NHL Rules / Detroit - San Jose

[ugarte]

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:

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?

[Tub(a)]

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.

[Josh '99]

[quote ugarte]Does this mean that, after waiting so long, I finally get to call Craig Conroy a GOON?[/quote]No, because RichS will come to your house and glare at you.

[KeithK]

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.)

[Dpperk29]

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

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.

[redGrinch]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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).

[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.

[CowbellGuy]

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.

[oceanst41]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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?

[CowbellGuy]

Stick/body, yes. Glass, no.

[Josh '99]

[quote CowbellGuy]Stick/body, yes. Glass, no.[/quote]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.

[ugarte]

[quote Josh '99][quote CowbellGuy]Stick/body, yes. Glass, no.[/quote]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.[/quote]
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...

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?