Rules that bother me

[Bates]

1) trapazoid- why is there a place on the ice that only one player is not allowed to play in?  Why are goalies who play puck well penalized?

2) puck over glass- why is shooting puck over glass treated so harshly while delaying game by icing is no big deal?  Why is it OK for goalie to direct routine shot over glass numerous times a game without a penalty?

3) Why is slashing a stick that breaks a penalty but slashing a stick that doesn't isn't?  Why does strength of stick determine penalty?

4) Slashing stick out of hands.  Same as last one.

5) Dealing with players like Gallagher and Marchant.  After every play near net these little pukes skate straight into d-men or goalie.  Almost everytime the player that pushes them back gets a penalty.  How does this make sense. 

 

[oldman]

Why call any of them? I would also add the "Touching the puck with the glove call too"

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

My opinions on why:

1) They wanted to increase offense.  If a goalie can't play the puck in the corner, theoretically the offensive team would have more chance to retrieve the pucks and get offensive pressure.

2) Same, more PP's, more offense.  Same reason they made it so you can't change after an icing.  Probably not a penalty because icing happens so much more often, but I don't know.

3) Probably because it removes a scoring chance or a play at least.

4) As above.

5) Probably depends on the ref.

 

[oldman]

Thing is, there is nothing wrong with a 1-0 or a 2-1 game. As long as there is plenty of scoring chances the score does not matter. I would rather see 5 on 5 hockey for 60 minutes than a PP every 2 minutes. And I miss the days when you almost had to kill someone to get a 5 on 3. Now the refs had them out like candy.

 

[bustaheims]

I actually don't mind the trapezoid. I don't feel like it's really had a negative impact on the game. Teams adapted to it pretty quickly.

I agree about the puck over the glass penalty. It's excessive. It should be treated the same way as icing, unless it's clearly done intentionally - which was already a penalty.

The stick thing, I understand. Technically, a slash that doesn't break a stick or knock it out of a player's hands can still be called a penalty, it's just that it's less noticeable to the refs and the perception is that if the stick breaks or is knocked loose, the slash delivered was harder than slashes that don't. It's not always true, but, the refs are only human. Breaking the stick or knocking out of the hands is not an automatic penalty, though it feels like it sometimes. The officials should give a little more leeway there, but, it is what it is.

As for the retaliation thing . . . it's always been that way. Usually, these guys don't actually do much to the guys they're skating into - and just skating into a player isn't necessarily a penalty. I certainly don't want every idle bump to be penalized.

 

[Kin]

1) trapazoid- why is there a place on the ice that only one player is not allowed to play in?  Why are goalies who play puck well penalized?

As Potvin says, this is to increase the offense in the game. No more, no less.

2) puck over glass- why is shooting puck over glass treated so harshly while delaying game by icing is no big deal?  Why is it OK for goalie to direct routine shot over glass numerous times a game without a penalty?

Well, I don't know that a two minute minor really qualifies as being super harsh but again, as Potvin says, this is also to increase offense and, really, you have to look at it in conjunction with the penalty for icing. They want players to be careful when clearing the puck so just firing the puck out of the zone isn't their go-to play while in trouble.

I don't love this rule in those situations where a team is one man down or in OT and it wasn't intentional and the PP is a big deal but on the other hand...basically every rule that's designed to increase offense can be traced back to "We're trying to not let the Devils make a mockery of the game". People can say all they want about what the Devils did and how effective it was but they did it to great effect while selling no tickets and doing nothing to sell the game. Either the league had to make some changes to get hockey flowing again or it was going to slide into some really unappealing play.

3) Why is slashing a stick that breaks a penalty but slashing a stick that doesn't isn't?  Why does strength of stick determine penalty?

Well, as busta points out, it doesn't. A ref could and should call a penalty for a slash to a stick that doesn't break the stick if it's just as hard. That said the issue here isn't so much that a stick breaking slash is considered a more dangerous one but rather that a broken stick is irrefutable evidence of the slash. I don't know if I've ever seen a slashing penalty called on a play where the stick broke where it wasn't a legit slash.

As to the general point though, I think there is an argument to be made that by breaking the stick you're depriving the other team of a player for the length of time it takes to get a new stick and that sort of thing should be discouraged. Think of it as a general disincentive, sort of like the difference between a high stick that draws blood and one that doesn't. A player doesn't have control over whether another player bleeds or not but the harsher penalty should do even more to control stick work.

4) Slashing stick out of hands.  Same as last one.

Same as above.

5) Dealing with players like Gallagher and Marchant.  After every play near net these little pukes skate straight into d-men or goalie.  Almost everytime the player that pushes them back gets a penalty.  How does this make sense.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. If it were true those guys would be drawing 5 penalties a night or more. As to the issue though...that's hockey. They get retaliation.

 

[Bates]

My memory is not great but Gallagher drew 2penalties in the first period alone tonight and Marchant drew one last night against Pheneuf.  That's the crap that bothers me. 

 

[Bates]

And the puck over glass has been way to often in the first round this year and is deciding games.  I think the trapazoid hurts offense for teams who have a goalie that can make plays. 

 

[Kin]

And the puck over glass has been way to often in the first round this year and is deciding games.

Like I said, I think it's unfortunate that it can often be called at a critically important moment but ultimately it's not really different from a player committing any other kind of infraction at a critical moment.

 

[Bates]

It bothers me because in my opinion the sentence does not fit the crime.  Now that it has been deciding critical games it shows even more how heavy handed the rule actually is. 

 

[Kin]

Now that it has been deciding critical games it shows even more how heavy handed the rule actually is.

That's what I mean though about it vs. any other penalty. It only "decides" the game in the sense that it can have significant consequences. Teams can still kill a penalty.

 

[TML fan]

And the puck over glass has been way to often in the first round this year and is deciding games.

Like I said, I think it's unfortunate that it can often be called at a critically important moment but ultimately it's not really different from a player committing any other kind of infraction at a critical moment.

It's different in the sense that a player generally doesn't accidentally hook or slash somebody, whereas a player almost never intentionally shoots the puck over the glass.

A rule similar to icing, not being able to change lines, makes much more sense than a 2 minute penalty. A puck over the glass doesn't "delay the game" any more than an icing does.

 

[Kin]

It's different in the sense that a player generally doesn't accidentally hook or slash somebody, whereas a player almost never intentionally shoots the puck over the glass.

I more meant that it wasn't different in the sense that it only "decides" the game by means of giving a penalty that can be killed. The point being that the validity of a rule shouldn't be determined by whether or not it can impact a game if it's broken. There are other sorts of accidental infractions, high sticks or whatever, but again that's not really what I was getting at.

A rule similar to icing, not being able to change lines, makes much more sense than a 2 minute penalty. A puck over the glass doesn't "delay the game" any more than an icing does.

Well, the name doesn't make a lot of sense I grant you but I disagree that what you're talking about would serve as the sort of deterrent to the play the NHL wants to curb. Going high off the glass is too effective a play for the downside just to be not being able to change lines. 

 

[TML fan]

Since the NHL wants to neutralize defence with stupid rules, there really needs to be more stupid rules. Perhaps a penalty for breaking up 2-on-1s? Or penalize goalies for making other than routine saves? How about a penalty for not giving the puck away at the blue line?

They can call it "BettmanBall"

 

[TML fan]

It's different in the sense that a player generally doesn't accidentally hook or slash somebody, whereas a player almost never intentionally shoots the puck over the glass.

I more meant that it wasn't different in the sense that it only "decides" the game by means of giving a penalty that can be killed. The point being that the validity of a rule shouldn't be determined by whether or not it can impact a game if it's broken. There are other sorts of accidental infractions, high sticks or whatever, but again that's not really what I was getting at.

A rule similar to icing, not being able to change lines, makes much more sense than a 2 minute penalty. A puck over the glass doesn't "delay the game" any more than an icing does.

Well, the name doesn't make a lot of sense I grant you but I disagree that what you're talking about would serve as the sort of deterrent to the play the NHL wants to curb. Going high off the glass is too effective a play for the downside just to be not being able to change lines.

I understand the NHL's reasoning. It doesn't make it any less stupid.

 

[Kin]

I understand the NHL's reasoning. It doesn't make it any less stupid.

Well, that's a line everyone has to draw for themselves, I suppose. Personally, I think the League legitimately needed to do something to stop what the game was devolving into pre-2004 lockout and while I wouldn't put this rule as the centerpiece of that change I think it's done what it was intended to do and it was a generally worthwhile goal. Considering that it probably leads to 5-10 minor penalties per team per year, I don't think the downside outweighs the good.

 

[Bullfrog]

It's different in the sense that a player generally doesn't accidentally hook or slash somebody, whereas a player almost never intentionally shoots the puck over the glass.

I more meant that it wasn't different in the sense that it only "decides" the game by means of giving a penalty that can be killed. The point being that the validity of a rule shouldn't be determined by whether or not it can impact a game if it's broken. There are other sorts of accidental infractions, high sticks or whatever, but again that's not really what I was getting at.

A rule similar to icing, not being able to change lines, makes much more sense than a 2 minute penalty. A puck over the glass doesn't "delay the game" any more than an icing does.

Well, the name doesn't make a lot of sense I grant you but I disagree that what you're talking about would serve as the sort of deterrent to the play the NHL wants to curb. Going high off the glass is too effective a play for the downside just to be not being able to change lines.

I understand the NHL's reasoning. It doesn't make it any less stupid.

Agreed completely.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

It's different in the sense that a player generally doesn't accidentally hook or slash somebody, whereas a player almost never intentionally shoots the puck over the glass.

I more meant that it wasn't different in the sense that it only "decides" the game by means of giving a penalty that can be killed. The point being that the validity of a rule shouldn't be determined by whether or not it can impact a game if it's broken. There are other sorts of accidental infractions, high sticks or whatever, but again that's not really what I was getting at.

A rule similar to icing, not being able to change lines, makes much more sense than a 2 minute penalty. A puck over the glass doesn't "delay the game" any more than an icing does.

Well, the name doesn't make a lot of sense I grant you but I disagree that what you're talking about would serve as the sort of deterrent to the play the NHL wants to curb. Going high off the glass is too effective a play for the downside just to be not being able to change lines.

I understand the NHL's reasoning. It doesn't make it any less stupid.

Agreed completely.

Here's my thought about what would be a fair punishment for shooting the puck over the glass:  The player is put in the box until his team can get the puck past center ice (up to 2 minutes max).  If it takes 5 seconds, it's 5 seconds.  If it's a minute and a half, so be it.  It's a punishment, but it isn't quite as devastating for such a relatively minor infraction.

 

[Bullfrog]

They should do it like soccer and give the opposing team a free possession at centre ice.

My preference though, would be to either treat it the same as icing or give a one minute penalty.

In general, I think a one minute penalty for non-contact infractions is a good idea: puck over the glass, too many men, hand on puck, snowing the goalie, etc.

 

[lamajama]

<insert offense here> and diving/embellishment.

One or the other please.