Little puzzled as to why interference was thrown in there with the other game misconducts.
Usually a game misconduct penalty for interference is massive, catastrophic hit when the player doesn't have the puck. A lot of the hits I've seen called as game misconducts for interference are concussion or injury plays.
__________________
Huge thanks to Dion for the signature!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nehkara For This Useful Post:
Happy:
- Getting rid of the spin-o-rama. Sucks for Raymond but he appears to be interfering or at least preventing the goalie from making a play on the puck when he does that move.
- Fines for divings. (The Canucks rule) Finally something to help stop this nonsense.
The new tripping rules are interesting. It should increase quality scoring chances because less players would want to risk a penalty by diving for the puck.
I think this rule change is the best out of all of them.
Rule 85 – Puck Out of Bounds
There have been further rule changes made relating to face-off location to avoid penalizing teams for plays intended to create bona fide scoring opportunities. Specifically, the following are "categories of plays" where face-offs will remain in the attacking zone despite the fact that the attacking team was technically responsible for the stoppage in play: Shots at the net by a player on the attacking team where: (i) the shot breaks the glass; (ii) the shot goes off the side of the net and deflects out of play; (iii) the shot goes off the dasher boards or glass and deflects out of play; (iv) the shot is tipped or deflected out of play by a teammate; and (v) the shot becomes wedged in or on the exterior of the goal net.
I agree. This will create more offensive zone faceoffs for teams, so I'm hoping to see some more goals and exciting plays off the draws.
Happy:
- Getting rid of the spin-o-rama. Sucks for Raymond but he appears to be interfering or at least preventing the goalie from making a play on the puck when he does that move.
- Fines for divings. (The Canucks rule) Finally something to help stop this nonsense.
The new tripping rules are interesting. It should increase quality scoring chances because less players would want to risk a penalty by diving for the puck.
That old tripping rule was stupid. You can't trip... UNLESS you dive and touch the puck first... then trip away.
This is better. A trip is a trip no matter if you touch the puck or not.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
Usually a game misconduct penalty for interference is massive, catastrophic hit when the player doesn't have the puck. A lot of the hits I've seen called as game misconducts for interference are concussion or injury plays.
In junior hockey, it is more often a case of "Oh crap! Someone's hurt and I didn't see the play. Better give the nearest opponent a major penalty, just to be safe."
This is better. A trip is a trip no matter if you touch the puck or not.
If a goalie slides or dives out of the crease to cover up a puck which an opposing player was making a move to play will that be a tripping penalty as well?
The Following User Says Thank You to calgarygeologist For This Useful Post:
The funny part about the Canuck rule is that it is actually a step backwards. The last set of diving rules they ignored was first offence: warning. Second offence: $1000 fine. Third offence: 1-game suspension.
Love the fines for diving. It would be like fining a regular guy $10. Way to hit them in the pocket book!
Well you almost have to feel a little bad for Willie Desjardins. Went from a nice big paycheck to probably ending up in the red by the end of the year.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Unless they plan to go public with the fines then it is a step backwards. If they plan to announce fines for the public shaming then it is a step forward.
Do they have to actually get a diving penalty to be fined? Or is it like headshots/whatever where they can review it after the game and still discipline the players, even if it went unnoticed in the game?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Before you call me a pessimist or a downer, the Flames made me this way. Blame them.
Fines for diving are not enough. If a dive might result in a PP that could win the game for the divers, the risk of getting caught and paying these fines does not deter the behavior.
A win is worth more to a team than a few thousand dollars.
What is really needed - retroactive review of games, and stiff suspensions.
Last edited by troutman; 09-11-2014 at 02:58 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
If a goalie slides or dives out of the crease to cover up a puck which an opposing player was making a move to play will that be a tripping penalty as well?
It says defending player.. so I doubt it applies to goalies as well.
The Following User Says Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
