jetsniper Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 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 Yep, I basically meant the same thing there. I think the NHL needs to ditch the old vets. And yeah, thats what I mean with the blown calls. It's usually when the player backhands it up and it goes around the corner. It takes a funny bounce off the left corner, goes out, penalty. Stupid, stupid, stupid. You're right though, there is still a long way to go concerning the new rules. I guess you can't expect the refs to get it right away or the fans adapt to it right away. I think we're still seeing a rough version right now and in a few years time, I believe everything will be smoothed out and less people will be divided on the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Yep, I basically meant the same thing there. I think the NHL needs to ditch the old vets. And yeah, thats what I mean with the blown calls. It's usually when the player backhands it up and it goes around the corner. It takes a funny bounce off the left corner, goes out, penalty. Stupid, stupid, stupid. You're right though, there is still a long way to go concerning the new rules. I guess you can't expect the refs to get it right away or the fans adapt to it right away. I think we're still seeing a rough version right now and in a few years time, I believe everything will be smoothed out and less people will be divided on the rules. Tecnically - if it touches anything on the way out it isn't supposed to be a penalty.... If it only touches the top edge of the glass, even if only slightly it is not a penalty. I'm not sure about times where it rings the boards though as that obviously shouldn't be called - that would be as bad a call as the Koivu in terms of missing the obvious. I can see the times it just zings off the top edge being possibly missed though. Personally I haven't seen either happen yet, but then again anything is possible. Still one series left for them to screw up somehow? As far as rules go - I think the NHL has to be the only professional sport that has outright adopted the mindset of not wanting to enforce its' own rules. It is drowning in a sea of 'don't call it as you just might affect the outcome of the game' apathy...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InsaneHABSfan Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Tecnically - if it touches anything on the way out it isn't supposed to be a penalty.... If it only touches the top edge of the glass, even if only slightly it is not a penalty. I'm not sure about times where it rings the boards though as that obviously shouldn't be called - that would be as bad a call as the Koivu in terms of missing the obvious. I can see the times it just zings off the top edge being possibly missed though. Personally I haven't seen either happen yet, but then again anything is possible. Still one series left for them to screw up somehow? As far as rules go - I think the NHL has to be the only professional sport that has outright adopted the mindset of not wanting to enforce its' own rules. It is drowning in a sea of 'don't call it as you just might affect the outcome of the game' apathy...... beliveau1 and jetsniper you both bring up an interesting arguement. How many times (And I believe jetsniper's Colorado observations) does the puck actually get tipped and the refs only saw the opposing team pointing fingers. Of course the penalty will be called more times than not. (The Bettman Law of penalties) I believe I read one of the members of this board say just make the players on the team that shot the puck out stay on the ice. Now, not being a penalty this would be a great idea as the dumb dumb (about the harshest thing I ever say anymore) who shot the puck out has to stay on the ice with his buddies. Maybe a better solution than a penalty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 beliveau1 and jetsniper you both bring up an interesting arguement. How many times (And I believe jetsniper's Colorado observations) does the puck actually get tipped and the refs only saw the opposing team pointing fingers. Of course the penalty will be called more times than not. (The Bettman Law of penalties) I believe I read one of the members of this board say just make the players on the team that shot the puck out stay on the ice. Now, not being a penalty this would be a great idea as the dumb dumb (about the harshest thing I ever say anymore) who shot the puck out has to stay on the ice with his buddies. Maybe a better solution than a penalty? There is a very interesting article in todays Toronto Star regarding the possible future of this rule - for those of you who don't like it, well you may not be very happy when you read this. However this article explains the idea behind the concept quite well...... Delay of game rule assailed - expect rule to be defended! As for the member who suggested adopting the no line change rule on the ensuing faceoff for this infraction - not trying to brag, but I know that I had mentioned that in one of my postings here. Basically it involves no line change allowed and a hurry up face off that is on a time clock system, and if the guilty team delays then a bench minor is assessed automatically! Intentional infractions would be penalized and no put the whistle away mentality allowed regardless of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 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. Amen, iaf! That's the way I see it too. All teams will get hit by this rule and, as you stated earlier, it will help the play to evolve even more towards a fast-skating skill-based game. That's great! it seemed like Montreal was getting hit the hardest but that's too bad. Our guys have to get used to it also. :king: :hlogo: :king: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Yikes. I just saw Cherry basically say the same thing on Coaches Corner about this rule that I mentioned here earlier - i.e. no line change allowed like the icing rule dictates...... And I never saw him say it the first time when he talked about it earlier! I'm not a big Cherry fan so it's frightening when he is thinking the same thing as I am? It probably won't happen, but it would be a good solution. Carolina must love it though - 3 wins courtesy of 3 infractions this playoff. Maybe they'll make it 4..... Wouldn't that one piss all the dissenters off!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Part of the problem with the rule is that there's no uniform height for the glass in the defensive zone. What hits the top of the glass at home may clear the glass on the road. I'd be interested to know how many of these penalties were called against the home team vs the road team (although I'm pretty sure the Habs took almost as many at home as they did on the road.) I saw some of Cherry's comments last night, and he seemed to chalk it up to tired defensemen being pressured and forced to shoot it before they had a chance to settle the puck (???). Then he showed two instances that didn't illustrate his point. He showed the play in the Carolina/Buffalo series where Campbell had a guy behind him, not rushing towards him, which set up the series winning goal. And he showed a penalty Markov took where there was no checker within 5 or 10 feet of him, he just shot it high and over the glass. It's not fatigue, it's a lack of discipline. The credo was always, if you can't find an open teammate, chip it high off the glass and out. I get the feeling that will change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfan88 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I like what the NHL is thinking with this rule, but they made the punishment too severe. IMO, if the player shoots the puck over the glass, they aren't allowed to change and the faceoff remains in their end, while the other team is allowed to change. You don't deserve to lose a game because u accidently shot the puck into the crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I like what the NHL is thinking with this rule, but they made the punishment too severe. IMO, if the player shoots the puck over the glass, they aren't allowed to change and the faceoff remains in their end, while the other team is allowed to change. You don't deserve to lose a game because u accidently shot the puck into the crowd. The same can basically said about a lot of rules - it always sucks to lose! I'm of the mindset that if you break a rule then so be it..... you'll pay the price. Unfortunately some rules that actually work are not very popular. If kept this will always be one of those? But the fact is rules are put in place for a purpose - and there are lots of time that players are careless when they whip the puck out of the endzone. And lots of times they get away with doing it on purpose, either because the refs chose to overlook it, or it was so well disguised(yes, these guys are good at doing that!) Goalies have had to work under this zero tolerance rule for quite a while, and there have been significantly less incidences of their firing the puck over the glass since it was instituted. It took a while for them to get used to it, and there was a lot of grumbling at first, but since then it has been much less of a problem. And it was put in place because goalies were constantly putting it over the boards the moment their team was under pressure..... I think we all may have to learn to live with this rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Cuffing the puck in the crease leading to a penalty shot is a good rule. Wallin got caught. Basically it's like stealing the puck away. Puck over the glass is a bad rule. Don Cherry is right, make it like icing. The team called has to keep their line out and the opposition can change! That's the way it should be. A penalty has to have intent or blatancy! Even incidental high sticks have intent. Keep your stick on the ice or else. Sometimes a players stick can ride up the other players stick and he get's it in the face. You still have intent because your stick wasn't on the ice. Penalties always carry some element of that. The player putting the stick over the ice is SOMETIMES unintentional. For that reason it is not logical at all. Cherry is right. Equal the glass height in all buildings or scrap it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Part of the problem with the rule is that there's no uniform height for the glass in the defensive zone. What hits the top of the glass at home may clear the glass on the road. I'd be interested to know how many of these penalties were called against the home team vs the road team (although I'm pretty sure the Habs took almost as many at home as they did on the road.) I saw some of Cherry's comments last night, and he seemed to chalk it up to tired defensemen being pressured and forced to shoot it before they had a chance to settle the puck (???). Then he showed two instances that didn't illustrate his point. He showed the play in the Carolina/Buffalo series where Campbell had a guy behind him, not rushing towards him, which set up the series winning goal. And he showed a penalty Markov took where there was no checker within 5 or 10 feet of him, he just shot it high and over the glass. It's not fatigue, it's a lack of discipline. The credo was always, if you can't find an open teammate, chip it high off the glass and out. I get the feeling that will change. You missed Cherry's point. He was saying that the league wants to penalize tired players who shoot the puck into the crowd to get a breather and/or relieve pressure in their zone. Then he said that what has been happening is that the puck takes a small bounce and guys under no pressure and not tired end up putting the puck over the boards. He illustrated this with scenes of Campbell and Markov being penalized when they obviously weren't trying to stop play. He pointed out that these penalities were vital in determining the outcome of playoff series. Cherry is exacly right. While it is not always possible to tell when a player shoots the puck intentionally into the crowd it is often possible to see that it is entirely accidental. I still don't see why the league feels players should get an automatic 2 minute penalty for shooting the puck over the boards but not for going offside on a rush. Indeed, even if you intentionally commit an offside the only penalty is the faceoff being held in your own end. Why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Step out of the box gentleman and think from the point of the rules committee instead of a fan for a minute! The problem had become the fact that the referees were not calling the penalty even when it was obvious. Judgment was not being used properly in assessing deserving minors based on situations in the game, etc, etc.... much like the goaltending situation regarding this infraction. This rule is in place to work in concert with the no change icing rule. For one to work, the other must be in effect. It had to step in to prevent players from firing the puck over the boards as a replacement to icing. If they expect the new icing rule to work effectively in producing offense then they have to take away the option of firing the puck over the boards at random without fear of any reprisal? With the talent these players have it's not hard to understand how easy it is for them to fool the officials as to their actual intent. These players and the coaches are not stupid - take the icing away from them when they're under pressure and they'll find a way to replace it. If there is no penalty for shooting the puck over the glass, then guess what..... Unfortunately this has to be a no discretionary, zero tolerance rule. Being a coach I know I'd be telling my players to take a chance if its' a judgment call? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.