When will the NHL realize how dumb the delay of game penalty is?

[HighNote]

The rule was put into place to prevent players from purposely lifting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone to get a whistle.

Am I the only one that sees how unbelievably stupid this "solution" is? All it does is eliminate one problem and create an even bigger problem in the process. Yes, the rule did what it was suppose to do, and that is to stop players from intentionally shooting the puck over the glass to get a whistle. But let me ask you this: what player in their right mind is going to shoot the puck over the glass on purpose when they know it's an automatic 2 minute penalty? You're not penalizing players for purposely shooting it over the glass, you're penalizing them for doing it on accident, because no player is going to put their team down a man for something as stupid as shooting the puck over the glass.

There are times when a player knocks the puck over the glass and it is CLEARLY an accident, yet a penalty is still assessed because the rule literally does not care if it's on purpose or not. I am waiting for a playoff game, or even a series, to be decided on a powerplay where a player clearly did not mean to bat the puck into the stands. Maybe then the NHL will realize just how ridiculous this rule is.

"Oh, well, nobody knows if the player did it on purpose or not if there's no threat of a penalty, that's why we need it."

Just treat it like a **** icing then. If a player shoots it over the glass when in the defending zone, that team cannot change lines and there is no commercial break. Why doesn't the NHL see that this fixes everything? If it's shot out on purpose, it's because the defending team is hemmed in and wants to change because they're tired. Now they can't. If it's shot out on accident, it's on par with a player accidentally icing the puck when making a pass/clearing it. Accidental icings happen all the time, so do accidental clearings over the glass. So why penalize just one of those? They both result in the game being delayed by a whistle. Hell, the fact that you have to call an entire penalty, send the guy to the box, and let the defending team deploy their PK unit actually makes it take longer than it would if there wasn't a penalty for it.

Can someone please explain?

EDIT:

Proposal:

Step 1: Remove automatic penalty for players accidentally flipping the puck over the glass in their own end.

Step 2: All pucks shot over the glass by a player in his defending end will be treated like an icing. The defending team will not be allowed to change players or take a timeout. The 2nd time that team shoots a puck over the glass in the defending zone, same thing happens, but the defending team will also lose their timeout all together. If they don't have a timeout to give up, they will receive a 2 minute minor for delay of game. If the puck is shot over the glass in the defending zone by a defending player and they don't have a timeout, it is a penalty unless it's the first infraction. The first infraction is always treated like an icing with no timeout.

Note: This does not at all effect an intentional clear over the glass. Those are penalties called at the discretion of the ref. If they think it was on purpose, it's a 2 minute minor and nothing else, regardless of what zone the player is in or if it's that team's first infraction.

 

[Seanaconda]

Because if you take away the auto penalty guys will toss it over the glass again to get a whistle.

You could just treat it like an icing but getting to reset even in the dzone can still be beneficial to the team even if they can't change.

Having the threat of the penalty gets rid of that even tho some guys accidently flub it over or miss judge the hight of the glass when trying to clear.

I'm sure alot of guys accidently trip and Highstick guys too they are still penalties.

 

[Super Hans]

Did you miss the thread yesterday about the 15 year anniversary of the girl killed by a puck in the stands?

Yeah, let's have players start flipping the puck into the crowd because they're trapped in their D zone.

 

[tp71]

For me, the less grey area for rules the better. This is as black and white as it gets.

I like it better than the old every once in the bluest of blue moons a player would be called for intentionally playing the puck over the glass when generally speaking it was more often than not intentional.

 

[HighNote]

Because if you take away the auto penalty guys will toss it over the glass again to get a whistle.

You could just treat it like an icing but getting to reset even in the dzone can still be beneficial to the team even if they can't change.

Having the threat of the penalty gets rid of that even tho some guys accidently flub it over or miss judge the hight of the glass when trying to clear.

I'm sure alot of guys accidently trip and Highstick guys too they are still penalties.

So does purposely icing the puck. Should we penalize that too?

And no, players will not purposely toss the puck over the glass if the rule was changed to be like icing, unless they want a penalty.

 

[HighNote]

Did you miss the thread yesterday about the 15 year anniversary of the girl killed by a puck in the stands?

Yeah, let's have players start flipping the puck into the crowd because they're trapped in their D zone.

We're talking about the defensive zone penalty when a player shoots the puck over the glass. If that rule is removed and is instead penalized by not allowing the defending team to change lines, there is still the rule in place that prevents players from purposely shooting or tossing the puck out of play no matter what part of the ice you're on. If it's on purpose, it's a penalty. That's up to the ref, just like any other penalty. The rule that I'm putting into question is specifically the one that penalizes ALL instances of a defending player lifting the puck over the glass in his own zone.

 

[nmbr_24]

I know it's aggravating to see your team get an undeserved penalty but there is a reason for this. We used to see the puck shot over the glass on purpose many times a game and not only is this a way to stop it, I am sure there were insurance reasons to stop it as well as just concern about fans getting hit with the puck.

It's a good rule.

 

[HighNote]

I know it's aggravating to see your team get an undeserved penalty but there is a reason for this. We used to see the puck shot over the glass on purpose many times a game and not only is this a way to stop it, I am sure there were insurance reasons to stop it as well as just concern about fans getting hit with the puck.

It's a good rule.

I know there is a reason for it. That's my first sentence. The reasoning behind the rule is not what is in question here.

Having it be similar to icing is a better rule.

 

[Andon]

This is pretty much the only kind of penalty that I literally never get angry about.

 

[Lessavyfav]

This is a good rule that has improved the flow of the game. There should be more penalties like this or to call existing penalties to promote offensive gameplay.

 

[HighNote]

This is pretty much the only kind of penalty that I literally never get angry about.

That's because there's almost no ref bias. The player either shot it over the glass or he didn't. It's a must call and there's almost never any debate over them. It's like too many men.

The moment you start to think to yourself "wait, why is accidentally shooting the puck over the glass a penalty" is when you start to think, "hey this is dumb."

 

[Super Hans]

A defensive zone face-off for a tired player isn't a severe enough deterrent to keep players from putting fans at risk.

 

[HighNote]

This is a good rule that has improved the flow of the game. There should be more penalties like this or to call existing penalties to promote offensive gameplay.

So you wouldn't be against altering the rule to make the game flow even better?

And what new penalties would you add that are like the current delay of game penalty that wouldn't disrupt the flow of the game with more whistles?

 

[HighNote]

A defensive zone face-off for a tired player isn't a severe enough deterrent to keep players from putting fans at risk.

A penalty is.

That's why there is the rule that penalizes a player for purposely shooting the puck over the glass. That's not the rule in question.

 

[alwaysearned*]

I actually like it. Makes the end of the game really exciting if the team holding the lead desperately throws it out and accidentally takes a penalty. Makes endings a lot more exciting.

 

[HighNote]

I actually like it. Makes the end of the game really exciting if the team holding the lead desperately throws it out and accidentally takes a penalty. Makes endings a lot more exciting.

This is your opinion and I respect that. In my opinion, a team shouldn't be given a VERY good chance at tying the score late in a game due to an accidental puck infraction. I can see how a late powerplay would be exciting, I'd just rather that penalty be literally anything else.

 

[Super Hans]

A penalty is.

That's why there is the rule that penalizes a player for purposely shooting the puck over the glass. That's not the rule in question.

Should we get rid of high-sticking unless it is done intentionally?

 

[HighNote]

Should we get rid of high-sticking unless it is done intentionally?

Nope. I'm not sure what this has to do with the delay of game penalty though.

 

[Gh24]

But let me ask you this: what player in their right mind is going to shoot the puck over the glass on purpose when they know it's an automatic 2 minute penalty?

Well let me ask you this: what player in their right mind is going to hit an opposing player to the face with their stick on purpose, when they know it's an automatic 2 minute penalty?

Players break the rules accidentally all the time.

Besides, I don't want refs make any more judgments whether an action was intentional or not. It's hard enough to make that judgment by watching 100 replays, not to mention that refs would have to do it without any.

I understand your reasoning, but it's impossible to implement those changes without messing up with the flow of the game imo.

 

[Super Hans]

Nope. I'm not sure what this has to do with the delay of game penalty though.

They both occur from unintentional uses of their stick. They both can lead to injury if they are careless with their stick.

 

[HighNote]

Well let me ask you this: what player in their right mind is going to hit an opposing player to the face with their stick on purpose, when they know it's an automatic 2 minute penalty?

Players break the rules accidentally all the time.

Besides, I don't want refs make any more judgments whether an action was intentional or not. It's hard enough to make that judgment by watching 100 replays, not to mention that refs would have to do it without any.

I understand your reasoning, but it's impossible to implement those changes without messing up with the flow of the game imo.

No, nobody is going to high stick a guy on purpose. The ones that are on purpose get suspended. And yes, almost all penalties are on accident, because players don't want their team to be a man short. What I'm saying is, shooting the puck over the glass on accident shouldn't warrant a penalty like, for example, accidentally tripping a guy would.

You can't really compare the delay of game penalty with any other penalty, one reason is because every other penalty makes sense being a penalty.

 

[HighNote]

They both occur from unintentional uses of their stick. They both can lead to injury if they are careless with their stick.

All I'm getting from this is that both shooting the puck over the glass on accident and high sticking someone on accident can lead to injury.

This is known.

 

[DFC]

The rule was put into place to prevent players from purposely lifting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone to get a whistle.

Am I the only one that sees how unbelievably stupid this "solution" is? All it does is eliminate one problem and create an even bigger problem in the process. Yes, the rule did what it was suppose to do, and that is to stop players from intentionally shooting the puck over the glass to get a whistle. But let me ask you this: what player in their right mind is going to shoot the puck over the glass on purpose when they know it's an automatic 2 minute penalty? You're not penalizing players for purposely shooting it over the glass, you're penalizing them for doing it on accident, because no player is going to put their team down a man for something as stupid as shooting the puck over the glass.

There are times when a player knocks the puck over the glass and it is CLEARLY an accident, yet a penalty is still assessed because the rule literally does not care if it's on purpose or not. I am waiting for a playoff game, or even a series, to be decided on a powerplay where a player clearly did not mean to bat the puck into the stands. Maybe then the NHL will realize just how ridiculous this rule is.

"Oh, well, nobody knows if the player did it on purpose or not if there's no threat of a penalty, that's why we need it."

Just treat it like a **** icing then. If a player shoots it over the glass when in the defending zone, that team cannot change lines and there is no commercial break. Why doesn't the NHL see that this fixes everything? If it's shot out on purpose, it's because the defending team is hemmed in and wants to change because they're tired. Now they can't. If it's shot out on accident, it's on par with a player accidentally icing the puck when making a pass/clearing it. Accidental icings happen all the time, so do accidental clearings over the glass. So why penalize just one of those? They both result in the game being delayed by a whistle. Hell, the fact that you have to call an entire penalty, send the guy to the box, and let the defending team deploy their PK unit actually makes it take longer than it would if there wasn't a penalty for it.

Can someone please explain?

I guess we should probably take out the high sticking penalty too.

Most infractions are accidental. Not just this.

 

[Gh24]

You can't really compare the delay of game penalty with any other penalty, one reason is because every other penalty makes sense being a penalty.

Either way, delay of game should be kept simple as it is now. No need to prolong those stoppages by having refs discuss over them, players arguing their cases and refs explaining their calls to coaches. Not only would the stoppages last longer, there would be more of them.

No thanks.

 

[HighNote]

I guess we should probably take out the high sticking penalty too.

Most infractions are accidental. Not just this.

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up high sticking. I don't know why anyone would want to remove that.

And we're not completely removing the idea of punishing clearing the puck over the glass when in the defensive zone. There is a punishment, like icing, just not a penalty.