Some NHL penalties seem too harsh

[gilbert11]

There’s a couple of NHL penalties that really bug me as seeming to be too harsh

1. Accidentally shooting the puck over the glass-  why does that deserve a 2 minute penalty?  If a player was pissed about something and purposely fired the puck into the stands, then it makes sense.  Why is this so different from balls out of play in other sports?  These pucks aren’t made of gold that make them priceless.  Like at baseball games, they become souvenirs for fans.  The arena doesn’t send people into the stands to retrieve them.

 

Why is this delay of game?  Is it so hard to skate over to a bench for another puck?
 

When a player throws the ball out of bounds in a basketball game, it’s just a change of possession.  It’s not a technical foul that the opponent gets to shoot a free throw for.  
 

In NFL games, the only time there’s a penalty for the ball going out of bounds is on a kickoff, and I won’t discuss that any further here.

 A ball going out of play in a baseball game is just called a strike, not an out.  
 

Why does the NHL believe an accidental shooting of the puck out of play deserves a 2 minute penalty?

 

2. The other harsh penalty is again a 2 minute delay of game penalty for asking for a replay review and the call isn’t overturned.  To me, that’s just crazy.  For the NFL and NBA, they just gave teams more timeouts and if the call isn’t reversed, they lose a timeout.  I know that NHL teams don’t even use their timeouts in some games, so it wouldn’t be the same, but should this really be handled like an infraction that deserves a 2 minute penalty?  I don’t think so.

In Saturday’s Sabres’ game, the refs called for review about a half dozen times.  That was a delay of game, but there’s no way to penalize them.

 

I don’t know what could be an alternative punishment if the NHL believes they have to levy one on a team for these “infractions” but maybe they could break from tradition and create like 60 second or 30 second penalties.  Personally, though, I don’t see why either of these incidents need any punishment.

[#freejame]

Allow me to enlighten you on piece of Sabres history

 

[Archie Lee]

Pre-rule, I don’t recall there being an epidemic of players shooting the puck over the glass intentionally, but certainly it was the case that players did it purposefully to end pressure. Today, every player is able to flip a puck out of play at will. I think it would be happening a lot if there was no penalty. Since there is no way to definitively determine intention, this is what we have. 

Where I agree is on the level of punishment.  I have long thought that it is somewhat absurd that an accidental trip or hook or puck over the glass is the same 2 minutes as a violent infraction like charging or boarding or high-sticking (in most instances). I’ve wondered if it would be better to have certain penalties be only one minute. Or maybe “violent” penalties shouldn’t end when a goal is scored (you serve the full 2). Another option I’ve thought of is that maybe a PP that relates to a violent offence shouldn’t start with a faceoff but with the PP team having possession in the offensive zone. 

[Slack_in_MA]

11 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Pre-rule, I don’t recall there being an epidemic of players shooting the puck over the glass intentionally, but certainly it was the case that players did it purposefully to end pressure. Today, every player is able to flip a puck out of play at will. I think it would be happening a lot if there was no penalty. Since there is no way to definitively determine intention, this is what we have. 

Where I agree is on the level of punishment.  I have long thought that it is somewhat absurd that an accidental trip or hook or puck over the glass is the same 2 minutes as a violent infraction like charging or boarding or high-sticking (in most instances). I’ve wondered if it would be better to have certain penalties be only one minute. Or maybe “violent” penalties shouldn’t end when a goal is scored (you serve the full 2). Another option I’ve thought of is that maybe a PP that relates to a violent offence shouldn’t start with a faceoff but with the PP team having possession in the offensive zone. 

To the bolded, me too.

[LTS]

Shooting the puck over the glass happened all the time. It was laughable. It's good that there is a penalty for it, intentional or not.

I think it was around 2019-2020 that the coach's challenge rule was changed. Originally you could only challenge if you had a timeout and if you lost the challenge you lost the timeout.

If I recall there was a reluctance to challenge calls because they coach wanted to retain the timeout. Of course public can see the reviews and it was a bad look if the the calls should have been reviewed but weren't. So they adjusted it to allow the coach to have unlimited reviews but get a penalty if it was a failed challenge. I don't have a problem with the system, but I think it should only apply to offsides. A review to determine high-stick, glove, or goaltender interference on a goal should be part of the "good goal confirmation" that happens on each goal.  Coach's should not have to challenge those plays.

 

[PerreaultForever]

Yes, if there was no penalty it would become a tactic. Under pressure? Just fire it into the crowd, problem solved. 

The one thing I'd change there is the one where they blow the whistle if it goes off the netting. If it falls back into the ice surface why not play on? Sure, there'd be a few crazy bounces but that would just add to it imo. 

Coaches would use challenges as a tactic as well if they weren't penalties. It's an extra time out to give your team time to rest and regroup. 

I personally hate off side challenges. Some guy who maybe had nothing to do with the play is a micromillimeter over the line and a goal is disallowed after a 5 minute "what's going on" review. It's garbage. Just play. I'd make it so that only a clear and definite off side could reverse a call. Like maybe a guy is a foot over or more. Anything less and I'd allow it. 

[mjd1001]

Get rid of offsides totally....let it never be called because its not a rule anymore.

The only thing it does is remove offense.  If someone wants to 'goal hang' in your zone, let them, the defense has the option to have a D-man hang back with him or basically have the goal-hanger have one less player to defend in their own zone.  More excitement, more strategy, less play stoppages.  Eventually the coaches may adjust to it but when they do, we still get less stoppages and less challenges.

Edited November 10 by mjd1001

[shrader]

Goals scored during delayed penalties should not cancer out the penalty. It makes zero sense. 

[bob_sauve28]

2 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

Get rid of offsides totally....let it never be called because its not a rule anymore.

The only thing it does is remove offense.  If someone wants to 'goal hang' in your zone, let them, the defense has the option to have a D-man hang back with him or basically have the goal-hanger have one less player to defend in their own zone.  More excitement, more strategy, less play stoppages.  Eventually the coaches may adjust to it but when they do, we still get less stoppages and less challenges.

Love this idea! I’d just have it so if the defending players get puck out of zone then the offensive players need to

leave zone once, but after that they are free to go wherever they want. That would give defensive team a chance at a clear and regroup 

[SwampD]

9 hours ago, #freejame said:

Allow me to enlighten you on piece of Sabres history

 

That non call pisses me off to this day! Total *****!

[SwampD]

They don’t want lawsuits from injured fans if they injured. Money is the reason.

I love the penalty because there is no judgment on it. They either did it or not. They can get get it wrong sometimes, but at least it wasn’t up to them however they felt that night like that piece of garbage in the Pittsburgh game.

[#freejame]

10 minutes ago, SwampD said:

That non call pisses me off to this day! Total *****!

And the fact that he scores the winner in OT is the ultimate slap in the face. 

[SwampD]

45 minutes ago, #freejame said:

And the fact that he scores the winner in OT is the ultimate slap in the face. 

Yep. And even worse, you hear Gary Thorne say some BS about really trying to let the players determine the outcome. Um, They did, you jackass. The Sabres were pressing so hard there that Darius Hepatitis was forced into a stupid penalty, and that sh!thead ref let him off the hook. Way to stay neutral. And the beat goes on.

Edited November 10 by SwampD

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

Get rid of offsides totally....let it never be called because its not a rule anymore.

The only thing it does is remove offense.  If someone wants to 'goal hang' in your zone, let them, the defense has the option to have a D-man hang back with him or basically have the goal-hanger have one less player to defend in their own zone.  More excitement, more strategy, less play stoppages.  Eventually the coaches may adjust to it but when they do, we still get less stoppages and less challenges.

Oh hell no. The game would be nothing more than your ability to make a long stretch pass. 

The 2 line off side being removed already led to long passes but all the way into the O zone that'd be crazy. Would also mean no icings as your guy would be down there first. Think of it. Our strategy last year would have been "Skinner, you just stay down by the goal and we will try to get the puck to you quickly. You don't back check anyway, so just stay there." No way, it'd kill the game. 

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yes, if there was no penalty it would become a tactic. Under pressure? Just fire it into the crowd, problem solved. 

The one thing I'd change there is the one where they blow the whistle if it goes off the netting. If it falls back into the ice surface why not play on? Sure, there'd be a few crazy bounces but that would just add to it imo. 

Coaches would use challenges as a tactic as well if they weren't penalties. It's an extra time out to give your team time to rest and regroup. 

I personally hate off side challenges. Some guy who maybe had nothing to do with the play is a micromillimeter over the line and a goal is disallowed after a 5 minute "what's going on" review. It's garbage. Just play. I'd make it so that only a clear and definite off side could reverse a call. Like maybe a guy is a foot over or more. Anything less and I'd allow it. 

Personally, would like to see the offsides review remain, but give the refs/linesmen a 1 minute time limit (or maybe even 30 seconds or 40-45) to decide if it's onsides or not.  If they can't tell in that much time, then its "inconclusive" and the play stands as called.

The rule is there to take away blatent goal hanging and to force guys to actually play hockey to get scoring chances.  It isn't there to intentionally make a low scoring sport significantly even more low scoring.

[gilbert11]

11 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

Pre-rule, I don’t recall there being an epidemic of players shooting the puck over the glass intentionally, but certainly it was the case that players did it purposefully to end pressure. Today, every player is able to flip a puck out of play at will. I think it would be happening a lot if there was no penalty. Since there is no way to definitively determine intention, this is what we have. 

Where I agree is on the level of punishment.  I have long thought that it is somewhat absurd that an accidental trip or hook or puck over the glass is the same 2 minutes as a violent infraction like charging or boarding or high-sticking (in most instances). I’ve wondered if it would be better to have certain penalties be only one minute. Or maybe “violent” penalties shouldn’t end when a goal is scored (you serve the full 2). Another option I’ve thought of is that maybe a PP that relates to a violent offence shouldn’t start with a faceoff but with the PP team having possession in the offensive zone. 

Yes, they could do like the NFL with different times based on seriousness of infraction.

[SwampD]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yes, if there was no penalty it would become a tactic. Under pressure? Just fire it into the crowd, problem solved. 

The one thing I'd change there is the one where they blow the whistle if it goes off the netting. If it falls back into the ice surface why not play on? Sure, there'd be a few crazy bounces but that would just add to it imo. 

Coaches would use challenges as a tactic as well if they weren't penalties. It's an extra time out to give your team time to rest and regroup. 

I personally hate off side challenges. Some guy who maybe had nothing to do with the play is a micromillimeter over the line and a goal is disallowed after a 5 minute "what's going on" review. It's garbage. Just play. I'd make it so that only a clear and definite off side could reverse a call. Like maybe a guy is a foot over or more. Anything less and I'd allow it. 

Ugh, no. We already have arena football.

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

Get rid of offsides totally....let it never be called because its not a rule anymore.

The only thing it does is remove offense.  If someone wants to 'goal hang' in your zone, let them, the defense has the option to have a D-man hang back with him or basically have the goal-hanger have one less player to defend in their own zone.  More excitement, more strategy, less play stoppages.  Eventually the coaches may adjust to it but when they do, we still get less stoppages and less challenges.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with getting rid of the offsides rule. As you point out, there will be to many "goal hangers" if this basic rule was eliminated. It would in my opinion dramatically alter how the game is played. So my vote is a hard no!

[SABRES 0311]

19 hours ago, gilbert11 said:

There’s a couple of NHL penalties that really bug me as seeming to be too harsh

1. Accidentally shooting the puck over the glass-  why does that deserve a 2 minute penalty?  If a player was pissed about something and purposely fired the puck into the stands, then it makes sense.  Why is this so different from balls out of play in other sports?  These pucks aren’t made of gold that make them priceless.  Like at baseball games, they become souvenirs for fans.  The arena doesn’t send people into the stands to retrieve them.

 

Why is this delay of game?  Is it so hard to skate over to a bench for another puck?
 

When a player throws the ball out of bounds in a basketball game, it’s just a change of possession.  It’s not a technical foul that the opponent gets to shoot a free throw for.  
 

In NFL games, the only time there’s a penalty for the ball going out of bounds is on a kickoff, and I won’t discuss that any further here.

 A ball going out of play in a baseball game is just called a strike, not an out.  
 

Why does the NHL believe an accidental shooting of the puck out of play deserves a 2 minute penalty?

 

2. The other harsh penalty is again a 2 minute delay of game penalty for asking for a replay review and the call isn’t overturned.  To me, that’s just crazy.  For the NFL and NBA, they just gave teams more timeouts and if the call isn’t reversed, they lose a timeout.  I know that NHL teams don’t even use their timeouts in some games, so it wouldn’t be the same, but should this really be handled like an infraction that deserves a 2 minute penalty?  I don’t think so.

In Saturday’s Sabres’ game, the refs called for review about a half dozen times.  That was a delay of game, but there’s no way to penalize them.

 

I don’t know what could be an alternative punishment if the NHL believes they have to levy one on a team for these “infractions” but maybe they could break from tradition and create like 60 second or 30 second penalties.  Personally, though, I don’t see why either of these incidents need any punishment.

1. You are asking for way too much subjectivity from the refs.

2. All sports are governed by human refs/umps. Although the intent is for consistently accurate calls, technology is not meant to rule pace of play. Rather, it supplements the human governing of play when the human factor is completely incapable of the accurate calls. Hence, a team erroneously calling for the aid of technology that results in degrading the pace of play is a delay of the game itself.

There is no perfect system of rules which is why they are adjusted as the game evolves. Rules should not be used to force evolution which is what the dead puck era was.

[HomeyG]

Put netting around the whole rink. Play the puck off the netting. Offsides challenge is stupid. You have linesmen. If hey miss a call they are human. Play on

[Alaska John]

20 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yes, if there was no penalty it would become a tactic. Under pressure? Just fire it into the crowd, problem solved. 

The one thing I'd change there is the one where they blow the whistle if it goes off the netting. If it falls back into the ice surface why not play on? Sure, there'd be a few crazy bounces but that would just add to it imo. 

Coaches would use challenges as a tactic as well if they weren't penalties. It's an extra time out to give your team time to rest and regroup. 

I personally hate off side challenges. Some guy who maybe had nothing to do with the play is a micromillimeter over the line and a goal is disallowed after a 5 minute "what's going on" review. It's garbage. Just play. I'd make it so that only a clear and definite off side could reverse a call. Like maybe a guy is a foot over or more. Anything less and I'd allow it. 

As for offside challenges I would change the rule that the offside would negate a goal only if the goal was scored within, say, 30 seconds of the offside actually occurring.  That should be enough time for the defenders to clear the zone.  

I think a side benefit of the penalty for shooting the puck directly over the glass is that teams can actually get power plays in the third period.  For years it was a problem that officials would put their whistles away in the third period, particularly in close games.  Now, there's a no-arguing penalty, and that's more exciting.  Even better is that officials will actually call other penalties in the third period too.  All this is a good change in the game.  A penalty shoul be a penalty no matter when it happens.

 

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Alaska John said:

As for offside challenges I would change the rule that the offside would negate a goal only if the goal was scored within, say, 30 seconds of the offside actually occurring.  That should be enough time for the defenders to clear the zone.  

I think a side benefit of the penalty for shooting the puck directly over the glass is that teams can actually get power plays in the third period.  For years it was a problem that officials would put their whistles away in the third period, particularly in close games.  Now, there's a no-arguing penalty, and that's more exciting.  Even better is that officials will actually call other penalties in the third period too.  All this is a good change in the game.  A penalty shoul be a penalty no matter when it happens.

 

I don't want late game penalties myself. I enjoy late game mayhem when teams dig down. It starts to look like playoffs in a good game. Refs should stay out of that imo. 

The 30 second thing isn't a bad idea. I'd also let the refs have some discretion if a guy is slightly off side but not involved in the play. Sometime the guy streaking in goes to the goal or scores and it's waived off cause the guy way across the ice is an inch over. Seems like that could be allowed much like the glove today at the line. It hit the glove but they decided it wasn't directed so it was fine. 

Less challenges, less goals waived off overall is better. There's too many goalie interference calls as well imo.