NHL Rules / Detroit - San Jose

[oceanst41]

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. ;-)

[CowbellGuy]

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.

[Jacob '06]

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.

[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.

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 (::whistle: 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.

[Josh '99]

[quote 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. [/quote]Really?  Willie used to be pretty good at putting it into the bench instead of over the glass.  ::cuss::

[David Harding]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote 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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]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.

[ugarte]

[quote David Harding][quote DeltaOne81][quote 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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]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.[/quote]
Not likely. It is strictly a defensive zone penalty.

[CowbellGuy]

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.

[redGrinch]

[quote ugarte]

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?[/quote]

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"

[ugarte]

[quote redGrinch][quote ugarte]

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?[/quote]
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"[/quote]