What was the rule you struggled without the most?

[nbwingsfan]

The extra line is a great rule when you turn 40 years old.

Nah, I plan on parking myself at the opposition blue line and being a complete liability to my team at that point

 

[Summer Rose]

I struggle with what happens if a team commits a penalty down 5 on 3.

For instance, Perry gets penalized. Five seconds later, Draisaitl gets a penalty. Fifteen seconds later McDavid commits an infraction.

Does the ref call the play dead when McDavid touches the puck. Or, is McDavid allowed on the ice until Perry's penalty expires. Then, McDavid goes to the box?

I've never seen it happen live.

Normal delayed penalty rules (i.e. play would get whistled down when the Oilers touched up), then McDavid would go to the box. However, the time on his penalty wouldn't start counting until Perry's penalty expires. Perry does not leave the box upon the expiration of his penalty, so it remains 5 on 3.

If there's a stoppage in play between the end of Perry's penalty and the end of Draisaitl's penalty, then Perry can leave the box, and now it's just a normal 5 on 3 with Draisaitl and McDavid in the box. If play is continuous between the end of Perry's penalty until the end of Draisaitl's penalty, Perry can leave the box. The process repeats with Draisaitl and McDavid's penalty.

Basically the principle of the matter is that if you take a penalty when you're already two men down, you get another 2 minutes tacked on to being down 2 guys. It's quite rare, because refs are already so scared of calling a penalty that would put a team down 2 guys in the first place, and it's even worse if they're already down 2 guys. If you're killing off a 5 on 3 you can pretty much get away with murder, but don't you dare put the puck over the glass!

 

[PistolPete]

This makes too much sense. Game 1's OT goal was decided off an obvious accidental. That shouldnt happen. I get deterring defenders from doing it on purpose, but maybe 1 is icing/cant change and 2 for that specific player in the same game is a penalty.

Accidental shouldn't happen. If it does, it's not so much accidental as careless and careless play should be penalized the same as intentional.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

Nah, I plan on parking myself at the opposition blue line and being a complete liability to my team at that point

So you are gonna Michkov it. I feel ya!

 

[Summer Rose]

Yup. I get it, it needs to be a thing so tired defenders dont get a free pass, but then make it the same as icing and if player A does it twice in a row, its a delay of game penalty.

Nocek in game 1 OT wher Draisaitl scored soon after is the example. A great game decided by an accident.

But what if there was a high stick that was a complete accident? Same concept.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Delay of game. Stupid that a legit accident causes a game to be decided. Refs can make a judgment call live if they think a dude air mailed it on purpose.

To be fair, most penalties are accidental. Players rarely purposely trip, hook, high stick, or slash opponents or have too many men on the ice, etc. It’s best if the refs have as little discretion as possible.

 

[PistolPete]

Eh... I disagree slightly. It's kind of weird. I mean, I understand it by now, but I still think it's weird.

I've often wondered why they never used lines for purposes of offside.

That's how hockey made it easier to allow forward passing in a given zone (and then across zones).

 

[geebster]

I think its probably the no trolling rule on HFBoards.

 

[Fig]

I don't recall offside being hard to understand, but delayed offside was a bit confusing. Same as the too many men penalty with how bad and lax some changes are.

 

[geebster]

I don't recall offside being hard to understand, but delayed offside was a bit confusing. Same as the too many men penalty with how bad and lax some changes are.

Yeah it depends on if you played or not. Having played soccer and hockey growing up offside just made sense. I can't remember what rule confused me but it may have just been where faceoffs go (back then there were a lot more spots they could be and shots off the crossbar and out were taken out of the zone etc).

Every sport has weird rules though. I know when explaining to other people offside is the hardest one for them to get

 

[landy]

But what if there was a high stick that was a complete accident? Same concept.

Accidental shouldn't happen. If it does, it's not so much accidental as careless and careless play should be penalized the same as intentional.

100% high sticking should be looked at and cleaned up. As well as the fake blood rule that isnt a rule. In the rulebook, its something like refs discretion if its a serious injury that all of a sudden magically turned into blood or no blood.

It happens on 99% of current puck over glass calls.

 

[PistolPete]

Why doesn't the NHL allow play to continue when the puck hits the betting? If it hits the glass they don't stop playing.

There is already a rule for touching the puck with a high stick n place so what's the issue?

 

[Summer Rose]

Why doesn't the NHL allow play to continue when the puck hits the betting? If it hits the glass they don't stop playing.

There is already a rule for touching the puck with a high stick n place so what's the issue?

The netting is defined as out of play, dating from before it was mandatory at all arenas (poor Brittanie Cecil ). I mean, I don't really see a reason to keep it defined as being out of play, but at the same time I don't really see a reason to change the rule to define the netting as in play.

 

[PistolPete]

100% high sticking should be looked at and cleaned up. As well as the fake blood rule that isnt a rule. In the rulebook, its something like refs discretion if its a serious injury that all of a sudden magically turned into blood or no blood.

It happens on 99% of current puck over glass calls.

Did you watch hockey before the rule was put in place?

 

[PistolPete]

The netting is defined as out of play, dating from before it was mandatory at all arenas (poor Brittanie Cecil ). I mean, I don't really see a reason to keep it defined as being out of play, but at the same time I don't really see a reason to change the rule to define the netting as in play.

It would reduce stoppages per game by about a half dozen or more and I'm a proponent of reducing stoppages to the greatest extent possible.

 

[Fig]

Yeah it depends on if you played or not. Having played soccer and hockey growing up offside just made sense. I can't remember what rule confused me but it may have just been where faceoffs go (back then there were a lot more spots they could be and shots off the crossbar and out were taken out of the zone etc).

Every sport has weird rules though. I know when explaining to other people offside is the hardest one for them to get

Where faceoffs should go confused me as well. The other was the trapezoid rule. I wondered why they would do that because then goalies wouldn't bother leaving the net (which I guess was the point).

Difficult to explain wise... "Why is fighting allowed/part of the game if it's a penalty?"

 

[PistolPete]

Where faceoffs should go confused me as well. The other was the trapezoid rule. I wondered why they would do that because then goalies wouldn't bother leaving the net (which I guess was the point).

Difficult to explain wise... "Why is fighting allowed/part of the game if it's a penalty?"

Since it's a penalty it's technically not allowed.

They just don't eject players.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I still don't know how they determine where a faceoff will happen other than centre ice for a goal and start of the period.

 

[Fig]

Since it's a penalty it's technically not allowed.

They just don't eject players.

Moreso...
"Teammates usually gets angry when the other penalties happen, but for fighting, everyone is kinda excited."
"Yeah... stop asking. It's just part of the game."

 

[Summer Rose]

I still don't know how they determine where a faceoff will happen other than centre ice for a goal and start of the period.

Most of them are at the faceoff dot nearest where the puck was last played when play stopped. A few exceptions I can think of:

1) Offside: neutral zone dot, or the origin of the pass if it was passed into the zone offside
2) Power play: power plays normally start with an end zone faceoff in the offending team's zone (there are a few exceptions)
3) Disallowed goal: faceoff brought out to the neutral zone
4) Icing: defending zone faceoff for the offending team

I believe in the case of 2 and 4, the non-offending team has the right to choose whether it's on the left or right side of the attacking zone.

 

[Grifter3511]

And more to the point: why oh why does anyone want players to be able to take the lazy way out / cheat?
If a player is under pressure, he needs to make a play. Any reasonable hockey-fan should aim to make sure that he has to try and make a proper play, not chuck the puck wherever he wants to get out of pressure. None of the proposed alterntives to the current rule are in any way enough of a deterrent. Players would gladly face any of them compared to the risk of losing the puck in their own zone.

It's the rare overtime/tight game deciding penalty that people don't like. We all know refs put the whistle away in overtime. Players get a way with some pretty egregious plays that would be called 10 times out of 10 in regulation or regular season, and then a player has a puck slip off his stick and it goes over the glass and it's off to the penalty box for you! Meanwhile, guys are being hooked, held, tripped, interfered with with impunity. If you're going to let most things go.....let everything go.

 

[Sniper99]

It's history is interesting.

It was a way of allowing defenders to pass the puck outside of the defensive zone rather than being forced to carry it out.

Why not just anywhere into the neutral zone? Heaven forbid there be any offense!

McDavid and all these flyers wouldve lost their minds playing with that rule if it was around today.

 

[PistolPete]

McDavid and all these flyers wouldve lost their minds playing with that rule if it was around today.

It was horrible! I hated it so much. It shortened the ice so to speak so much- and unnecessarily so.

But that wasn't the rule I hated the most back then even. It was and still is the offside rule. I hate it with a passion- at least as it has been since Secember of 1929.

If only they stuck with the original offside rule they came up with in December of 1929.

 

[nucksflailtogether]

The general topic of coincidental penalties is still confusing to me, even after all these years.

Example scenario in the NHL rulebook:

Team A
#2 - major slashing
#15 - minor roughing
#15 - major fighting

Team B
#12 - minor unsportsmanlike conduct
#12 - minor roughing
#12 - major fighting
#90 - major high sticking
#90 - major fighting

You’re the ref - you need to explain to the team captains who’s on the power play and for how long.

What are you telling them?

You need to tell the captain of Team B to choose between two options:

1) Shorthanded by one man for seven minutes

2) Shorthanded by two men for two minutes, then shorthanded by one man for three minutes

Amazing. I'd be curious to know the last time a team was given that kind of choice.

 

[landy]

Yup…