The 'delay of game' penalty needs a rethink...

[b in vancouver]

I think it was Hal gill who shot it down the ice during a pk and cleared the glass past the face off circle at the other end. That was a good one.

But I like that it's automatic.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

i would rather have the rule set up like it is now then leave it up to the discretion of the ref to determine if it was accidental or not. that would cause even more *****ing about the rule.
we would get, so and so did it on purpose and it wasnt called or it was a accident and it was called.
the officiating in this game is bad enough. i dont want them to have to make any more decisions that are in the grey area. I would call it the lesser of 2 evils the way the rule is set up now.

 

[skolgoar]

Someone this year had his stick checked slightly by a player while trying to play the puck and it went out. It was called delay of game despite the offender's stick being hit while he was playing the puck.

Stuff like the OP and the example I posted here are just ridiculous.

An example of a bad call and one where the ref actually has discretion and it was wrong. So you think the solution is to give the ref even more discretion?

 

[TheThunderYears]

This old thread. Funny, I've never seen anyone gripe about this rule after the delay of game was called in favor of their team thus giving them a power play. Personally, I have no problem with it. As has been stated, it's about making it harder for defenses by limiting options. Clearly, many delays are accidental. But, those accidents occur when forecheckers limit time and space just like turnovers, bad passes, etc. The rule is supposed to reward aggressive forechecking and punish uncontrolled exits from the defensive zone.

 

[LarryO]

It would still give them the stoppage they need.

And how is that any different from before the rule was implemented? The own zone face off would be a result of the stoppage occurring in the defending zone; not because it garners the same penalty as icing.

The difference is that they would not be allowed a line change.

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

An example of a bad call and one where the ref actually has discretion and it was wrong. So you think the solution is to give the ref even more discretion?

I'm not sure what the solution is. I think it might be preferable to just eliminate the rule altogether.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Half the time it isn't even a time issue, it's just bad luck. We've had a couple this year where the puck has kicked up just as he's gone to play it and it's sliced off into the stands. Not much a guy can do about that.

Or it's a penalty born out of a team forechecking aggressively and an unskilled player not handling it.

Anything that reward aggressiveness and penalizes unskilled panicked players is good.

 

[wintersej]

You don't want it to become part of teams defensive strategy, but normally its just a bad luck play. Give everyone a mulligan like the NBA used to do with illegal zone defense. You get one free, but then you get the same penalty you get now.

 

[Butch 19]

Just make it like icing, if you shoot it over no line change and face off in your zone. That way shooting it out doesn't give you any benefit.

But you've already got the benefit for stopping the pressure in your own defensive zone.

The idea is to punish you for stopping the game and to increase offense / scoring.

It's a good rule and it works. Period.

 

[Ezekial]

At least re-name it. The game is more "delayed" by replay challenges and guys spinning in circles grabbing each others' sweaters than it is by pucks going over the glass.

Why would they rename it?

They are suspending the time of play for their on benefit. They are delaying the progress of the game DURING THE PLAY.

 

[skolgoar]

The difference is that they would not be allowed a line change.

Gives the advantage to teams with good faceoff personnel (not necessarily bad). But even without that advantage, if your team is scrambling wouldn't you prefer to get a reset on a faceoff by shooting the puck out even if you are still using the same players?

 

[skolgoar]

Why would they rename it?

They are suspending the time of play for their on benefit. They are delaying the progress of the game DURING THE PLAY.

The name of the penalty is "Delay of Game, Puck Over Glass (POG)". Seems accurate to me, although a bit long. I guess it gets cut off a lot of the time.

 

[Ezekial]

The name of the penalty is "Delay of Game, Puck Over Glass (POG)". Seems accurate to me, although a bit long. I guess it gets cut off a lot of the time.

well there we go, I have no problem with the rule or the name.

 

[Sojourn]

Yes it does. It does everything to promote offense! Just a few games ago the Kings were shorthanded and Martinez shot the puck over the glass (certainly an accident). Another 2 min. penalty. Now a 5-on-3 PP. Az scored in the ensuing PP. You don't think the POG penalty promotes offense?!

The rule does exactly what it is supposed to do - promote offense / increase goals scored.



srsly?! Did you watch hockey before this rule? Dmen would routinely shoot 8 - 10+ pucks over the glass per game to stop the pressure / get a line change. It happened all the time.

Now I can watch several games in a row and NEVER see a POG.

Every player has changed the way they play because of this rule - even the goalies.

Yup. I think the rule does exactly what it was designed to accomplish. Prior to the rule being added, you could see the trend of players just chipping it over the glass to get the pressure off. I'm not sure I'd say it was rampant, but it was definitely on its way.

It sucks when you end up on the PK because of a rolling puck, but it applies to every team equally. It isn't some kind of unfair rule that hurts one team more than another. A defenseman can take the extra moment to settle the puck down, or they can take the risk of it going up and over the glass.