Does the League Need to Rethink These 2 Things?

[mennoknight]

"Should we get rid of literally the best thing about playoff hockey? Read my blog to find out"

[btimbit]

OT is fine the way it is

Puck over the glass? Maybe it's just me but I really don't remember players shooting into the stands on purpose being an issue. I've always said that's the worst rule in hockey and I try to make a point to say it even when the call si in our favour. Replace that one with an icing call (Own zone faceoff, no line change) and I think you still get the desired effect without a seemingly over the top punishment for a nothing play

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Which is exactly why you take the ref's discretion out of it. When a puck goes in off a skate you should be able to make a distinction on whether the player was kicking it or not, but even then it's a grey area. When a puck is shot out of play, every single time the player's stick is being used to shoot the puck and the puck is going towards the glass. It would be completely unfair to all parties to make the refs decide whether the player was shooting the puck at the glass or two inches above the top of the glass. Unless the player reacts like Gio did last night, which wouldn't happen if it was a discretionary call, there would be a needless argument every single time the puck went over the glass.

It's no different than saying it's completely unfair to let the refs decide whether a puck was kicked in deliberately and that every puck that goes off of a skate should be disallowed.

Like I said last night, before the rule when a puck was deliberately cleared over the glass it was pretty obvious.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Inferno

It's no different than saying it's completely unfair to let the refs decide whether a puck was kicked in deliberately and that every puck that goes off of a skate should be disallowed.

Like I said last night, before the rule when a puck was deliberately cleared over the glass it was pretty obvious.

No, it is different. When pucks go in off the skate, they're looking for a deliberate kicking motion. You can deliberately put your skate in the crease or slide into the crease, but unless there is a deliberate kicking motion, you're good. This isn't the refs just "deciding" based on feeling, it's based on whether there was a kicking motion or not.

It's nice to think that it would be obvious when the puck was purposely cleared over the glass, but look at Gio's clear attempt. The puck is settled, Gio puts it over the glass. It looked completely deliberate, there was nothing in the action itself that pointed any other way, so it would be a penalty, even though we know it wasn't deliberate thanks to the situation and his reaction.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The puck is settled, Gio puts it over the glass. It looked completely deliberate,

No, it didn't.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Inferno

No, it didn't.

Ok, please explain why. Puck settled, Gio looks up, and lifts it right over the glass. Puck wasn't bouncing, or on it's edge, or anything, so why didn't it look deliberate to you?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok, please explain why. Puck settled, Gio looks up, and lifts it right over the glass. Puck wasn't bouncing, or on it's edge, or anything, so why didn't it look deliberate to you?

Because he tilted his head back in disgust of course!

It looked comically deliberate, even though it obviously wasn’t. I don’t know how you could say that didn’t look deliberate, or how that was anywhere near a normal play. Honestly looked like he was trying to hit to top of the extended glass which would have clearly sent the puck out of play. If anything he was trying to deliberately, but legally, put the puck in the stands.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok, please explain why. Puck settled, Gio looks up, and lifts it right over the glass. Puck wasn't bouncing, or on it's edge, or anything, so why didn't it look deliberate to you?

The puck doesn't always have to be unsettled for it to look accidental. Regardless of his reaction it was pretty obvious he was trying to bounce it off the glass and got it too high. Before the rule I've seen gassed players take the puck and flick it as high as they can with no attempt to bounce it off the glass. That's deliberate.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Inferno

The puck doesn't always have to be unsettled for it to look accidental. Regardless of his reaction it was pretty obvious he was trying to bounce it off the glass and got it too high. Before the rule I've seen gassed players take the puck and flick it as high as they can with no attempt to bounce it off the glass. That's deliberate.

"Pretty obvious" haha. Right. So you think the height of the puck is the difference between deliberate and not deliberate? If they changed the rule to be discretionary based on the height of the puck guys could just aim for the top of the glass every time without worry.

The kicking rule is based off a kicking motion, so if this is no different, we'd be looking at the action, not the result (which is what would cause us to look at the action).

Kicking the puck in is still a no-goal even if the kicking motion might not be deliberate. Guys don't have to attempt a soccer kick to have the goal disallowed, but you think they're no different and are calling for discretion that would eliminate all but the most painfully obvious examples? Clearly, you do think they should be different. Because if the rule were treated the same as kicking in the puck, Gio's would be a penalty.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Inferno

The puck doesn't always have to be unsettled for it to look accidental. Regardless of his reaction it was pretty obvious he was trying to bounce it off the glass and got it too high. Before the rule I've seen gassed players take the puck and flick it as high as they can with no attempt to bounce it off the glass. That's deliberate.

And you’ve determined an easily identifiable line in the sand where it’s deliberate or not? You see where this isn’t black and white right? So they made it so, it goes out of play it’s a penalty.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

Oddly I don't remember puck over the glass being much of a thing until they made it a penalty and that was when the NHL was trying to turn hockey into lacrosse because apparently games need to have 18 goals for americans to not lose interest...or something.

It was a thing, but that was when teams were allowed to make a change when they put the puck over the glass, or even on an icing call.

I believe the no line change rule during an icing made the penalty for over the glass obsolete.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

"Pretty obvious" haha. Right. So you think the height of the puck is the difference between deliberate and not deliberate?

Not at all. The reaction of the player is. There's a difference between trying to bounce the puck off the glass and use your stick like a shovel to stop play.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Not at all. The reaction of the player is. There's a difference between trying to bounce the puck off the glass and use your stick like a shovel to stop play.

The reaction of the player? So, should all the penalties where players stick their hands up showing "I didn't mean to!" not be penalties either?

I agree with your second sentence, there is a difference. Gio's looked more like the latter than the former if you take his reaction out of it.

And another thing worth pointing out: putting pucks into the stands endangers spectators. That's why the nets are there, and that's probably a significant reason why the NHL doesn't want to do anything that might mean more pucks ending up flying towards spectators.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The reaction of the player? So, should all the penalties where players stick their hands up showing "I didn't mean to!" not be penalties either?

I'm not talking about their reaction after the play. Of course they're always going to act like they didn't mean to do something.

[GreenLantern2814]

It should also remain illegal to fire the puck over the glass.

Setting aside all the arguments about intent, remember this game is meant to be played in stadiums with 18,000 people in the stands.

You want to do everything possible to discourage players from rifling pucks twenty feet in the air that could possibly injure your paying customers.

As a matter of principle, it’s always been illegal for goalies to play the puck over the glass, with our big ass gloves - of course it should be illegal for the skaters.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

Originally Posted by Pizza

If you treat it as icing, it would still motivate a tired defensive group to throw the puck aimlessly over the glass and get 20-30 seconds to breathe until the next faceoff.

Having an automatic minor keeps the game flowing

Make the team who put it over the glass do wind sprints right before the faceoff to make sure they are out of breath when play restarts.

[The Yen Man]

No and no.

I've never gotten the puck over ice argument. The NHL wants more opportunities for scoring. Giving a penalty for that infraction is one of the things that helps with that. A tired team can't just fire the puck into the stands without consequences. Penalizing it is absolutely the right call IMO.

[Pellanor]

I dunno, it is kinda nice having a penalty that I can confidently explain when it will and will not be called.

[united]

My issue with puck-over-glass is it is the only penalty called with any degree of consistency. Regardless of whether it is the first period of the first game of the season, or the eighth period of a playoffs game, it's called consistently.

The standard of every other penalty diminishes significantly by period in the regular season, further into the playoffs, and even further into overtime in the playoffs. What is considered a hook in the first period of the first game of the season is wildly different than what is considered a hook in the eight period of a playoffs game. In that sense, puck-over-glass is more punitive as the game goes on, particularly in playoffs overtime situations.

Last night, aside from the puck-over-glass penalty, the teams combined for one penalty in 4.5 periods of overtime hockey, with the Lightning not committing a single penalty-worthy offense throughout overtime (allegedly).

Ideally a penalty is a penalty regardless of period or game, but it's the NHL so the referees' job is more managing the game rather than enforcing the rule book. Why not manage puck-over-glass, too, while we're at it?

[Lubicon]

Puck over the glass rule should remain however the glass needs to be made higher all the way around the ice surface so it is same height as behind the nets.

I would be okay with modifying OT rules something along the lines of:

1st OT played 5v5
2nd OT played 4v4
3rd and subsequent OT played 3v3

Doesn't have to be exactly like this but something to help settle OT sooner.