NHL Rules / Detroit - San Jose

I haven't been able to watch as much playoff hockey as I'd like, but I did get to catch game 3 and the last 5 minutes of OT in game 4 of the Red Wings-Sharks series. When did shooting the puck over the glass become a minor? It seems like that penalty gets called an awful lot, even though it doesn't seem to be (a) any worse than icing and (b) usually unintentional. Since a lot of icing is intentional, why penalize a shot over the glass more harshly?

Anyway, I haven't been following the playoffs as closey as I should either, and I was reading the ESPN recap of last night's awesome 3-2 OT victory over the hated Sharks and I saw this:

ESPN recap of last night's awesome 3-2 OT victory over the hated Sharks
Tomas Holmstrom, playing his first game since he injured his eye when Calgary's Craig Conroy hit him with his stick April 22 in Detroit's series-winning victory over the Flames, scored a power-play goal in the final seconds of the second period to start Detroit's comeback.

Does this mean that, after waiting so long, I finally get to call Craig Conroy a GOON?

The puck over the glass thing has been called since last year. The Carolina Hurricanes scored the series winning goal of the Eastern Conference Finals on a PP from that penalty.

ugarte
Does this mean that, after waiting so long, I finally get to call Craig Conroy a GOON?

No, because RichS will come to your house and glare at you.

It's one of the stupid post-lockout rules that the NHL instituted in their desperate attempt to raise scoring and thus fan appeal.

(Not saying all of the rule changes were stupid. Just a bunch fo them.)

ugarte
Does this mean that, after waiting so long, I finally get to call Craig Conroy a GOON?

no.

it looked like a purely unintentional incident. Nickerson is a Goon, and that is why he isn't in the NHL, Conroy (also Cole, Huskins, Marchant, and Mitchell for that matter) are highly skilled players, that is why they are in the NHL.

It's only a penalty if the person who puts it off the ice is (a) in his defensive zone, (b) it goes over the high glass (i.e. if it's just the benches it's not a penalty, but if it's over the glass behing the benches, it is a penalty), (c) it goes over w/o going off the glass first or being otherwise tipped.

this rule doesn't irk me at all - and there's not much discretion with the call so it's hard to screw up. The rule that I think is dumb is the goalie trapezoid. I'm mixed about the no-sub icing rule.

redGrinch
this rule doesn't irk me at all - and there's not much discretion with the call so it's hard to screw up. The rule that I think is dumb is the goalie trapezoid. I'm mixed about the no-sub icing rule.

Its not that there's discretion. Its, why the heck should it be a penalty? We could give someone a penalty too for icing too, or for stepping in the crease, or heck, why not really open the game up by giving teams penalties for playing the puck in the trapezoidal area in their own zone. The problem is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

If you want to say a delay of game is deserved for doing it intentionally, maybe, but a penalty is ridiculous for an accident. As I said, its like giving a penalty for stepping in the crease instead of real goaltender interference.

The refs would never call an intentional one if it was up to them. That's why they had to take out the discretion.

See: 2001 playoffs when Darius Kasparitis literally picked up the puck from the ice in his defensive zone and threw it over the glass. No call.

I think it's fine. When used in conjunction with the no change after an icing rule, it forces defensemen to use a bit more skill in relieving the pressure instead of wildly flinging the puck down the ice.

Tub(a)
The refs would never call an intentional one if it was up to them. That's why they had to take out the discretion.

See: 2001 playoffs when Darius Kasparitis literally picked up the puck from the ice in his defensive zone and threw it over the glass. No call.

Make it a point of emphasis. The refs used to never call hooking/obstruction/holding on the things they do now. Ad refs seem to do reasonably okay with the differentiating between goaltender interference and incidental non-interfering contact. There's no reason to punish everyone for the acts of a few. And no reason to decide a playoff game because someone got hit while trying to send the puck down the ice (not referencing anything specific).

If the "acts of the few" are shooting the puck out of the rink to relieve pressure, it may have been more than a few. There have been times when some defender caroms the puck off the boards and it takes a skyward bounce out of play, but that description seems to apply more when it's your team that it happens to. Definitely implemented to liven up the game, but it hasn't hurt the game.

Personally, I don't mind the rule. Always felt like a really cheap way to get a stoppage. But I've also always felt there should be something between a faceoff and a minor penalty. For example, have a faceoff where the offending team can't participate. ie, award possession to the other team in the offensive zone.

billhoward
If the "acts of the few" are shooting the puck out of the rink to relieve pressure, it may have been more than a few. There have been times when some defender caroms the puck off the boards and it takes a skyward bounce out of play, but that description seems to apply more when it's your team that it happens to. Definitely implemented to liven up the game, but it hasn't hurt the game.

Isn't it allowed to go out of play as long as it is deflected off a stick/body or any part of the glass?

Stick/body, yes. Glass, no.

CowbellGuy
Stick/body, yes. Glass, no.

I think you're mistaken. As I understand it, it's only a penalty if the puck goes directly out of play over the high glass without deflecting off anything.

Josh '99

CowbellGuy
Stick/body, yes. Glass, no.

I think you're mistaken. As I understand it, it's only a penalty if the puck goes directly out of play over the high glass without deflecting off anything.

Just from watching games, I think Age is right. I've seen the penalty called when the puck was sent high around the boards and it sails over the glass. Time for a rulebook cite...

[url=http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule51.html
NHL Rule 51 (a)[/url]]A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who delays the game by deliberately shooting or batting the puck with his stick outside the playing area.

(NEW for 2005-06) (NOTE 1) When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. When the puck is shot into the players' bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass 'behind' the players' bench, the penalty will be assessed.

Unfortunately, this note doesn't really settle the question because it ends up hinging on whehter hitting the glass on the way over counts as "deflected." Anyone else?

From the Preds website: "Any player who shoots the puck directly over the glass in his defending zone will be penalized for delay of game."

I would say that "directly" means without touching the glass. And I guess the same interpretation would apply to the NHL rulebook now that I think about it.

However, I did find posts over at Hockey's Future about how if it hits the glass and goes out there is no penalty. I'm positive that's how I've seen it called, but then again my "proof" is coming from a message board.

Well, that's definitely now how it's being called. Just a couple days ago there was a play made when the puck was shot from behind the net, rolled all the way through the corner on the glass and continued upwards til it left the rink on the side, and it was called.

I'm pretty sure announcers like to say that it isn't a penalty if its off the glass, but they don't know what they are talking about. I've seen it called a penalty when it has gone off the glass before.

Are you talking about the ANA/VAN game from a few days ago? It's the most recent one I saw with a delay of game penalty. From the reports I read Willie Mitchell put it over the glass not off it.

Now the Canuck fans were still complaining because he was being slashed while it happened and it shouldn't be any worse than an icing, but that's beside the point.

From watching all the Bruins () games this year I've only seen the call if it is clear over the glass. Their color guy, Andy Brickley, has even taken the time to explain why it's not a penalty if it ricochets off the glass. So if it is being called both ways, the rule definitely needs some work in the off-season.

oceanst41
Are you talking about the ANA/VAN game from a few days ago? It's the most recent one I saw with a delay of game penalty. From the reports I read Willie Mitchell put it over the glass not off it.

Really? Willie used to be pretty good at putting it into the bench instead of over the glass.

DeltaOne81

redGrinch
this rule doesn't irk me at all - and there's not much discretion with the call so it's hard to screw up. The rule that I think is dumb is the goalie trapezoid. I'm mixed about the no-sub icing rule.

Its not that there's discretion. Its, why the heck should it be a penalty? We could give someone a penalty too for icing too, or for stepping in the crease, or heck, why not really open the game up by giving teams penalties for playing the puck in the trapezoidal area in their own zone. The problem is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

If you want to say a delay of game is deserved for doing it intentionally, maybe, but a penalty is ridiculous for an accident. As I said, its like giving a penalty for stepping in the crease instead of real goaltender interference.

Pure speculation: The NHL might be less concerned about delaying the game than about trying to reduce fan injuries from flying pucks. In that case, a penalty rather than a faceoff is appropriate.

David Harding

DeltaOne81

redGrinch
this rule doesn't irk me at all - and there's not much discretion with the call so it's hard to screw up. The rule that I think is dumb is the goalie trapezoid. I'm mixed about the no-sub icing rule.

Its not that there's discretion. Its, why the heck should it be a penalty? We could give someone a penalty too for icing too, or for stepping in the crease, or heck, why not really open the game up by giving teams penalties for playing the puck in the trapezoidal area in their own zone. The problem is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

If you want to say a delay of game is deserved for doing it intentionally, maybe, but a penalty is ridiculous for an accident. As I said, its like giving a penalty for stepping in the crease instead of real goaltender interference.

Pure speculation: The NHL might be less concerned about delaying the game than about trying to reduce fan injuries from flying pucks. In that case, a penalty rather than a faceoff is appropriate.

Not likely. It is strictly a defensive zone penalty.

I can't remember for the life of me which game it was. 2-4 games a night for the last two weeks and it all gets kinda fuzzy. Maybe it was more than a couple days ago, but the one I'm thinking of clearly rolled through the corner on the glass before going out, which is certainly way more than just deflecting off the glass.

ugarte

[url=http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule51.html
NHL Rule 51 (a)[/url]]A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who delays the game by deliberately shooting or batting the puck with his stick outside the playing area.

(NEW for 2005-06) (NOTE 1) When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. When the puck is shot into the players' bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass 'behind' the players' bench, the penalty will be assessed.

Unfortunately, this note doesn't really settle the question because it ends up hinging on whehter hitting the glass on the way over counts as "deflected." Anyone else?

A quick look at the glossary in the NHL rulebook defines deflection as "when the puck is diverted from its intended path, often by accident. A deflection can be off the stick, body, net, boards, or glass. See also Rebound"

redGrinch

ugarte

[url=http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule51.html
NHL Rule 51 (a)[/url]]A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who delays the game by deliberately shooting or batting the puck with his stick outside the playing area.

(NEW for 2005-06) (NOTE 1) When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. When the puck is shot into the players' bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass 'behind' the players' bench, the penalty will be assessed.

Unfortunately, this note doesn't really settle the question because it ends up hinging on whehter hitting the glass on the way over counts as "deflected." Anyone else?

Interesting. So, if a puck is wrapped around the glass and continues over the glass, was that the "intended path"? It appears that it is turtles all the way down.
A quick look at the glossary in the NHL rulebook defines deflection as "when the puck is diverted from its intended path, often by accident. A deflection can be off the stick, body, net, boards, or glass. See also Rebound"