"mckenzie: Sabres Victims Of A Bad Rule"

[shortcat1]

In his latest article on TSN.ca, Bob McKenzie talks about the delay of game penalty that the Sabres took that, in the end, set up the circumstances that allowed for Brind'Amour's game-winning and series-winning goal by the Hurricanes.

This article is a fine example of double-talk. The headline talks about the rule being bad... in the third paragraph (if you count the bold print paragraph), he says: "the Sabres were the victims of a bad rule."

Yet, in the last paragraph on this topic, he says: " I like the rule the way it is because I think it opens up an even bigger can of worms if you start asking referees to read a player's mind to determine intent."

If a rule is bad, how can one like it "the way it is"?

Just another example of the fallability of those who are put on pedestals as 'experts' on a topic.

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?167616

In my mind, this is a fair rule. It's applied EQUALLY TO ALL with no subjectivity to it and it settles once and for all the concerns about delaying the game that took place regularly in the 'old NHL'. I hope the NHL keeps the rule as it is.

:king: :hlogo: :king:

[InsaneHABSfan]

I started reading this article too then just stopped. Guys write stuff just to get a reaction via email. I like Bob and respect his opinions, however I remember Montreal being burned by this rule including being two men down multiple times. I like the rule as it stops guys from making the game slow that shoot the puck over the glass because they are too old for the NHL.

[JLP]

I just know today I lost $500 because of that rule. Grrr...

I hate Carolina.

[TheBigRedC]

I just know today I lost $500 because of that rule. Grrr...

I hate Carolina.

I hope you bet on them BEFORE the injuries.

[JLP]

I hope you bet on them BEFORE the injuries.

Well it was a winner-take-all playoff pool, six of us Tokyo guys in with what amounts to about a C-note each, and with all the early upsets it had come down to me and another fellow way ahead, neck-and-neck for first place, I had three Sabres and he had five Canes and nobody had any Oilers. So if Buffalo had gone through I surely would have taken the pot.

So I am only down the ante, but could have grabbed the whole pot.

But the thing is, I just don't like the Canes (especially after what happened to Saku ) -- is it just my my sour grapes or is there something a little creepy about that team?

Go Oilers!!!

[beliveau1]

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but I like this rule.

If it applies to goalies without exception then it has to be across the board for all players.

The rule I hate is the new icing exception when it is being deemed an attempted pass.

Tough - miss the pass and it's icing. Carolina has used this one to more advantage than the one they are currently upset over. Why reward a team for a miscue.....

Hate that rule!!!!!

Edited June 2, 2006 by beliveau1

[jetsniper]

I've hated the rule since day 1. The goalie stuff is bull, they don't need to play it or clear it as much as the players do. When you're down low being pressed by other guys (especially trying to kill a penalty) you shouldn't have to worry about shooting it over the glass. I don't care what people say, I've always thought the rule was idiotic.

[Mont Royale]

I've hated the rule since day 1. The goalie stuff is bull, they don't need to play it or clear it as much as the players do. When you're down low being pressed by other guys (especially trying to kill a penalty) you shouldn't have to worry about shooting it over the glass. I don't care what people say, I've always thought thje rule was idiotic.

Agreed. This rule leads to too many 5 on 3s, and is all to often decisive in determining the outcome of a game. I could understand if a game turns on a high stick, a trip, a slash... but putting the puck into netting? Silliness.

[beliveau1]

I've hated the rule since day 1. The goalie stuff is bull, they don't need to play it or clear it as much as the players do. When you're down low being pressed by other guys (especially trying to kill a penalty) you shouldn't have to worry about shooting it over the glass. I don't care what people say, I've always thought the rule was idiotic.

Football has its' grounding/throwing out of bounds & kickoff rules, and soccer penalizes you for being the last to contact a ball that goes out of bounds regardless of intent? Why should hockey treat it any different.

Keep the puck in play or pay the price. Maybe change it so you have a hurry up faceoff in your end and no line changes for either side. If the guilty team delays any then the puck is dropped immediately, or you get two for delay of game. No change allowed still. Keep it two minutes for intentionally doing it.

Trouble is the ability to determine intent - so this current situation leaves no room for doubt or interpretation.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.....

[jetsniper]

Football has its' grounding/throwing out of bounds & kickoff rules, and soccer penalizes you for being the last to contact a ball that goes out of bounds regardless of intent? Why should hockey treat it any different.

Because hockey is an entirely different sport? The intent is a lot more easier to see in football and soccer because you're using your own body parts AND there is nothing to keep the ball of play in. When a QB intentionally grounds the ball, it is blatantly obvious. Penalties in football aren't as decapitating as they are in hockey anyway.

Say the puck is coming around the net and hits it bump as you clear it. Instead of just going around the boards like you intended to do, it flies up, bounces off the glass and goes into the crowd. Bang, your down 5 on 4, in OT in Game 7 of the SCF. The other team scores and there goes your (possibly) one and only chance at the cup.

I said in the thread we had here on the first day of the season that I would be pissed if this happened in the playoffs. I am pissed but I do hope it forces to league to take a look at it. With goalies handling the puck being limited as well, I see no reason for this to be enforced on ANYONE.

[Athlétique.Canadien]

Yep, the NEW NHL is THE SAME as the OLD NHL.

Yeah yeah, 2 line pass and the tag up offsides, and this particular delay of game rule. Yes, changes have occured. But, at the end of the day I find I am equally as BAFFLED as to the nature or flow in games of the calls.

Nothing has changed in this regard!

[beliveau1]

Because hockey is an entirely different sport? The intent is a lot more easier to see in football and soccer because you're using your own body parts AND there is nothing to keep the ball of play in. When a QB intentionally grounds the ball, it is blatantly obvious. Penalties in football aren't as decapitating as they are in hockey anyway.

Say the puck is coming around the net and hits it bump as you clear it. Instead of just going around the boards like you intended to do, it flies up, bounces off the glass and goes into the crowd. Bang, your down 5 on 4, in OT in Game 7 of the SCF. The other team scores and there goes your (possibly) one and only chance at the cup.

I said in the thread we had here on the first day of the season that I would be pissed if this happened in the playoffs. I am pissed but I do hope it forces to league to take a look at it. With goalies handling the puck being limited as well, I see no reason for this to be enforced on ANYONE.

"...bounces off the glass..." = no penalty! The puck must clear the boards without touching anything on the way......

so there's no grounds for that line of reasoning?

If the only means of handling the puck correctly is your stick, and if it is supposedly so much more controllable then the reasoning that should follows would conversely be that there is no excuse for the puck going out of the playing zone.

And how many times do you see a play in football that is definitely grounding but they get away with it - lots as far as I can see.

Still think it is a good call that has the potential to suck at times. That's why they have rules? Each sport has its' own specific boundary markers that determine where the object of play must remain for the game to continue, and the crowd is not applicable in any of them.

Far too often you see players put the puck over the boards and you are about 99% sure they did it on purpose, and penalties are rarely called. Unfortunately the NHL is aware of that skill and it has to do something to keep offensive play going as much as possible. This is one of the unfortunate costs that may suck, but it should stay in my opinion.......

Edited June 3, 2006 by beliveau1

[jetsniper]

If it goes off the glass and then out, it's a penalty. Or the refs in about 15-20 games I've watched these season have sucked. I see it called all the time.

I didn't say it was more controllable, I said it was less. Using your own body=more control. Controlling a foreign object=less control. And they get away with grounding a lot. I don't know about CFL since I don't watch it as much but with NFL, it is ALWAYS called even if it shouldn't be. It's a tight rule in football but, like I said, penalties don't effect teams as much in football.

[RobRock]

If it goes off the glass and then out, it's a penalty. Or the refs in about 15-20 games I've watched these season have sucked. I see it called all the time.

I didn't say it was more controllable, I said it was less. Using your own body=more control. Controlling a foreign object=less control. And they get away with grounding a lot. I don't know about CFL since I don't watch it as much but with NFL, it is ALWAYS called even if it shouldn't be. It's a tight rule in football but, like I said, penalties don't effect teams as much in football.

Here's the wording of the rule.

Rule 51 Delaying the Game

A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who delays the game by deliberately shooting or batting the puck with his stick outside the playing area.

(NEW for 2005-06) (NOTE 1) When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. When the puck is shot into the players' bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass 'behind' the players' bench, the penalty will be assessed.

I haven't seen it called when it deflects off the glass this year, either in a live game or on the sports reports. If it did happen that way, and it affected the outcome of the game, I'm sure it would get some notice. I've seen the play called when teams are down a man already, and it's probably cost the Habs points during the season, but it's still a rule I like. I never understood why the guy with the worst stick and gloves for shooting got a penalty for it, but the guys who handle the puck the most and are used to it never did. It's no worse than an incidental high stick that leads to a power play goal, which I've seen called before.

[Komisarek the Cruncher]

Here's the wording of the rule.

I haven't seen it called when it deflects off the glass this year, either in a live game or on the sports reports. If it did happen that way, and it affected the outcome of the game, I'm sure it would get some notice. I've seen the play called when teams are down a man already, and it's probably cost the Habs points during the season, but it's still a rule I like. I never understood why the guy with the worst stick and gloves for shooting got a penalty for it, but the guys who handle the puck the most and are used to it never did. It's no worse than an incidental high stick that leads to a power play goal, which I've seen called before.

I agree, I haven't seen it called once all season when it deflects off the glass. I watched most of the Habs game, and for the zillion calls we got because of that rule (I swear, we probably finished first in the league for these penalties), not once was it called when it deflected off the glass.

I also, like the rule, your in trouble in your own zone, good, let's see some action, I don't want to see a player shoot it out just to get away because they can't clear th puck without cheating.

Yes, it causes many 5 on 3, but hey, that's life. It goes both ways, learn to clear the puck properly and it won't happen. Geez, the glass is high enough as it is, no need to shoot it over, just bounce it of the glass to the sides and you'll clear the zone.

[jetsniper]

Well, whoopty doo. I know its not supposed to be called but it has been and thats my main problem. It's happened twice for Blake against Edmonton and Nashville respectively, I saw Liles get it called on him a few times and a couple times against Skrats. A couple of those times, we lost the game because of the ensuing powerplay. I saw it once at the Flames/Red Wings game I was at too (and I know for a fact it went off the glass, I caught the damn puck). I know I've seen it more then that but those are just a few occasions where I remember it happening.

[InsaneHABSfan]

I agree, I haven't seen it called once all season when it deflects off the glass. I watched most of the Habs game, and for the zillion calls we got because of that rule (I swear, we probably finished first in the league for these penalties), not once was it called when it deflected off the glass.

I also, like the rule, your in trouble in your own zone, good, let's see some action, I don't want to see a player shoot it out just to get away because they can't clear th puck without cheating.

Yes, it causes many 5 on 3, but hey, that's life. It goes both ways, learn to clear the puck properly and it won't happen. Geez, the glass is high enough as it is, no need to shoot it over, just bounce it of the glass to the sides and you'll clear the zone.

Yup. Liked this response as too many times in the past guys just shot the puck over the glass on purpose. It was obvious!

The game has to progress by eliminating slow, useless players that just hook, dump the puck and clog the nuetral zone. I lost interest in hockey including playoffs until this year. It is by no means perfect but the rule helps speed up the game. This rule killed my two favorite teams both Habs and Avs this year in a few games but guys just have to smarten up. Of course this is just my opinion...

[Peter Puck]

No this is a bad rule. Taking discression away from the refs is a mistake. This rule leads to a 2 minute penalty for a simple mistake. In some situations (when already on the PK, when in overtime or late in a close game) this is a severe penalty. The punishment often badly outweighs the crime.

For those who say that it keeps the game going I have to ask: Why don't we impose a 2 minute penalty for anything that leads to a stoppage (except possibly a goal?). Maybe going offside should be 2 minutes in the box: that would sure cut down on offsides. And what about all those palyer shooting pucks into the crowd in the offensive zone. To be fair it seems the penalty for mis-hitting a slapshot into the crowd should be 2 minutes. Or what about defensive players deflecting shots into the crowd? Perhaps goalie should not be allowed to cover the puck without taking a minor?

In reality what happened was that sometimes players would shoot the puck over the glass to relieve pressure and that is bad for the game. To prevent this the league over reacted. They should just encourage refs to call 2 minutes when the refs feel it was done intentionally. Virtually every other penalty is up to the refs discression and this should be too.

I do like the idea of preventing a team from making a change after it shoots the puck out of play. That is a small penalty and yet significant enough to discourage the stoppages.

[jetsniper]

In reality what happened was that sometimes players would shoot the puck over the glass to relieve pressure and that is bad for the game. To prevent this the league over reacted. They should just encourage refs to call 2 minutes when the refs feel it was done intentionally. Virtually every other penalty is up to the refs discression and this should be too.

I agree. If it's so "obvious" as you all say, surely the ref should be able to tell when to call a penalty and when not to.

[InsaneHABSfan]

No this is a bad rule. Taking discression away from the refs is a mistake.

I do like the idea of preventing a team from making a change after it shoots the puck out of play. That is a small penalty and yet significant enough to discourage the stoppages.

I think there is a little over reaction to the rule. How can a ref tell if it was shot out on purpose or not? They do not have our advantage of being an armchair referee and this is not always easy to tell. This is why the rule was set in as the Refs do not have every angle or video review.

They could not even call Justin Williams for obvious high sticking calls on Koivu and Markov and there are 2 sets of eyes watching the play.

Players have no need to shoot the puck that high when in trouble.

[Komisarek the Cruncher]

I think there is a little over reaction to the rule. How can a ref tell if it was shot out on purpose or not? They do not have our advantage of being an armchair referee and this is not always easy to tell. This is why the rule was set in as the Refs do not have every angle or video review.

They could not even call Justin Williams for obvious high sticking calls on Koivu and Markov and there are 2 sets of eyes watching the play.

Players have no need to shoot the puck that high when in trouble.

I would like to add that line referees are also allowed to call high sticking penalties, so four sets of eyes missed those penalties.

[beliveau1]

Well, whoopty doo. I know its not supposed to be called but it has been and thats my main problem. It's happened twice for Blake against Edmonton and Nashville respectively, I saw Liles get it called on him a few times and a couple times against Skrats. A couple of those times, we lost the game because of the ensuing powerplay. I saw it once at the Flames/Red Wings game I was at too (and I know for a fact it went off the glass, I caught the damn puck). I know I've seen it more then that but those are just a few occasions where I remember it happening.

I didn't see any of those plays, and I never saw any during all the games I watch(and I watch a lot) so I can't comment on their merit. If it actually touched the glass on its' way out then obviously those would qualify as blown calls. Much like the fact that all of the officials on the ice blew the Williams highsticking call against Koivu. It happens because it's the human factor.....

The problem with the old rule was that refs were rarely calling it in the NHL prior to the lockout.

Many times you saw defenseman fire the puck into the crowd under pressure and it was very clear that they were guilty of delaying the game. Yet no call was made on the vast majority of the plays.

As a result of that, and in attempt to increase offensive pressure, the NHL adopted a zero tolerance rule.

Sometimes they are necessary for the game itself to proceed in an orderly fashion, despite the fact we may dislike their nature. Most if not all sports have them in some form or another. Those rules automatically remove judgment from the process as it can be too hard to interpret the intent of the athlete at that particulare point in time.

Soccer has hand contact rules, baseball has the infield fly rule and a few others to boot as well, and so on and so forth in every sport.

Unfortunately this rule has had a lot of impact on the game at key times because many players forget in the heat of action and are just careless when they whip the puck out of the endzone?

Like this rule or not, there's no arguing the fact that it has created its' own share of incresed offensive production.

I still like it as it keeps players from stopping play the easy way without any penalty imposed for deliberately doing so. And the fact is these guys are talented enough to hide their intent most of the time at the NHL level.

[Komisarek the Cruncher]

Well, whoopty doo. I know its not supposed to be called but it has been and thats my main problem. It's happened twice for Blake against Edmonton and Nashville respectively, I saw Liles get it called on him a few times and a couple times against Skrats. A couple of those times, we lost the game because of the ensuing powerplay. I saw it once at the Flames/Red Wings game I was at too (and I know for a fact it went off the glass, I caught the damn puck). I know I've seen it more then that but those are just a few occasions where I remember it happening.

I don't know if you're making up all these incidents, but it can't happen that often for the simple reason that its physicaly almost impossible to hit the glass and have the puck go over it?

The only times that can happen is if the puck is turning 360 degrees on its self and it the top (and I mean top) part of the glass so that the turning momentum of the puck keeps it going forward and not bounce back toward the opposite direction and how often does that happen....

The rule is good, fair for both sides and contributes to the new offense in the league. Allowing to dump the puck over the glass like before would slow the pace down again and would reduce the number of goals in the league. Sorry I like the new offense and I don't want the old boring NHL back.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Komisarek the Cruncher

[jetsniper]

Why would I make something up for the sake of a message board argument? Please.

Whether you believe me or not, I know for a fact they happened so....whatever.

And beliveau, I know what you mean for adpoting the zero-tolerance. But the refs also used to put away their whistles for the playoffs and Bettman called them out on that. I think the biggest problem, and I know no one will agree with me, is the old NHL mindset is present in todays refs so I'd like to see an injection of fresh blood. Don't get of the vets but I'd like to see much less of guys like Fraser, McGeough, Massenhoven and more of the new, young guys. I think if the NHL started their and threatened them the way they did with the playoffs, they'd call the players out on their intentional times more often.

[beliveau1]

.....And beliveau, I know what you mean for adpoting the zero-tolerance. But the refs also used to put away their whistles for the playoffs and Bettman called them out on that. I think the biggest problem, and I know no one will agree with me, is the old NHL mindset is present in todays refs so I'd like to see an injection of fresh blood. Don't get of the vets but I'd like to see much less of guys like Fraser, McGeough, Massenhoven and more of the new, young guys. I think if the NHL started their and threatened them the way they did with the playoffs, they'd call the players out on their intentional times more often.

Bingo on the refs putting away their whistles comment! It wasn't just applicable to the playoffs either. There was too much of a let the players play mentality in the NHL. And it still has a long way to go in my opinion?

Problem with letting the players dump the puck over the boards is just that it is a judgment call. Do you think you'd see them call it in a 5 on 4 if given the choice..... most likely not, even in the new NHL. Give the refs judgment on this one and they'll just pocket their whistles once more.

Unfortunately this is a non discreteionary call that must be enforced with a zero tolerance approach, or not at all. It's not popularone of those rules that all sports have to live with in order for the sport to grow and evolve(especially when your team is on the short end of it.)

As for Komisarek the Cruncher's comments - it can glance off the top edge of the glass and go out - happens quite a bit. I think that is what is being questioned here regarding the calls that may have been blown? Pucks ricochetting of the top edge of the glass can happen so quickly that it is very possible the call could be missed once in a while by even the best refs.

As for seeing new refs there was an article that I linked here in one of topics regarding that happening this year - I think you made a comment in it if memory serves me right?

http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?showtopic=6859