Officiating and Replay Crisis

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
23,161
306, row 14
I think this is worthy of its own thread. There have been several high profile officiating gaffes this postseason that has put the spotlight on the on ice officiating and the severely flawed replay system the NHL uses. A few examples:

1. The Eakin major penalty in game 7 of Vegas/San Jose that played a significant role in changing the outcome of the series. In this instance the officials panicked at a bad result (Pavelski on the ice with blood coming out of his head). Should they review penalties?

2. Non-reviewable goals. The puck that hit the netting in Columbus and then last night’s debacle in St. Louis where a goal was scored as a result of an obvious hand pass.

3. I’d also lump in the standard of officiating. In my opinion, they are letting a ton of interference, boarding, physical type penalties go (playoff hockey!) but still calling a high volume of the rinky rink taps to the hand.

The league has implemented a half in half out approach to review, and we’re seeing the unintended consequences. They don’t want to stop the game and slow down the flow, so the only reviewable plays are offside, GI, puck in or out, and then how the puck directly entered the net (high stick, kick, batted in with a hand). That leaves them in a bad spot when things like the puck hitting the netting and the hand pass happen. You’d think that of the 4 on ice officials, one of them would have an eye on the puck but these have been missed. Goalie interference is a disaster, nobody knows the standard. It seems to be “did the contact affect the goalies ability to make the save?” But judgement comes at the hands of someone in the Toronto war room. Offside reviews is a full on disaster and they have been since it was implemented. They’re taking goals off the board based on a inconsequential margin of a skate being in the air or a hair over the blue line early. This could also happen 30 to 60 seconds before a goal is scored. My other problem is that there is no corrective mechanism for an onside play that gets blown dead.

The league has 2 ways to go. They either have to take out review and live with human error, or expand replay. Option 1 is my preferred route, but it doesn’t solve problems like the hand pass. I don’t think they’ll do that. Option 2 is probably where we end up. My idea is to get rid of challenges and go to the NFL model where all scoring plays are reviewed, and everything is on the table in a review. I’d prefer they lay off the offside part, but I feel like it would have to stay on the table to correct a blatant mistake.

As far as penalties go, I think I’m OK with them reviewing majors. Those usually pop up when a player is injured. If they want to take a look at what happened while an injured player is being attended to, go for it. The NCAA does this and I think it works for them.

Ideas? Thoughts? I’m anti-review, but I don’t think it is going away. They just can’t maintain this status quo and be half-in, half-out.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,682
Deep inside Muppet Labs
The very first thing I'd do is dump the review for offsides. I hate hate hate hate that.

Review scoring plays, out of bounds calls, etc. Everything else is left to the officials.

For plays like last night's, you live with the mistake by the refs.
 

TFP

Dope
Dope
Dec 10, 2007
17,651
Yeah that about sums it up. I'm ready to abolish review completely and re-train our officials. Review right now is a disaster, we're never confident they're going to get it right. I can't imagine expanding review would magically make them better at it. I'd also simplify the rule book. Make the game easier to call and get the officials to focus on fewer things. I'm not optimistic that they'll get this right.

Here's my post from the WC Finals thread below, where my biggest problem with last night (and the netting play) is that no one is watching the puck.

Ok it’s way too late and I should be asleep but this is really bothering me. I’d love to know what the officials are trained to watch in a situation like this.

The ref behind the net clearly has the toughest job. He has to watch all of the interference and stick infractions happening. Plus he’s down in the action and has to be aware of getting hit by a puck at all times. He gets a complete pass.

There are two linesemen on the blue line. There’s no risk of offside. No risk of too many men. What are they trained to watch? It’s an honest question, I really don’t know. One of them (minimum) should be watching the puck. Maybe both.

The 2nd ref is god knows where. Maybe he should watch the puck, maybe he should be watching for penalties behind the play. I’d defer to him watching penalties to be honest.

So ultimately - why aren’t the linesmen watching this? Are they trained to? If not - what are they trained to watch instead and why? If they are trained for this, what were they watching instead? And why aren’t any reporters asking these questions instead of lazy platitudes about why this isn’t reviewable?
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
24,936
Cambridge, MA
Great summary, and we're unfortunately seeing the results of this approach tarnish some of the biggest games of the biggest series in an otherwise outstanding playoff season.

The warning signs for this have been there all season - the dartboard-esque outcome of goalie interference calls, plays like Wagner batting the puck down with a high stick prior to a tap-in not being reviewable, and the ongoing unpredictability of DoPS decisions (though I will admit this is improving marginally).

There are a few high-level steps I'd take
  1. First and foremost, full stop prior to any other changes, stop having these guys look at a fucking tablet on the ice. It's not fair to them and it's not realistic to expect them to make informed decisions off of given they're sharing a 9" screen in an arena of 15-20k yelling fans.
    1. Empower the off-ice officials and implement a VAR-like system. When an off-ice official sees a reviewable situation, the on-ice referees are informed to hold up play at the next whistle. Off-ice officials are subsequently responsible for determining the outcome of the review. It's simple, it's worked in soccer, and everything's already in place for it
  2. In addition to off-ice officials being empowered to stop play, a nightly team consisting of competition committee members and former NHL goaltenders needs to be formed specifically to review instances where there was contact with a goalie prior to or concurrent with a goal. This area needs consistency badly - the Bruins have had 4 instances this playoffs alone where goals have been either upheld against them (Toronto series) or been nullified for them (DeBrusk in g3 v CAR, a couple in the CBJ series) where counterpoints showing similar contact have resulted in the opposite outcome.
  3. Make major penalties reviewable
  4. Within 15 seconds of a goal, any of the following is reviewable: hand passes, pucks leaving play, offside, icing, goaltender interference, major penalties... it's a pandora's box to include minor penalty infractions here so I'd shy away from that
  5. As a consequence of point 3, a toe over the line for offside > 15 seconds before a goal should not be reviewable. The game moves too quickly and too much develops in that time to have a 1-2" margin determine whether the ensuing dozen+ plays should be nullified.

Absent review, a couple other improvements I'd like to see:
  1. Allow goals to be scored with a distinct kicking motion
  2. Empower linesmen to inform on-ice referees of minor penalties outside of too many men
  3. Remove one of the on-ice referees
 

The Raccoon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2018
429
Germany
Empower the off-ice officials and implement a VAR-like system. When an off-ice official sees a reviewable situation, the on-ice referees are informed to hold up play at the next whistle. Off-ice officials are subsequently responsible for determining the outcome of the review. It's simple, it's worked in soccer, and everything's already in place for it
I watched a whole lot (way to much) soccer for the last 25+ years. Since they started the VAR I don't understand the rules for handball anymore, because for every easy and obvious situation there are 5 tricky judgement calls (arm = illegal or shoulder = legal; just accidental = legal or careless = illegal...). And that's just for handballs, don't get me started on foul or no foul...

Video review works really fine for black or white situations (Goal or still on the line, offsides, in or out of bounds, before or after the buzzer...)
The moment you want it to correct judgement calls you will be able to correct the rare, egregious errors but the discussion on 80% of decisions will continue and you have to interrupt the flow of the game to do so.
The VAR is a possible solution, but certainly not THE solution, as it comes with its own costs...
 

The Long Tater

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
2,644
Great post and topic. The issue we have to solve is “what is a play”? I agree with the concept: review all scoring plays. But how far back do you go? 5 sec, 10 sec, back to entering the zone? People will want an enforceable standard.

I would be happy (I think) with a “know it when you see it” approach, which would boil down to “did something illegal materially impact this goal” but that means you have to just accept the judgment of the officials. That should be fine because that actually is what we do now. But people will bitch and see conspiracies.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
2,812
Somerville, MA
The NHL is the only sport where penalties taken is highly correlated with penalties drawn. It's such an obvious WHAT THE FUCK problem when you look at the data -- the refs just call equal amounts of penalties for both teams, regardless of whether they're committing the same amount of penalties. I'll try to find a nice graph of this.
 

lars10

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
5,850
Great post and topic. The issue we have to solve is “what is a play”? I agree with the concept: review all scoring plays. But how far back do you go? 5 sec, 10 sec, back to entering the zone? People will want an enforceable standard.

I would be happy (I think) with a “know it when you see it” approach, which would boil down to “did something illegal materially impact this goal” but that means you have to just accept the judgment of the officials. That should be fine because that actually is what we do now. But people will bitch and see conspiracies.
I feel like every goal should be reviewed back to entering the zone. If you can review for offsides going as far back as you want then you should just review everything (other than possible penalties outside of interference). Goals are such a huge change in the outcome of the game in hockey that they should be reviewed like TDs are in the NFL.

That way you are allowed to take back the Columbus goal or the hand pass goal.. things that are human error and are just missed. There aren't that many goals a game which makes each one important, but also means that the time required to review per game wouldn't be all that much... and some reviews would be very quick anyway since nothing happened.

Also, I feel like they should change interference to be if the goalie is outside of the crease that there can't be interference.. if an offensive player enters on their own (without getting pushed) and makes contact with the goalie it's automatic interference if a goal is scored.. whatever the changes they need to make the rule more clear and take the guesswork/human judgment part out of it.)
 

lars10

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
5,850
I think this is worthy of its own thread. There have been several high profile officiating gaffes this postseason that has put the spotlight on the on ice officiating and the severely flawed replay system the NHL uses. A few examples:

1. The Eakin major penalty in game 7 of Vegas/San Jose that played a significant role in changing the outcome of the series. In this instance the officials panicked at a bad result (Pavelski on the ice with blood coming out of his head). Should they review penalties?

2. Non-reviewable goals. The puck that hit the netting in Columbus and then last night’s debacle in St. Louis where a goal was scored as a result of an obvious hand pass.

3. I’d also lump in the standard of officiating. In my opinion, they are letting a ton of interference, boarding, physical type penalties go (playoff hockey!) but still calling a high volume of the rinky rink taps to the hand.

The league has implemented a half in half out approach to review, and we’re seeing the unintended consequences. They don’t want to stop the game and slow down the flow, so the only reviewable plays are offside, GI, puck in or out, and then how the puck directly entered the net (high stick, kick, batted in with a hand). That leaves them in a bad spot when things like the puck hitting the netting and the hand pass happen. You’d think that of the 4 on ice officials, one of them would have an eye on the puck but these have been missed. Goalie interference is a disaster, nobody knows the standard. It seems to be “did the contact affect the goalies ability to make the save?” But judgement comes at the hands of someone in the Toronto war room. Offside reviews is a full on disaster and they have been since it was implemented. They’re taking goals off the board based on a inconsequential margin of a skate being in the air or a hair over the blue line early. This could also happen 30 to 60 seconds before a goal is scored. My other problem is that there is no corrective mechanism for an onside play that gets blown dead.

The league has 2 ways to go. They either have to take out review and live with human error, or expand replay. Option 1 is my preferred route, but it doesn’t solve problems like the hand pass. I don’t think they’ll do that. Option 2 is probably where we end up. My idea is to get rid of challenges and go to the NFL model where all scoring plays are reviewed, and everything is on the table in a review. I’d prefer they lay off the offside part, but I feel like it would have to stay on the table to correct a blatant mistake.

As far as penalties go, I think I’m OK with them reviewing majors. Those usually pop up when a player is injured. If they want to take a look at what happened while an injured player is being attended to, go for it. The NCAA does this and I think it works for them.

Ideas? Thoughts? I’m anti-review, but I don’t think it is going away. They just can’t maintain this status quo and be half-in, half-out.
Re: to 3... As a casual hockey fan I have no idea what cross-checking is anymore. I've seen so many players get plowed into from behind in front of the net or on the boards by players, who have their sticks extended away from their body, that I'm not sure what the criteria is to call it other than discretion by the refs. Players are getting destroyed on scoring chances/rebounds with nothing getting called...seems like that shouldn't be in the spirit of the game.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,222
I'd like to see review on scoring plays extended only to a change in possession prior to a goal not a pre-determined time period.
If team X is offside on entry then team Y gets the puck in the corner but ends up turning it over and a goal results the goal stands. If team Y is offside keeps sole possession and scores 2min later the goal should be nullified since the offside could be directly attributed to scoring the goal. Last night would not have counted since the infraction occurred without a change of possession.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
6,229
Falmouth
I do like the idea of a timed review...you get 30 seconds or one minute or whatever to look at the call. If you can't decide in that time, tough luck, it wasn't an obvious call.

I'd probably rather go back to zero replays than expand it much more than it is...the duchene/offsides example is exactly what I fear. Created a monster out of something that was a fairly simple fix.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,771
Good thread, thanks. Offside review is the one that drives me the most crazy and its only because of Matt Duchene a few years back. If there had not been that public embarrassment, they wouldn't have implemented it. I've heard Sean McIndoe make the point that we review offsides but not faceoff violations and he's right. It's an arbitrary rule that we've elevated above all of the other rules because of Matt Duchene. Thanks a lot Matt Duchene. Get rid of it.

I don't think all review will ever go away though. So how do you fix it? I think starting at the change of possession is right and you have a team of people in Toronto handling this, not the refs on the ice.

The real problem is the incompetence of the refs. How was noone tracking the puck when the Columbus goal happened or last night with the hand pass. No official was looking at the puck in either instance, that's clear. They need to be retrained, the rulebook needs to be fixed and simplified and I think that mitigates more than anything that happens in the review booth.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
10,058
A "fuck you" to a league doesn't get a lot louder than a gambling site voluntarily parting with money.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
36,247
Rotten Apple
On a related note, why are they not putting a computer tracking chip in the puck? Why is the excuse of 'the camera didn't have a good angle' still a thing? The tennis system is the best system and should be copied by everyone. If they had modern chips and sensors you wouldn't even need to review as much.
 

terminal_e

lurker
Feb 24, 2019
2
It seems like every league expands replay to the point you get to the Belichick conundrum - why isn't every single decision reviewable? As you approach that point, attempting to achieve fairness, you expand replay to the point where fans are stunned that situations X and Y are not reviewable, which exacerbates the sense of unfairness you were trying to solve in the first place.

Goalie interference is an interesting topic - what is the point of the crease if goalie interference out of a crease is a thing? It feels a bit strange to me that goalies are prohibited from playing the puck in the corners to drive more scoring, but you are not telling goalies that out of the crease they become more like a regular player - so if you want to cut down the angle 2 feet out of the crease, you aren't going to get the same interference calls you get in the crease
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
2,812
Somerville, MA
The thing that's infuriating about offsides is that it really doesn't matter at all. Being off by a few inches or a fraction of a second is such a tiny advantage in hockey. If a guy doesn't clear the zone and is hanging out at the faceoff dot, sure, that's not what replay is looking at though. They should treat it like double plays in baseball. The ref needs to make sure it's not egregious, and the play isn't reviewable. Why don't we replay icing calls? You just need to be close to the red line to make it not icing.

Here's the chart I was talking about that is also infuriating:

 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
28,195
South Boston
The rule book should be pared back with better explanations and fewer contradictions/exceptions. The goalie interference rules should be burned and their authors drawn and quartered with their heads being hung on London Bridge and the pieces of their bodies sent to the four corners of the league as a warning. Then, get something you could explain to a six year old. There’s your rule.

There should not be any replay, except that all goals are automatically reviewed for whether they crossed the goal line. That’s it.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,222
The thing that's infuriating about offsides is that it really doesn't matter at all. Being off by a few inches or a fraction of a second is such a tiny advantage in hockey. If a guy doesn't clear the zone and is hanging out at the faceoff dot, sure, that's not what replay is looking at though. They should treat it like double plays in baseball. The ref needs to make sure it's not egregious, and the play isn't reviewable. Why don't we replay icing calls? You just need to be close to the red line to make it not icing.

Here's the chart I was talking about that is also infuriating:

Good point that offsides is almost always immaterial to the outcome of the play and is instead used as a "Gotcha" vs something illegal that gives a clear advantage to the scoring team. If the offsides is material it is caught 99.7% of the time.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,229
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
It’s neither an officiating nor a replay crisis. It’s a policy/rules problem. They need to expand replay to include all scoring plays. Sorry for setting off everyone’s Obvious Meter.

Getting calls wrong is nothing new. What is new is the amount of technology available to show all the things that occur, in incredibly slow speed and detail.
 

TFP

Dope
Dope
Dec 10, 2007
17,651
The rule book should be pared back with better explanations and fewer contradictions/exceptions. The goalie interference rules should be burned and their authors drawn and quartered with their heads being hung on London Bridge and the pieces of their bodies sent to the four corners of the league as a warning. Then, get something you could explain to a six year old. There’s your rule.

There should not be any replay, except that all goals are automatically reviewed for whether they crossed the goal line. That’s it.
This is pretty much where I land on this. I'm also good with an off-ice official who is part of the crew who can ring in within 5 seconds to correct obvious non-penalty calls that those on the ice missed. Let the ref make the call in real time as well, no more challenges.

It’s neither an officiating nor a replay crisis. It’s a policy/rules problem. They need to expand replay to include all scoring plays. Sorry for setting off everyone’s Obvious Meter.

Getting calls wrong is nothing new. What is new is the amount of technology available to show all the things that occur, in incredibly slow speed and detail.
Couldn't disagree with this more and it's far from "obvious" that this is the right solution. Slow motion has been around for 50+ years, HD TV has been around for almost 20. The technology isn't the new thing here. It's the speed of the game and complexity of the rule book that is newest. Stop trying to legislate every possibility in the rules and just simplify them.

You know the easiest way for refs to stop missing delay of game penalties? By making it no longer a penalty. More replay is not the answer.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,229
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
Good thread, thanks. Offside review is the one that drives me the most crazy and its only because of Matt Duchene a few years back. If there had not been that public embarrassment, they wouldn't have implemented it. I've heard Sean McIndoe make the point that we review offsides but not faceoff violations and he's right. It's an arbitrary rule that we've elevated above all of the other rules because of Matt Duchene. Thanks a lot Matt Duchene. Get rid of it.

I don't think all review will ever go away though. So how do you fix it? I think starting at the change of possession is right and you have a team of people in Toronto handling this, not the refs on the ice.

The real problem is the incompetence of the refs. How was noone tracking the puck when the Columbus goal happened or last night with the hand pass. No official was looking at the puck in either instance, that's clear. They need to be retrained, the rulebook needs to be fixed and simplified and I think that mitigates more than anything that happens in the review booth.
Maybe they could change the shading of the blueline so it goes from regular blue to white over a distance of 10 feet on both sides, and then nobody will know whether offsides has occurred.

There’s nothing arbitrary about an offsides violation. A player is either offsides or they aren’t. The silly part about the rule is that a team runs the risk of getting a penalty because they might not make the correct snap judgment on whether to review. You’re either right or punished. Since teams only care about this on scoring plays, requiring automatic review out of TO on all scoring plays would eliminate the need to have a debate over offsides.
 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,677
Kill the ridiculous offside review and clearing over the glass that causes a penalty. Review scoring plays, out of bounds plays and majors in Toronto. A crisper definition of goalie interference needs to be determined. The overall standard of officiating needs to be better and they have to be accountable to a higher standard. Leverage technology wherever possible to make things better.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,212
Hingham, MA
For someone who doesn't know a shit ton about hockey, can someone explain the reason the NHL created a penalty for clearing over the glass? What is fundamentally different about this vs. icing?
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
3,866
Seacoast NH
For someone who doesn't know a shit ton about hockey, can someone explain the reason the NHL created a penalty for clearing over the glass? What is fundamentally different about this vs. icing?
I knew when it started but couldn't for the life of me remember why. If you believe Grantland:

The background: Coming out of the 2005 lockout, the NHL introduced several new rules in an attempt to increase offense and speed up the game. Among them was an addition to Rule 63.2’s definition of delay of game, which made it an automatic minor penalty for a player in his own zone to shoot the puck over the glass and out of play.

The puck-over-glass rule was the perfect solution to the problem of players intentionally shooting the puck into the stands to delay the game, which would have been great except for one small detail — that problem never existed. On the list of things that hockey fans worried about pre-lockout, players intentionally shooting the puck into the stands as a strategic move ranked slightly behind thinking that alternate jersey designs weren’t ugly enough.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,229
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
Couldn't disagree with this more and it's far from "obvious" that this is the right solution. Slow motion has been around for 50+ years, HD TV has been around for almost 20. The technology isn't the new thing here. It's the speed of the game and complexity of the rule book that is newest. Stop trying to legislate every possibility in the rules and just simplify them.
I proposed expanding replay to include all scoring plays. That’s what I suggested was an obvious solution to the problem (of the kind that occurred last night). I’ll assume that in the fog of message board that you were commenting on another subject and just happened to attribute it to my comment.
 

TFP

Dope
Dope
Dec 10, 2007
17,651
Haha I read that quote and was like "Man, that Grantland writer sounds a lot like Down Goes Brown". Then I clicked through and saw he wrote it. I completely forgot he wrote for Grantland.
 

TFP

Dope
Dope
Dec 10, 2007
17,651
I proposed expanding replay to include all scoring plays. That’s what I suggested was an obvious solution to the problem (of the kind that occurred last night). I’ll assume that in the fog of message board that you were commenting on another subject and just happened to attribute it to my comment.
My last sentence was directed at the NHL, not you. The first 4 were directed to your post.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
2,812
Somerville, MA
I'm in a very small minority, but I don't mind the delay of game rule. It penalizes an especially lazy form of icing: chucking the puck up the glass. And encourages players to make a pass, skate with the puck, or at least keep the puck near the ice. Also known as playing hockey.

edit: Now that I think about it, I hate icing so much that I would make consecutive icings without possessing the puck in the opposing half a delay of game penalty.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
36,111
I'm in a very small minority, but I don't mind the delay of game rule. It penalizes an especially lazy form of icing: chucking the puck up the glass. And encourages players to make a pass, skate with the puck, or at least keep the puck near the ice. Also known as playing hockey.

edit: Now that I think about it, I hate icing so much that I would make consecutive icings without possessing the puck in the opposing half a delay of game penalty.
Maybe it should just be a penalty to hit it off the glass. Not really a hockey play after all.

(Yes, I'm in the very large majority that would murder this rule if it were a person)
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
6,229
Falmouth
I'm in a very small minority, but I don't mind the delay of game rule. It penalizes an especially lazy form of icing: chucking the puck up the glass. And encourages players to make a pass, skate with the puck, or at least keep the puck near the ice. Also known as playing hockey.

edit: Now that I think about it, I hate icing so much that I would make consecutive icings without possessing the puck in the opposing half a delay of game penalty.
You would turn hockey into a special teams game. Not cool.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,229
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
I'm in a very small minority, but I don't mind the delay of game rule. It penalizes an especially lazy form of icing: chucking the puck up the glass. And encourages players to make a pass, skate with the puck, or at least keep the puck near the ice. Also known as playing hockey.
I’ll bet if we put you and a duck on the scales, we’d learn your true identity, witch!

To elaborate, I agree with you. In my opinion, the complaints over the DOG minor for shooting it out of your own zone are vastly overstated. The rule may not be perfect because it penalizes all instances, but it is objective and fair.

As for the Grantland article, I read it twice. The first time, I read it through. The second, I took the author’s question at face value and answered the question with a resounding “no,” saving myself the trouble of having to read it again. I’m not sure which part rubbed me wrong the most. Looking past the rhetoric (the rule is “dumb” and the dumbest rule “in all of sports”), he makes spurious claims and provides no empirical or even circumstantial evidence. Do readers actually believe that no NHL player had ever shot the puck out of play to stop play? What’s dumb are all the NHL players prior to the 1990s who - according to the author - never did this. I don’t understand why human beings, the most opportunistic species on the planet, never thought this would be a good strategy. Of course players did this, although it’s fair to note that it’s unlikely we will know how the frequency wit which it occurred because I doubt anyone was collecting the data. It would have been nice if he mentioned that in his article. Then he makes the inductive leap off that spurious claim that since it would only happen unintentionally, that players are penalized because of bad luck. Linking that article as a primer for someone like Tims is like forwarding a Breitbart Pizzagate piece to explain why many people hate Hillary Clinton. No offense, Jim.

The argument I can understand for removing the penalty is that it punishes players who are trying to move the puck up the glass and happen to shoot it a little high. However, because there’s no such thing as a free lunch, then you will take that “bad luck” now attributed to the defensive player who shot the puck over the glass and put it on the offensive team who was threatening to score. Call me nuts, but if not punishing a team for bad luck is a primary purpose, then eliminating the rule only exasperates that.

In my unfiltered tone, complaints of this rule are nonsense. Rules of law work when when the limits are clear and enforcement objective. That rule is clear and the enforcement is objective.
 
Last edited:

TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
8,837
Multivac
Yes, the rule is clear and objective and, yes, guys intentionally flipping the puck out of play definitely happened before the rule was made. However, the level of punishment is out of line with how the result of the play (ending the opposing team's offensive threat without physically impeding an opposing player) is treated in other circumstances.

Clearing the puck in basically any other way that is not preferred (e.g. icing it, driving it into the benches, driving it off the glass and into the stands, falling on it and staying on top of it) results in disadvantageous face-offs for the clearing team. Somehow missing the glass is so egregious that it has to be punished with a penalty? It's basically an icing and should be treated that way.
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
3,866
Seacoast NH
Like you said, getting that data before it was a penalty would probably be next to impossible since there would have been no reason to collect it. Maybe this release from nhl.com is a bit better.
NEW YORK (July 22, 2005) - The National Hockey League's Board of Governors today approved a series of rule changes that will emphasize entertainment, skill and competition on the ice. Commissioner Gary Bettman, who presented the package to the Board, also formally announced the creation of a new Competition Committee which was responsible for formulating and recommending the proposed slate of rules changes for approval by the NHL Board of Governors.

One primary objective of the new rules will be to reduce the scope of defensive "tools" a team may effectively employ, and to create a corresponding benefit to the offensive part of the game -- thus allowing skill players to use their skills and increasing the number and quality of scoring chances in the game.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,212
Hingham, MA
Yes, the rule is clear and objective and, yes, guys intentionally flipping the puck out of play definitely happened before the rule was made. However, the level of punishment is out of line with how the result of the play (ending the opposing team's offensive threat without physically impeding an opposing player) is treated in other circumstances.

Clearing the puck in basically any other way that is not preferred (e.g. icing it, driving it into the benches, driving it off the glass and into the stands, falling on it and staying on top of it) results in disadvantageous face-offs for the clearing team. Somehow missing the glass is so egregious that it has to be punished with a penalty? It's basically an icing and should be treated that way.
Yeah this is why I was looking for a better explanation. To someone who doesn't know a shit ton about hockey, it seems like basically the exact same play as icing. What is fundamentally different about it? Shouldn't it be treated the same - face-off in own zone, not allowed to change lines?
 

RetractableRoof

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,496
Quincy, MA
Yeah this is why I was looking for a better explanation. To someone who doesn't know a shit ton about hockey, it seems like basically the exact same play as icing. What is fundamentally different about it? Shouldn't it be treated the same - face-off in own zone, not allowed to change lines?
Picture this: Carolina has a really good forecheck, and when 'on' generate a lot of offensive zone pressure. They turn the opponents over in the offensive zone under that pressure. Guys can't clear it, the D gets trapped, pressure builds, the crowd gets amped up, it becomes a shooting gallery - it's fun hockey to watch.

Or the first time the opponent starts to feel that pressure and touches the puck, instead of trying to ice the puck and maybe fail to clear because of the Canes pressure - the defenseman just casually flips the puck into the stands. Instead of the exciting plays you got to watch, and feeling the pressure build - you got about 30 seconds of pressure, and then another faceoff where the linesman is sure he is the show waving out players for little reason. If it were only accidental flips into the stands when attempting to clear it would be one thing - but it was used as a tactic, a safer version of icing by the defensive team. Defeat the forecheck/offensive pressure any time you need to. It's ugly and kills any flow in the game.

I'm admittedly biased (wanting to keep out the 'into the stands' tactic), and wish there were a happy medium for the consequences (treated like icing vs a penalty), but I can't think of a definite improvement - and I dislike the idea of turning the game back into the stop/go/stop tactics that had become commonplace. The only thing I think of is like tracking team fouls in basketball. After so many you get free throws, even on non-shooting fouls. Maybe you limit the into the stands clearing attempt to 3 per game (or one per period?) and after that - every one is a 2 minute penalty. I'm not sure that is a good idea, but it IS a midway point between icing and a penalty.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
21,191
right here
It definitely needs to be something but I think it's too much as is and I for damn sure don't trust the officials to make a call if it was on purpose or not. I feel like just treating it like icing is the easiest and simplest and best solution. I guess there's the potential for abuse with teams doing it like 5 times in a row but I'm willing to cross that bridge when it's built.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,323
If you treat puck-over-glass like icing, do you also permit shooting the puck out as a legitimate tactic during PKs?
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
21,191
right here
That's a great question and I'm inclined to say no. So it took 3 minutes to contradict myself. Impressive.
I think my out is there's a difference between just "icing" where play continues and stopping play.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
12,858
Tuukka's refugee camp
Picture this: Carolina has a really good forecheck, and when 'on' generate a lot of offensive zone pressure. They turn the opponents over in the offensive zone under that pressure. Guys can't clear it, the D gets trapped, pressure builds, the crowd gets amped up, it becomes a shooting gallery - it's fun hockey to watch.

Or the first time the opponent starts to feel that pressure and touches the puck, instead of trying to ice the puck and maybe fail to clear because of the Canes pressure - the defenseman just casually flips the puck into the stands. Instead of the exciting plays you got to watch, and feeling the pressure build - you got about 30 seconds of pressure, and then another faceoff where the linesman is sure he is the show waving out players for little reason. If it were only accidental flips into the stands when attempting to clear it would be one thing - but it was used as a tactic, a safer version of icing by the defensive team. Defeat the forecheck/offensive pressure any time you need to. It's ugly and kills any flow in the game.

I'm admittedly biased (wanting to keep out the 'into the stands' tactic), and wish there were a happy medium for the consequences (treated like icing vs a penalty), but I can't think of a definite improvement - and I dislike the idea of turning the game back into the stop/go/stop tactics that had become commonplace. The only thing I think of is like tracking team fouls in basketball. After so many you get free throws, even on non-shooting fouls. Maybe you limit the into the stands clearing attempt to 3 per game (or one per period?) and after that - every one is a 2 minute penalty. I'm not sure that is a good idea, but it IS a midway point between icing and a penalty.
The issue is this has never really been a tactic prior to the lockout so you are creating a solve for a problem that either didn't exist or existed in such a minor way that nobody was aware of it.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
36,111
I don't know if this is like a nuclear option but if it must remain a penalty it should be 1 minute, not 2. The punishment will never fit the crime for as long as this is a penalty, but at least bring it a little bit more in line.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,212
Hingham, MA
Picture this: Carolina has a really good forecheck, and when 'on' generate a lot of offensive zone pressure. They turn the opponents over in the offensive zone under that pressure. Guys can't clear it, the D gets trapped, pressure builds, the crowd gets amped up, it becomes a shooting gallery - it's fun hockey to watch.

Or the first time the opponent starts to feel that pressure and touches the puck, instead of trying to ice the puck and maybe fail to clear because of the Canes pressure - the defenseman just casually flips the puck into the stands. Instead of the exciting plays you got to watch, and feeling the pressure build - you got about 30 seconds of pressure, and then another faceoff where the linesman is sure he is the show waving out players for little reason. If it were only accidental flips into the stands when attempting to clear it would be one thing - but it was used as a tactic, a safer version of icing by the defensive team. Defeat the forecheck/offensive pressure any time you need to. It's ugly and kills any flow in the game.

I'm admittedly biased (wanting to keep out the 'into the stands' tactic), and wish there were a happy medium for the consequences (treated like icing vs a penalty), but I can't think of a definite improvement - and I dislike the idea of turning the game back into the stop/go/stop tactics that had become commonplace. The only thing I think of is like tracking team fouls in basketball. After so many you get free throws, even on non-shooting fouls. Maybe you limit the into the stands clearing attempt to 3 per game (or one per period?) and after that - every one is a 2 minute penalty. I'm not sure that is a good idea, but it IS a midway point between icing and a penalty.
So basically what you are saying is it is much easier to do than ice the puck, hence it is a penalty? In other words, icing the puck can be hard, but you still get penalized for it to a degree (own zone face-off plus no line change)... but since clearing over the glass isn't nearly as hard, it comes with a steeper penalty. I can understand that reasoning.
 

TFP

Dope
Dope
Dec 10, 2007
17,651
If you treat puck-over-glass like icing, do you also permit shooting the puck out as a legitimate tactic during PKs?
That's a great question that I've never considered. I would be inclined to not allow a change of personnel. That way it's still an inferior option to icing, since it immediately stops the clock and has an O zone draw with no line change. Icing the puck kills off a bunch of time and allow you to change, so PKers would still choose that option.

I don't want to encourage firing the puck over the glass. I just don't want to harshly punish accidental bounces of the puck for something that doesn't happen that often. I'd honestly be willing to let officials judge intent too and call a penalty only for obvious situations. But I'd rather just eliminate it entirely.

So basically what you are saying is it is much easier to do than ice the puck, hence it is a penalty? In other words, icing the puck can be hard, but you still get penalized for it to a degree (own zone face-off plus no line change)... but since clearing over the glass isn't nearly as hard, it comes with a steeper penalty. I can understand that reasoning.
It depends where you are on the ice. It might be slightly easier, but it's not a huge difference.