Know your NHL rule book!

[Stoner]

Another rule situation that caught my eye came in the third period when Miller skated way out to beat a Ranger to the puck and shot the puck into the Buffalo bench.

 

Rule 63 – Delaying the Game

A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed on any player

who deliberately shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck

outside the playing area (from anywhere on the ice surface) during the

play or after a stoppage of play.

 

"Deliberately" is the key word.

[Eleven]

Another rule situation that caught my eye came in the third period when Miller skated way out to beat a Ranger to the puck and shot the puck into the Buffalo bench.

 

Rule 63 – Delaying the Game

A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed on any player

who deliberately shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck

outside the playing area (from anywhere on the ice surface) during the

play or after a stoppage of play.

 

"Deliberately" is the key word.

 

A few friends and I were wondering why the automatic (intent not considered) penalty for shooting the puck out of the rink from the defensive zone was not assessed. Here's our answer (also Rule 63):

 

When any player or goalkeeper, 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.

[Stoner]

A few friends and I were wondering why the automatic (intent not considered) penalty for shooting the puck out of the rink from the defensive zone was not assessed. Here's our answer (also Rule 63):

 

When any player or goalkeeper, 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.

 

This is a classic example where we see the cobbling together of the rule book over time. The section you quote follows the section I quoted. So the new rule contains an exception that directly contradicts an existing rule. There's a real logical disconnect between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.

[Eleven]

This is a classic example where we see the cobbling together of the rule book over time. The section you quote follows the section I quoted. So the new rule contains an exception that directly contradicts an existing rule. There's a real logical disconnect between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.

 

No, they're logically consistent. A player shooting the puck out of the rink from his defensive zone (except into the bench): automatic 2 minutes. I think this is a post-lockout rule. I believe there always was a similar rule that applied to goaltenders only.

 

A player doing the same thing from anywhere else: penalty only if it's deliberate (discretionary). This always was the rule, but it wasn't always applied.

[Stoner]

No, they're logically consistent. A player shooting the puck out of the rink from his defensive zone (except into the bench): automatic 2 minutes. I think this is a post-lockout rule. I believe there always was a similar rule that applied to goaltenders only.

 

A player doing the same thing from anywhere else: penalty only if it's deliberate (discretionary). This always was the rule, but it wasn't always applied.

 

The two rules CAN be logically consistent. You have made them so. All this proves is that you should be rewriting the rulebook. Maybe there's some stimulus money available to fund it.

[Stoner]

Kevin Sylvester writes on sabres.com today:

 

"Patrick Kaleta was penalized for boarding against the Devils. It was a bad call. The hit was clearly shoulder to shoulder...."

 

Is he right?

[Mbossy]

Kevin Sylvester writes on sabres.com today:

 

"Patrick Kaleta was penalized for boarding against the Devils. It was a bad call. The hit was clearly shoulder to shoulder...."

 

Is he right?

 

That hit was one that Thornton gets away with all the time.

[Taro T]

Kevin Sylvester writes on sabres.com today:

 

"Patrick Kaleta was penalized for boarding against the Devils. It was a bad call. The hit was clearly shoulder to shoulder...."

 

Is he right?

No. You can easily send an opponent "violently" into the boards from a s-t-s hit.

 

EDIT: I didn't see the hit, so I don't know if it was boarding or not. The comment was on the KS comment.

[carpandean]

Kevin Sylvester writes on sabres.com today:

 

"Patrick Kaleta was penalized for boarding against the Devils. It was a bad call. The hit was clearly shoulder to shoulder...."

 

Is he right?

Even the Versus announcers said that was a bad call.

[Stoner]

Even the Versus announcers said that was a bad call.

 

Why do you (they) say that? I didn't see the hit.

 

Taro, that's what I was looking for. You can also violently check someone arse-first into the boards. I think KS is getting boarding and checking from behind mixed up. Checking from behind can take place anywhere on the ice.

[Stoner]

A variation of the controversy from the Canucks game that could have been very interesting:

 

What if Fraser had let Gaustad's contact with the Canuck go, and the puck sat free in the crease instead of going in; and as the Canuck wiped out the net, Gaustad shot the puck, which crossed the goal line after the net was dislodged?

 

And same scenario, what if said shot hit the dislodged net, preventing it from crossing the goal line?

[LabattBlue]

I have a rule book question for you Mr. QuizMaster as I am too lazy to look it up...

 

Several times this year after a penalty, I have seen the next faceoff in the neutral zone instead of inside the zone of the team that took the penalty? Why?

[wjag]

I have a rule book question for you Mr. QuizMaster as I am too lazy to look it up...

 

Several times this year after a penalty, I have seen the next faceoff in the neutral zone instead of inside the zone of the team that took the penalty? Why?

Shark!

[shrader]

Here's one that has bugged me a bit recently. It's not a quiz like PA's been doing, just a general "get you thinking" question. So when a goal is scored on a delayed penalty, the penalty is wiped out. Why doesn't this count as a powerplay goal? Better yet, why is the penalty wiped out anyway?

[spndnchz]

Here's one that has bugged me a bit recently. It's not a quiz like PA's been doing, just a general "get you thinking" question. So when a goal is scored on a delayed penalty, the penalty is wiped out. Why doesn't this count as a powerplay goal? Better yet, why is the penalty wiped out anyway?

 

While not called a powerplay, it is when it comes to someone going to the penalty box. Delayed penalty and you score, it negates the penalty. NFS.

 

What is the situation where there is a delayed penalty, you score, and the other teams player still goes to the penalty box?

[Taro T]

A variation of the controversy from the Canucks game that could have been very interesting:

 

What if Fraser had let Gaustad's contact with the Canuck go, and the puck sat free in the crease instead of going in; and as the Canuck wiped out the net, Gaustad shot the puck, which crossed the goal line after the net was dislodged?

 

And same scenario, what if said shot hit the dislodged net, preventing it from crossing the goal line?

1st scenario used to be a gray area, I believe the rule has been adjusted but not positive of that. So I'll go back to the way the rule was; if the defender knocked the net off intentionally while the shot was being taken, then it would still be a goal. If the net wasn't knocked off intentionally, then it wouldn't be a goal.

 

2nd scenario would be no goal - net was dislodged prior to shot being taken.

I have a rule book question for you Mr. QuizMaster as I am too lazy to look it up...

 

Several times this year after a penalty, I have seen the next faceoff in the neutral zone instead of inside the zone of the team that took the penalty? Why?

Because the D of the pp team came in below the faceoff circles after the whistle. That moves the offensive zone faceoff back into the neutral zone.

Here's one that has bugged me a bit recently. It's not a quiz like PA's been doing, just a general "get you thinking" question. So when a goal is scored on a delayed penalty, the penalty is wiped out. Why doesn't this count as a powerplay goal? Better yet, why is the penalty wiped out anyway?

No pp because both sides have equal # of players on the ice. Penalty wiped out because you only get 1 goal per minor powerplay.

 

While not called a powerplay, it is when it comes to someone going to the penalty box. Delayed penalty and you score, it negates the penalty. NFS.

 

What is the situation where there is a delayed penalty, you score, and the other teams player still goes to the penalty box?

It would be either the team was already on the powerplay, in which case the 1st penalty (already being served) is wiped out or a major penalty was called. (There is no limit to how many goals can be scored on a major penalty.)

[LabattBlue]

Because the D of the pp team came in below the faceoff circles after the whistle. That moves the offensive zone faceoff back into the neutral zone.

Thx! You should come around more often! :D

[shrader]

No pp because both sides have equal # of players on the ice. Penalty wiped out because you only get 1 goal per minor powerplay.

 

But since it's not a powerplay, a delayed penalty should not be wiped out by a goal. When that happens, record-wise, the penalty never actually happened. The rule about when there's already someone in the box and a goal is scored on a delayed penalty directly contradicts the 5-on-5 situation. It doesn't make any sense to me.

[spndnchz]

But since it's not a powerplay, a delayed penalty should not be wiped out by a goal. When that happens, record-wise, the penalty never actually happened. The rule about when there's already someone in the box and a goal is scored on a delayed penalty directly contradicts the 5-on-5 situation. It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

When the goal is scored it "releases" the player with the least amount of time left on their penalty. If someone is in the box and the team is scored on, the player in the box leaves and the new player enters. With a delayed call and no one in the box the player on the ice that got the penalty gets to "leave". It comes down to IMO that when a delayed call is out there you have a chance to score with almost no chance of one going in your net.

[wjag]

 

 

 

No pp because both sides have equal # of players on the ice. Penalty wiped out because you only get 1 goal per minor powerplay.

 

 

 

 

:doh:

[Stoner]

1st scenario used to be a gray area, I believe the rule has been adjusted but not positive of that. So I'll go back to the way the rule was; if the defender knocked the net off intentionally while the shot was being taken, then it would still be a goal. If the net wasn't knocked off intentionally, then it wouldn't be a goal.

 

2nd scenario would be no goal - net was dislodged prior to shot being taken.

 

The current rule states that if a defending player intentionally or accidentally dislodges the net, a goal can be awarded if the shot was taken or was in the process of being taken before the net was dislodged, and it can be determined that the puck would have entered the net had it not been dislodged.

 

So I wonder in my hypothetical scenario if the Canuck, who had not been fouled, would be deemed to have accidentally dislodged the net.

 

The second scenario is the same as the first (shot comes before the net is dislodged) -- except I have the puck hitting the dislodged net, which prevents it from crossing the goal line.

 

I am guessing scenario 1 is not a goal. Wouldn't a player have to make some coherent move to accidentally dislodge the net, not just hurtle into it?

 

Scenario 2 has to be a goal, I would think.

[Taro T]

But since it's not a powerplay, a delayed penalty should not be wiped out by a goal. When that happens, record-wise, the penalty never actually happened. The rule about when there's already someone in the box and a goal is scored on a delayed penalty directly contradicts the 5-on-5 situation. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Many years ago (early '90's) when a team was on the powerplay and the opponent took another penalty so there was a delayed penalty called as well, a powerplay goal would wipe out BOTH penalties.

 

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about the current rule. If the non-infractors maintain their advantage by not losing the puck immediately, they get rewarded for that and get to keep control of the puck w/ only minimal possibility of being scored on and if they don't score before the defensive team can cause a play stoppage they still get their entire 2:00 pp. In essense, they get a pp+. Since only 1 goal can be scored on a minor pp, the pp+ ends when a goal is scored.

 

Statistics wise, it's very similar to when a team scores on the pp just after the other player gets out of the box but before he's entered the play. In reality, it's a pp goal, but statistically it was even strength.

[Taro T]

The current rule states that if a defending player intentionally or accidentally dislodges the net, a goal can be awarded if the shot was taken or was in the process of being taken before the net was dislodged, and it can be determined that the puck would have entered the net had it not been dislodged.

 

So I wonder in my hypothetical scenario if the Canuck, who had not been fouled, would be deemed to have accidentally dislodged the net.

 

The second scenario is the same as the first (shot comes before the net is dislodged) -- except I have the puck hitting the dislodged net, which prevents it from crossing the goal line.

 

I am guessing scenario 1 is not a goal. Wouldn't a player have to make some coherent move to accidentally dislodge the net, not just hurtle into it?

 

Scenario 2 has to be a goal, I would think.

Does it? In 78.5.x the rule states a goal will be waived off when the "net becomes displaced accidentally." (I wouldn't be surprised if a different rule uses the wording you quote, but 78.5.x contradicts your wording.)

[spndnchz]

I have a rule book question for you Mr. QuizMaster as I am too lazy to look it up...

 

Several times this year after a penalty, I have seen the next faceoff in the neutral zone instead of inside the zone of the team that took the penalty? Why?

 

If during the period of a delayed whistle due to a foul by a player of the side not in possession, the side in possession “ices” the puck, then the face-off following the stoppage of play shall take place in the neutral zone near the defending blue line of the team icing the puck.

[Stoner]

Does it? In 78.5.x the rule states a goal will be waived off when the "net becomes displaced accidentally." (I wouldn't be surprised if a different rule uses the wording you quote, but 78.5.x contradicts your wording.)

 

63.6 Awarded Goal - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either

deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck

crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts,

the Referee may award a goal.

In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have

been displaced by the actions a defending player, the puck must have

been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal

prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that

the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of

the goal posts.

 

78.5 also says a goal is disallowed (i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an

attacking player other than with a stick.

 

But you can direct the puck in with a skate.

 

I've said it before. The NHL Rule Book is a mess.