Puck Over The Glass Rule...

[nik-]

Pros can tip 80mph slapshots in front of the net for scoring chances. They can control a clear under pressure.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Is t just me or is this not really a thing? After icings teams play the "you take the draw and get tossed" game, linesman frequently have to redo the drop, the amount of times the players get thrown out is also high it seems. Oh and let's not forget the ever popular "you silly wingers stop cheating and back up" talking to.

It was supposed to be a thing but NHL officials as they always do go back to their old habits of officiating games the way they think it should be done not as per how the league or rule book mandate.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

Pros can tip 80mph slapshots in front of the net for scoring chances. They can control a clear under pressure.

Yep. It's rarely ever by accident as it's out of desperation. Intentional grounding is a sever penalty in football as it's one of the few loss of down penalties as well as 10 yards yet you still see QB's toss the ball to the sidelines when under pressure as they are desperate not to take the sack loss. You have to call these types of penalties in sports because they are attempts to remove a big play (the most exciting plays in the game) from the game whether it be a sack or scoring chance against from the game.

[edn88]

A lot of people have made the comparison between icing and puck over the glass, and I think a fair point, which made me ask the question, does the NHL have another motive with not putting the puck out of play?

The only answer I could come up with was, maybe they are trying to avoid litigation in cases where a puck goes over the glass and hits a spectator? The netting only stops pucks going behind the net, but the little girl in Columbus was killed by a puck going over the glass in between the areas where there is a net.

I'm stretching a bit here...

[Displaced Flames fan]

It's a good and necessary rule, for many of the reasons previously mentioned.

[CalgaryFan1988]

I think if they are intent on keeping the puck over the glass rule as a 2 minute penalty, then they should modify the icing rule and make it a 2 minute penalty too. They are too similar to not be punished the same, at least from inside the defending zone.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by edn88

A lot of people have made the comparison between icing and puck over the glass, and I think a fair point, which made me ask the question, does the NHL have another motive with not putting the puck out of play?

The only answer I could come up with was, maybe they are trying to avoid litigation in cases where a puck goes over the glass and hits a spectator? The netting only stops pucks going behind the net, but the little girl in Columbus was killed by a puck going over the glass in between the areas where there is a net.

I'm stretching a bit here...

The girl in Columbus is the reason there are nets behind the glass. The puck went over the end glass and hit her, not on the sides

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I think if they are intent on keeping the puck over the glass rule as a 2 minute penalty, then they should modify the icing rule and make it a 2 minute penalty too. They are too similar to not be punished the same, at least from inside the defending zone.

Making a harsher penalty for icing will deter high-risk stretch passes though, which often make for exciting scoring chances.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Making a harsher penalty for icing will deter high-risk stretch passes though, which often make for exciting scoring chances.

They could modify it like the NFL as "no eligible receiver" for a pass.

Not sure, but to have two similar "delay of games" not punished the same way doesn't sit well with me.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Making a harsher penalty for icing will deter high-risk stretch passes though, which often make for exciting scoring chances.

I think after the 3rd icing in a row a 2 min delay of game penalty is warranted.

[N-E-B]

Worst rule in the game. The reasoning behind it makes sense but seeing a team penalized for an honest mistake is ridiculous. Hate it with a passion.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Worst rule in the game. The reasoning behind it makes sense but seeing a team penalized for an honest mistake is ridiculous. Hate it with a passion.

Tripping and highsticking penalties (for example) are quite often completely unintentional.

[FlamingHomer]

A penalty when at even strength, same as icing when shorthanded. I hate when it puts a team down by two when killing a penalty.

[GioforPM]

No penalty, but the puck is live off the netting. Think of the cool plays.

[FanIn80]

Why not equate it to intentional grounding in football? Sometimes a pass hits the dirt, but sometimes it's thrown into the dirt. Just like sometimes the puck goes over the glass, but sometimes it's intentionally shot over the glass.

Penalize the intentional stuff, not the rest.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Why not equate it to intentional grounding in football? Sometimes a pass hits the dirt, but sometimes it's thrown into the dirt. Just like sometimes the puck goes over the glass, but sometimes it's intentionally shot over the glass.

Penalize the intentional stuff, not the rest.

You can't read players mind which is why a high stick is a penalty whether it was an accident or intentional. The more you leave to the officials to interpret the worse the game gets. Rules need to be black and white and for intentional grounding the QB has to be within the hash marks and the pass needs to be in an area where a receiver is. It's pretty obvious most of the time and they don't pick and choose what throw in the dirt is grounding because either a receiver is in the area where the ball landed or he isn't.

[normtwofinger]

Is glass height standard around the NHL?

[Dan403]

D - Leave it as is.

I remember the days when you could just fire it into the crowd to get a whistle.

That was worse.

[H2SO4(aq)]

The worst thing about this rule, is that in overtime in the playoffs when the refs swallow their whistles and "let em play" and the game gets rough and chippy and not a lot gets called that should, this over the glass still gets called. Because the refs cannot turn a blind eye and therefore its an unfair advantage to the team that gets the rare overtime powerplay when many infractions are not being called all over the ice. Its gonna cost someone a series and then the rule will finally get changed.

Its a dumb rule which i really hate. I blame Brian Leetch, it was his go to get outta jail free card.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

Is glass height standard around the NHL?

Found this with google, I shortened it for readability.

1.3 Boards and Glass - The rink shall be surrounded by a wall known as the “boards” which shall extend not less than forty inches (40'') and not more than forty-eight inches (48'') above the level of the ice surface. The ideal height of the boards above the ice surface shall be forty-two inches (42'').

Any variations from any of the foregoing dimensions shall require
official authorization by the League.

Affixed to the boards and extending vertically shall be approved safety glass extending eight feet (8’) above the boards at each end of the rink and not less than five feet (5’) along both sides of the rink.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for variation, as it's the ends that matter and I don't think there's that much variation in board heights. (Although they allow more variety than I would have imagined. I guess it's because the ice isn't always the same height.)