Over-the-glass Rule Too Cruel

[HAF]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/en/news/news.asp?idNews=21483

by Jason Kay

It didn’t take Carnac or even a Caneiac to accurately predict the shooting-the-puck-over-the-glass rule would have a major impact in a big game this season.

With just less than 10 minutes to play in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference final, Sabres defenseman Brian Campbell was penalized for delay of game after inadvertently flipping the puck into the stands and Carolina’s Rod Brind’Amour scored the series winner on the ensuing power play.

We understand the logic behind the rule and acknowledge the argument for keeping it intact. It’s designed to keep play moving and not give a team on the ropes an easy out. It’s also a black and white call for the zebras, one that is always applied evenly to both teams and one they’re well aware of going in.

But that doesn’t make it a good rule. More precisely, it doesn’t make it just.

While we see patches of grey, we can empathize with Buffalo goalie Ryan Miller who vented after the defeat.

“Stupidest thing ever,” Miller told reporters. “I don’t see how that should ever decide a game. Two guys forechecking a player, he goes to make a quick play in the bad ice in springtime and it goes out of play. You’re telling me that’s a rule? They gotta wake up.”

Fortunately for the league, it happened to a small-market team on the road. Had it occurred to the Rangers in Madison Square Garden or the Maple Leafs in Air Canada Centre, we’d be using the Richter scale to measure the reverberations.

Regardless, we’ve been saying all season the punishment – a two-minute penalty – is excessive and punitive for what is often an accident. We also suggested in this space months ago the action of putting a puck in the stands on purpose is akin to a deliberate icing. Why not treat them the same: a faceoff in the defending zone of the offending team and no line change permitted? It would remain a non-discretionary call and would better fit the misdeed. And it’s consistent with the consequence commissioner Gary Bettman is suggesting the league consider introducing after goaltenders freeze pucks.

As it stands, a player shooting the puck into the crowd, by design or by mistake, gets the same punishment as a player who hooks an opponent and nullifies a scoring chance.

Even in the new NHL, this kind of math doesn’t equate.

And another thing…

The Buffalo-Carolina series reinforced the notion rivalries are best and most easily created during the playoffs.

The war of words between Lindy Ruff and Peter Laviolette; the accusations by the Sabres that Canes’ players are arrogant; the nasty feelings between fans in the two cities; that could all happen in the regular season, but it’s far less likely because the intensity levels are so disparate.

Those two teams will get a chance to renew their hatred four times next season. The same won’t hold true for the Canes and Oilers.

While they’ll probably meet once next season, there is no guarantee under the current schedule format that Stanley Cup opponents will play each other the following season.

That’s a glitch in the system

[SectionNDeserter]

I personally like the rule, it cuts down on teams carrying skilless defenseman who have no recourse but to fire the puck off the boards to get it out of their zone (one of the least exciting plays in hockey). I am also sort of shocked by the amount that it still happens. These are guys who have been practicing this for 15-30 years, and get paid millions of dollars, and can shoot the puck from the blueline and catch the top corner of a comparatively little net. An NHL player shooting the puck straight over the boards, is the NBA equivelant of a player missing a slam dunk--it happens, but not often.

[LifelongChiefsFan]

I think the fact that Buffalo let the puck sit in the slot for 5 seconds before Brind 'Amour banged it in was worse than the penalty.

[dondo]

I entirely disagree SND.. the rule is punitive and stupid and was brought in out of some perceived need. There was no rash of d-men throwing the puck over the glass so why the rule? Well probably to stop defensemen from using that tactic instead of icing the puck - so why isn't the penalty the same as a deliberate icing?

It makes no difference how talented your D-man is as the best D-men were tagged with that infraction throughout the season - and most of the incidents I saw were not deliberate, but accidental (hell it slows the game down a whole lot more calling a full infraction instead of setting up for another face-off with no line changes.). It also ruined many a game this season which was already being over-whelmed with the border-line/mind-numbingly stupid penalties being called and I hated the new NHL, watching wave after wave of unnecessary power plays.

Calling the clutching is fine and it should be called, but all those weak roughing penalties, and multitude of charging penalties (when they were nothing of the sort), and then blithely ignoring a massive amount of high-sticks just made me sick. The diving they allowed, and the penalties for basically having your stick at waist height on another player is instant hooking.

I think we still continue to have poor refereeing at all levels of hockey and the two ref system exacerbates the problem as we have even more officials who have no clue about the rule-book let alone their jobs and these punitive penalties like throwing the puck over the glass is the thin edge of Bettman's agenda to suck all life and soul out of our game and make it a pure skill game of patty cake, instead of the hard-working team game we all know and love.

[SectionNDeserter]

I entirely disagree SND.. the rule is punitive and stupid and was brought in out of some perceived need. There was no rash of d-men throwing the puck over the glass so why the rule?The rule is in place to both crack down on the odd time a player intentionally shoots the puck over the glass to get a stoppage, but more importantly to create a more exciting, puck carrying game for the fans. Teams will be more likely to pick up talented defenseman, rather than stone-handed, AHL caliber players who rely 100% on banking the puck off the wall and into the neutral zone rather than a good outlet pass or carrying the puck out of the zone.

It makes no difference how talented your D-man is as the best D-men were tagged with that infraction throughout the season - and most of the incidents I saw were not deliberate, but accidentalIndeed, and those players should be utterly embarassed, as it is the same as a player missing a slam dunk in basketball. How high is the glass? 8-12 feet high? Are you telling me that these players can hit the top corner of a 4x6 net, and they shouldn't be made responsible to keep the puck lower than that?!?

Calling the clutching is fine and it should be called, but all those weak roughing penalties, and multitude of charging penalties (when they were nothing of the sort), and then blithely ignoring a massive amount of high-sticks just made me sick. The diving they allowed, and the penalties for basically having your stick at waist height on another player is instant hooking. And don't forget the neutral zone. They all but forgot about calling obstruction in the neutral zone last season, where 90% of the game's slowdown occurs.

[Beaner]

Looks like the AHL has "altered" the rule a bit.

from, http://www.theahl.com/AHL/News/2006/07/05/1669722.html


In addition to mandating visors for all players, the only substantive rule change adopted by the AHL at last week’s meeting was that in the event of a defending player (other than the goalkeeper) clearing the puck over the glass from within the defensive zone, except in cases when a minor penalty for delay of game is assessed at the discretion of the referee, the offending team will not be permitted a line change prior to the ensuing faceoff.

So looks like the ref can asses 2 mins if he feels its a deliberate delay of game otherwise its just like the icing rule, IE no line change for offender.

Goalies still get the 2 min minor though.

I think thats the right move for this rule.

[dondo]

except I never thought it was good rule for goalies either. Pucks go out of play, assessing 2 min for that is ludicrous, esp since bad ice or a mis-step can cause the puck to go out.

Leaving it up to the refs is an even worse way to go imo - as it now puts a grey area into the calling of the infraction (which is a poor one to begin with) rather than having a cut and dried effect like there is for icing. This is actually a pretty gutless way to go as this penalty has been criticised since its inception, by knowledgable hockey people.

SND you talk about the players being able to pick the top corner (well some of them can, but some are mostly lucky [esp with point shots]). There are more than a few factors which go into why a puck misses the glass the least of which is a deliberate act.

I personally don't think it encourages picking up puck moving defensemen as even the best puck moving defensemen will invariably at some point try to chip it off the glass and when they miss they get punished far beyond what the infraction entails.

What's wrong with not allowing a team to change - like it is for deliberate icing - that just makes sense - they are both very minor delay of game infractions, and as such they should carry equal weight in terms of punishment. These half and half measures seem to be a compromise so the league doesn't look completely stupid for installing the penalty in the first place. It feels to me to be purely an ego-saving move and not out of any desire to make the game better.

The AHL tests all of these new rule changes before they get to the NHL level, and this particular penalty was the one penalty they vetoed after testing it - but then Bettman and his cronies went ahead and inserted it anyway - because they have a hidden agenda which doesn't help the game it hinders the game.

[rinkrat]

a foul ball is a foul ball...
a puck over the glass is a puck over the glass...
don't do it,simple.
The onus is on the player,no excuses.

[SectionNDeserter]

There are more than a few factors which go into why a puck misses the glass the least of which is a deliberate act.Most of which usually involves an opposition forward aggressively forchecking them, and either themselves and/or their teammates being out of position and unable to help them out, forcing them to awkwardly fire the puck down the ice/off the boards. I have yet to see a player this year under no pressure, calmly shoot the puck over the glass. If they aren't getting outworked, or out of position, they shouldn't be in a position where they are going to fire the puck over the glass.

[scrunt]

I must say I'm surprised that there is so much support for what I consider to be the most asinine rule in hockey.

I thought it was stupid when only goalies were targeted, and made even worse when it was applied to eveyone.


a foul ball is a foul ball...

So what? This rule is like an automatic out if it goes foul up the first base line, but not the third base line...

If the intention is to prevent stoppages when players are in trouble in their defensive zone, then icing should be a two minute penalty, along with freezing the puck by a goalie, and freezing the puck against the boards. The end result is exactly the same, so why is one act penalized with a penalty and the others not? If it is so bad, why not make shooting the puck over the glass a penalty shot? That will really cut down the number of infractions <insert sarcasm emoticon here>.


Most of which usually involves an opposition forward aggressively forchecking them, and either themselves and/or their teammates being out of position and unable to help them out, forcing them to awkwardly fire the puck down the ice/off the boards.

I agree, but why does that mean that shooting a puck over the glass is a penalty and icing isn't? To me this argument is like saying that the maximum fine for murder should be a life sentence if you use a gun as the weapon, but only a $1,000 fine if you use a knife, because a knife would usually be handier.

The only delaying action truly worthy of a penalty is deliberately knocking the net off, because a player can do that without possession of the puck.

[dondo]

I have yet to see a player this year under no pressure, calmly shoot the puck over the glass.

^ actually I saw that several times last season - d-man all alone goes to chip it off the glass misses and its a penalty. Its just not penalty worthy - sure there needs to be a deterrent, but not allowing a team to change lines is more than enough of a deterrent imo.

I agree with scrunt that it is an asinine penalty and seems to be two different punishments for what amounts to virtually the same act.

[SectionNDeserter]

^ actually I saw that several times last season - d-man all alone goes to chip it off the glass misses and its a penalty.Any NHL player that does that without any pressure on them, its time for a trip to the ECHL ;)

[SectionNDeserter]

If the intention is to prevent stoppages when players are in trouble in their defensive zone, then icing should be a two minute penalty, along with freezing the puck by a goalie, and freezing the puck against the boards.Give it time Scrunt.... Give it time :)