Delay of Game

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from zamboni24. Show zamboni24's posts

    Delay of Game

    Last night -- Canes up by one goal in 3rd period. Two conseutive Delay of Game penalties -- the usual -- totally accidental in nature. Score was tied at the time and Rangers go ahead via a 5 on 3 PP goal with less than 3 minutes remaing.

    Further proof that they need some kind of one time freebie -- a singe mulligan of sorts per game. This current dopy rule negated a stellar performance by Khudobin.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from wallydouglas. Show wallydouglas's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to zamboni24's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Last night -- Canes up by one goal in 3rd period. Two conseutive Delay of Game penalties -- the usual -- totally accidental in nature. Score was tied at the time and Rangers go ahead via a 5 on 3 PP goal with less than 3 minutes remaing.

    Further proof that they need some kind of one time freebie -- a singe mulligan of sorts per game. This current dopy rule negated a stellar performance by Khudobin.

    [/QUOTE]


    I never liked that rule simply because its less than 10 percent intentional. As far as im concerned when your already down a man, that rule should be thrown out or at least refs discrestion as to intent or not.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    This is what we see, but think back to before the rule.  Clearing the glass was very common in order to stop play.  That doesn't happen anymore. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    It should be at the discretion of the officials.  Yes there will be controversial calls but less egregious as the accidental clearings labeled as delay of game.  I like the human factor.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from zamboni24. Show zamboni24's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is what we see, but think back to before the rule.  Clearing the glass was very common in order to stop play.  That doesn't happen anymore. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No doubt -- the rule is indeed serving it's purpose. A simple tweek may just make it better. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from KMCI. Show KMCI's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    Mon was famous for this back in  the day. Leave this rule in

     

    GOAT!!!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to wallydouglas' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I never liked that rule simply because its less than 10 percent intentional. As far as im concerned when your already down a man, that rule should be thrown out or at least refs discrestion as to intent or not.

    [/QUOTE]

    Its only 10% intentional because there is a 2 minute penalty if you shoot the puck over the glass.Just imagine if that penalty was taken out,every team in touble in their own end,tired,player without a stick,killing a penalty etc, would simply shoot it over the glass.The team can then change lines,get a new stick etc.It has its purpose even though it has stung the B's in the past.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    i think the rule is working just fine.  the 10% comment really drives that home.  

    isn't it a bit ironic that referee's will instinctively...without hesitation, make this call in a tie game with only a couple minutes remaining, yet in the exact same instance feel compelled to ignore a blatant penalty on a scoring play, so the "players can decide it".

    if all of the rules were applied this consistently...the game would not regress.  it would move forward substantially.

    the human factor should  apply only to those things, the referee "misses".  

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    I like the rule for the reason that it has stopped the tactic of intentionally throwing the puck into the stands. But maybe a 2 minute penalty is overkill. Maybe a minute would be more appropriate.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    I think the rule is fine also with one exception.

    The rule should only apply when the puck is shot over the glass from the ice surface.

    When it's slapped at in mid-air and goes over I don't think the rule should be applied.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think the rule is fine also with one exception.

    The rule should only apply when the puck is shot over the glass from the ice surface.

    When it's slapped at in mid-air and goes over I don't think the rule should be applied.

    [/QUOTE]

    That would be an excellent change.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    I had the same thought after watching Hamilton whack it over the glass, but figured it was just grumpiness at the Bruins taking that penalty.  It seems like it must be such a rare, rare occurance though.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i think the rule is working just fine.  the 10% comment really drives that home.  

    isn't it a bit ironic that referee's will instinctively...without hesitation, make this call in a tie game with only a couple minutes remaining, yet in the exact same instance feel compelled to ignore a blatant penalty on a scoring play, so the "players can decide it".

    if all of the rules were applied this consistently...the game would not regress.  it would move forward substantially.

    the human factor should  apply only to those things, the referee "misses".  

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree on truly blatant penalties, though diving and a culture shift in the game that has taken a lot of emphasis off of "fighting through checks" make it very difficult for referrees to distinguish blatant from spectacular (if you know what I mean).  I still can't get over the 5 and a game for...De Quincey? A Detroit D anyway...for the barest nudge in the small of the back of a player who was hunched over the puck along the boards using his "vulnerable position" as a way to protect the puck.  It was a push by a guy standing still.  The other player rocketed off the boards like a racquetball.  I hate erring on the side of the penalty even more than I hate the accidental automatic over the boards call, and, more to the point, there's so rarely proof of a foul equal to not having a puck to play with.

    More important to me in this context is that a penalty is a penalty is a penalty.  If you give the Scabs five first period PPs on tickytack crapola, and they go up 3-0, then "letting 'em play" with 10 to go in the third only makes it easier for the Scabs to hold the lead. Call it the same way for 60 or 65 minutes.  Call dives.  Call holding the stick.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:[QUOTE] This is what we see, but think back to before the rule.  Clearing the glass was very common in order to stop play.  That doesn't happen anymore. [/QUOTE]


    Agree it was to much of a defense mechanism and halted play way too much. Can't go back to that.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    why not treat it like icing the puck? lofting the puck over the glass a few times a game is easier to live with than changing the entire complextion of a game with undeserved power plays.  some icings are intentional/some not but they are both delaying the game are they not? icing... play stops... players skate the length of the ice... faceoff. player lifts the puck over the glass... faceoff stays in that zone for the offensive team. this is less of a delay that icing. wasn't this the case before the new delay rule was implemented? this is an all or none rule... it's impossible for an official to gauge intent. therefore... lose the delay over the glass penalty entirely.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think the rule is fine also with one exception.

    The rule should only apply when the puck is shot over the glass from the ice surface.

    When it's slapped at in mid-air and goes over I don't think the rule should be applied.

    [/QUOTE]

    Great idea and easily changed at the BOG meetings.I don't think its on the agenda though.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    I think the rule is fine also with one exception.

    The rule should only apply when the puck is shot over the glass from the ice surface.

    When it's slapped at in mid-air and goes over I don't think the rule should be applied.



    I agree.....but there's still going to instances like this. This is done blantantly on purpose. FF to 0:15.  

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRhj8JyT3P8

    I think it's absolutely stupid to have an elbow to the head listed as a discretionary call & the over the glass & trapazoid an automatic! I mean even icing's are at the discretion of the officials now. It's dumb! 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    why not treat it like icing the puck? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Makes sense, though, as the Keystone Panthers proved, teams still use icing as a technique to bog the game down then they're under seige.  The new no-change provision is a way to balance out the penalty with the reward, but it's still an option if you're Florida and getting ground to paste.  So you'd have to have no change on this as well.  And who knows, they might need to go farther with icing, right?  Second icing without a change in between is a 2 minute penalty.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    why not treat it like icing the puck? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Makes sense, though, as the Keystone Panthers proved, teams still use icing as a technique to bog the game down then they're under seige.  The new no-change provision is a way to balance out the penalty with the reward, but it's still an option if you're Florida and getting ground to paste.  So you'd have to have no change on this as well.  And who knows, they might need to go farther with icing, right?  Second icing without a change in between is a 2 minute penalty.

    [/QUOTE]

    But their not allowed to change lines,so if the players are tired and the team feels the need to call a timeout to rest them this is penalty enough imo,the timeout used for this could've been hany in a tight game late in the game.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    The other way of looking at this is that it makes what has long been considered the least skilled play in hockey - bang it off the glass and out - more of a skill play.  Not, you know, being the distributor on the powerplay, but more.  Miss low, the puck might not get out.  Miss high, you take a penalty.  You have several feet of glass in between to shoot for, but here comes Lucic or Brown or Oshie or whoever on the forecheck.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    why would slapping it out of mid-air make a difference? goals are routinely scored in this manner... were they "accidental" goals? what if the puck is on edge? my point is, intent is very difficult  to judge. i say forget what the puck is doing (in air, bouncing), and have there be a proximity rule. if an opposing player is within your 8-10 ft radius when you lift the puck out... penalty for delay. if nobody is within 10 feet... let it go, he was clearly not pressured into making the delay penalty. again... this would be quite difficult to judge in a lot of cases. those are the penalties that are not in the spirit of the rule... nobody near a guy, and he gets a delay penalty... doesn't make sense.   

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The other way of looking at this is that it makes what has long been considered the least skilled play in hockey - bang it off the glass and out - more of a skill play.  Not, you know, being the distributor on the powerplay, but more.  Miss low, the puck might not get out.  Miss high, you take a penalty.  You have several feet of glass in between to shoot for, but here comes Lucic or Brown or Oshie or whoever on the forecheck.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yikes! For sure,make the prudent,safe,efficient play quickly or get pancaked,not much fun and when your in a high pressure game the spotlight falls brightly on any mistake. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    why would slapping it out of mid-air make a difference? goals are routinely scored in this manner... were they "accidental" goals? what if the puck is on edge? my point is, intent is very difficult  to judge. i say forget what the puck is doing (in air, bouncing), and have there be a proximity rule. if an opposing player is within your 8-10 ft radius when you lift the puck out... penalty for delay. if nobody is within 10 feet... let it go, he was clearly not pressured into making the delay penalty. again... this would be quite difficult to judge in a lot of cases. those are the penalties that are not in the spirit of the rule... nobody near a guy, and he gets a delay penalty... doesn't make sense.   

    [/QUOTE]

    This would be the 10% mentioned earlier.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheGuyWithDaThing. Show TheGuyWithDaThing's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    Should be a judgement call. If the player tries to shoot the puck off the glass and it goes over, then yes, it's a penalty all day.

    If it's swatted, takes a crazy course because the puck was on edge, etc.....leave it up to the officials. No way should Dougie have gone to the box the other night for swatting a puck.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from KMCI. Show KMCI's posts

    Re: Delay of Game

    Hateful to recieve but all u have to do is hit glass so smarten to fup.  It was done away with because the shabs were famous for their crowd flip in the playoffs. A flip at the right time with tv timeout lets teams under pressure regroup.  It was a definite delay of game that was never called.  Lat year or year before the B's received a second pen for delay of game for staying behind the net when they were shorthanded, now that was shtupid.

    Always talking hockey smarts use them.

     

    GOAT!!!

     

Share