of game is only supposed to occur when the puck is shot out without touching anything else before going over the glass. My guess is that it was put in place to cover your Tallinder / Lydman example and only pucks that are fired out over the defensive zone glass will get the automatic delay of game and refs will have discretion for pucks launched from the defensive zone that go out cleanly in the neutral / offensive zones.

 

Considering in a Game 7 of a playoff series Kasparitis was given "the benefit of the doubt" when he grabbed the puck and THREW it over the boards and got no penalty, I don't want the refs to be given any discretion on pucks that go out cleanly in the defensive zone.

 

I might be wrong, but I was pretty sure it was a penalty if it hit the glass and went over, as long as it didn't hit another player...but I could be wrong.

 

Yeah, that is the downside to discretion...That's why I want to go with a standard that assumes it's a penalty, unless it is obviously clear that the player wasn't trying to delay the game. But that's probably wishful thinking.

[Rabbit151]

Yes, I agree with the discretion angle. As soon as you start with the "ref's discretion" thing, you may as well get ready for the old grab and tackle techniques employed by so many teams in the recent past.

Discretion is a word that should not even appear in the rule book. Call the penalty. Last night's Leaf game had a bit of both. I mainly saw the ref call it by the book in the final 5 minutes of the game. I was quite impressed that he called some minor hooking infractions on the Leafs in the late going. A couple of years ago in a close game, the whistle would have been put away. However, I did see a puck shot over the glass that they said was touched by a Capital on the way out. The replay didn't show that.

 

Speaking of the Leafs though, they whine and complain about all the penalty calls, but they are like dumb junk-yard dogs. They don't learn!! I don't know if it's poor coaching or what, but in today's NHL it is so important to keep your feet moving. On the very next face-off after a little, lazy hooking call the Leafs were bitchin' about, I saw the Caps win the draw and one of the wingers take off to the net. The Leaf defender didn't skate with him, he planted his feet and stuck the stick in the Cap players jersey to hold him up.

I just shook my head. Is that poor coaching? They need to show that guy ( I think it was Kilger ) the film of that the next day and fix the problem.

[shrader]

Quinn's a dinosaur. Toronto will never fix their problems as long as he's behind the bench.

[Taro T]

I might be wrong, but I was pretty sure it was a penalty if it hit the glass and went over, as long as it didn't hit another player...but I could be wrong.

 

Yeah, that is the downside to discretion...That's why I want to go with a standard that assumes it's a penalty, unless it is obviously clear that the player wasn't trying to delay the game. But that's probably wishful thinking.

If it hits the glass before going out, it is "deflected", thus no automatic penalty.

 

Rule 51(a) (NOTE 1) When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. When the puck is shot into the players' bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass 'behind' the players' bench, the penalty will be assessed.

 

Quinn's a dinosaur. Toronto will never fix their problems as long as he's behind the bench.

And this is a bad thing because ... ?

[hopeleslyobvious]

If it hits the glass before going out, it is "deflected", thus no automatic penalty.

 

My mistake.

[shrader]

And this is a bad thing because ... ?

 

Just stating the obvious, that's all.