Good. Even if it wasn't deflected just say it was. This game shouldn't be decided by that stupid rule.
Delay of Game - Stupid Rule or Dumb Rule?
- Thread starter The Napkin
- Start date
I love that rule. Pure, Crystal clear, unequivocal. What I would hate orders of magnitude more than a PP goal being scored on a violation of the current rule would be a PP goal scored when the referee got it wrong. Then again, I am a faithful follower of Brother Immanuel Kant, so I typically gravitate toward using the rule of law as my moral authority. I'm getting off track here, I think.The Napkin said:
I thought I had set the DVR to record four hours past the end of regulation and found there was nothing when I checked this morning. Bummer.
I understand what you're saying, but the rule is combating a problem it isn't designed to correct. It was brought in after the long lockout to prevent teams from putting the puck in the stands "accidentally on purpose" after a long shift in the defensive end. What it's punishing now is usually a slight lack of accuracy on clearance. Black and white's all good and fine, but sometimes, a rule/law just sucks.
Putting the puck over the glass is essentially the same thing as an icing. It should be penalized the same way. Draw stays in the zone, can't change. The end.
I don't think this is very punitive. If I'm the attacking team, I want more for my effort than a 50-50 chance to win back possession of the puck I already had against a group of tired players (who are tired because I worked hard to put them in that predicament). Icing isn't the same. The puck stays in the defined area of play.cshea said:
Nobody can cover the puck with his glove per the modified rule, and calling delay of game is simply a matter of referees enforcing it. On rare occasions, it is called. However, it would be more problematic to enforce a rule that required an automatic penalty if the net was dislodged. How far does the net need to be off before it is deemed off? Was only one player responsible for knocking it off or did other players somehow contribute to it coming off? What if the goaltender knocks it off?MoGator71 said:
"Don't shoot the puck out of play from the defensive zone." Every single person understands the conditions under which a penalty is to be enforced, and the consequences are clear. Moreover, it rarely occurs. It's not as though we're debating a rule punishing improper crossovers that is called every shift, or even every game. The problem that doesn't exist is the problem due to the current enforcement of the rule.MiracleOfO2704 said:
In some ways I think a case can be made that icing is in a way worse. It's often a deliberate attempt to just clear the puck without making a play. Oftentimes a DOG is just a swipe at a puck or a puck on edge or something else accidentally. It's a silly rule. It's solving a problem that doesn't need to be solved.Fred in Lynn said:
The difference in the infraction between icing it and putting it in the stands is tiny (ooooh they might have a minuscule chance of negating the icing!). Giving a two minute penalty for one and an offensive zone face-off with no change allowed for the offending team for the other is a huge disparity in punishments given that. It's like saying if you go five miles over the speed limit you will get a $250 fine, but if you go 6 miles over you will have your right leg cut off.Fred in Lynn said:
Apples and oranges. Icing is not and has never been an infraction. It's a violation. Delay of game is an infraction. Delaying the game by shooting puck over the glass from your own zone has in modern times has been an infraction. The difference now from 10 years ago is that the referee no longer has the discretion to enforce it.TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle said:
What is the solution you guys are exactly proposing? That delay of game for shooting the puck over the glass should never be an infraction or just at a referee's discretion? Though I don't like the former, I hate the latter. Clarity is what attracts me to the current enforcement. Most aspects of the game must have judgment of a referee, so I think it a wise to get clarity where possible. Or are you proposing the revolutionary step of prohibiting referees from calling DOG (it took me about 10 minutes to figure out that cshea wasn't capitalizing a canine) for shooting the puck over the glass? If that's the case, I think teams will quickly exploit it to their advantage. Clarify please.
Edit: RedAnkle, that reads like I'm lecturing but I'm just sounding it out. Sorry for confusion.
Fred in Lynn said:
Except you didn't have possession. If my team has possession, and takes an over the glass DOG penalty - you did not have possession of the puck. A 50/50 faceoff gives you the chance to get the puck back where you didn't have it before.
Like others have said, the difference between icing and delay of game is often less than an inch - and more often than not the icing is deliberate whereas the DOG (over the glass) is not so. The penalty does not fit the crime.
I think one way to solve it would for it to be related to time of period/game. Where during most of the period it's similar to icing but in the last 4 minutes or so it's a penalty?
I think too many teams would deliberately put the puck over the glass late in periods during sustained pressure if it weren't a penalty.
I think too many teams would deliberately put the puck over the glass late in periods during sustained pressure if it weren't a penalty.
Was DOG a rampant problem before the lockout? Forgive my ignorance as my hometown team at the time blacked out half their home games when I was growing up. This seems like one of those ideas where they were trying to drum up offense with more PPs, only nobody's really concerned with that now and the rule just seems stupid.
The solution is simple. It was even stated in the thread - treat it like an icing. Offensive zone faceoff and you can't change. Which is *still* more of a punishment than it used to be, right?Fred in Lynn said:
kenney has it right. It was a stupid rule put in coming out of the lockout to try to get more PPs and more goals. It's a solution in search of a problem. Get rid of it.
I actually didn't have it right. They blacked out all the home games or half the games. Awful mistake on my end.
Icing is not an infraction, it's a violation in regard to the flow of the game. That's how it's characterized in the rulebook.TheShynessClinic said:
So what it is it specifically that you propose?
Make the DOG a violation in regard to the flow of the game, because it being an infraction is dumb?Fred in Lynn said:
Fred in Lynn said:
timlinin8th said:
make. it. like. icing.Fred in Lynn said:
What about this are you not understanding?
Sorry, I missed this reply before on the mobile app...The Napkin said:
Of course the NHL sought to modify rules to open up the game, and thank the gods they did. Pre-LO, shooting it over the glass was called DOG at the discretion of the referee, if he felt it was deliberate (and felt like calling it, which was almost never). The change took that discretion away from the refs.
As for the icing proposition - How would you propose to address the inevitable exploitation of the change where teams relieved pressure by just shooting it over the glass? They certainly will do that. Why exclude that specific form of delaying the game from enforcement through the DOG minor infraction? What is the justification for calling DOG as an infraction ever if you make this change?
Fred in Lynn said:
Team relieve pressure now by intentionally icing the puck. POG should be treated the same way, even if intentional. The solution in all cases is to treat it like icing.
I think you give discretion back to the refs on whether to call a penalty, and basically train them only to make the call when it's really obvious. Maybe create a caveat that anything shot by a defender that is shot backwards/towards their own net and goes over the glass is an automatic penalty, excluding when goalies bat the puck out of the air and it happens to go over the glass.
Ed Hillel said:
I like this. I'd even throw in directly sideways so that it has to be towards the other end of the ice to be like icing. Because 99.999% of the time that's what the result is going to be. Someone just shot 2 inches too high. And the goalie batting a puck should absolutely not be a penalty as well.
I'll also think about adding on that if you're on a PK you still can't change to make it a little more punitive.
If I'm not mistaken, goalies batting the puck over has always been DOG. Even before the lockout.
I agree that I don't like giving the refs discretion - they have enough in other areas and do it poorly enough as it is. I think that it should go from being a penalty to being treated like icing. The main reason for this is that a significant number of these penalties are not intentional - it's guys trying to scale it up the glass and missing or a guy mishandling the puck and popping it out or it simply bouncing off a guy's stick and going out. It's just seem like overkill to penalize guys for that just because you'd like to penalize guys who intentionally fire it out when tired to stop play, in my opinion.Fred in Lynn said:
I do like the compromise idea of limiting the penalty to firing the puck sideways or away from center ice and eliminating the "bounce off the goalie's glove and fly out of play," situations. Make the sideways call reviewable to take some of the judgement call away from the ref and I think you've got a better rule that is much more likely to penalize guys intentionally throwing the puck out of play which was the true goal of the rule in the first place.
If I had to change it I like Ed's proposal to go back to the discretionary method the best. The vast majority of rulings make by refs already require professional judgment, so it's one more.
As I've belabored on about, I like it as is, and this is so for primarily philosophical reasons: rules of law work best when clear, concise, and applicable in a specified context, and the current enforcement does that without bias. I do not like treating it like icing because 1) it's a revolutionary change, 2) the act of shooting the puck out of play is fundamentally different than shooting it in play, and 3) shooting the puck over the glass is being arbitrarily segregated from the rest of the DOG "umbrella.". But it's just hockey and I've expended far too much thought on this one little thing. Go LA/CHI.
As I've belabored on about, I like it as is, and this is so for primarily philosophical reasons: rules of law work best when clear, concise, and applicable in a specified context, and the current enforcement does that without bias. I do not like treating it like icing because 1) it's a revolutionary change, 2) the act of shooting the puck out of play is fundamentally different than shooting it in play, and 3) shooting the puck over the glass is being arbitrarily segregated from the rest of the DOG "umbrella.". But it's just hockey and I've expended far too much thought on this one little thing. Go LA/CHI.
Lastly, the swipe at my view in the thread title was worth a laugh. It's not the first time I've argued against a stacked deck. Ha ha.
That's correct. Goalies flipping it over the glass became an automatic DOG penalty sometime in the late 80s when guys like Hextall and Tom Barrasso and Rick Tabaracci started getting good at that.cshea said:
I'm with Fred in that I like the clarity of the rule. But I also feel like the penalty outweighs the infraction, based on the observation that since it became an automatic DOG 99.9% of them are clearly accidental. I'd treat it like icing because the reasons behind it are the same as d-zone icing, and so the punishment being similar to the punishment for icing seems fair.
This is a delicious bit of circularity.Fred in Lynn said:
It shouldn't be punished so differently from icing because the motivation for each is similar and there's no real discernible difference in effect.
Vs.
It should be punished differently from icing because it's currently punished differently than icing.