Chris Shelley is wondering why:
So, in the first period of tonight's Leafs/Habs tilt, Saku Koivu ran afoul of an absurd cross-checking penalty. The referees were forced to call Sheldon Souray for accidentally shooting the puck over the glass, which gave the Leafs a two-man advantage. The Leafs scored. This is the very essence of the referees "deciding the game" (even though they had no choice on the second call). That's something philistines like me really, really hate. But hey, it's no big deal, right? It's not as if a rule like this could ever decide the Stanley Cup.
Don Cherry made a similar point during the Hockey Night in Canada broadcast this past Saturday. I have to admit, I really didn't think the NHL was going to institute the delay of game rule this season. After experimenting with it during the '02-03 campaign, the AHL abandoned the rule for whatever reason. However, the NHL decided it was worth implementing after giving the impression over the last few years that it was a dead issue.
Quite frankly, I think referees should be allowed an element of discretion when it comes to determining the intent of a defenseman who clears the puck into the stands in his own end. The purpose of the rule is to prevent players from deliberately stopping play, but as it turns out, many delay of game penalties are the result of d-men shooting the puck over the glass accidentally. Worse, a lot of these penalties are resulting in two-man advantages that are playing a role in a game's outcome.
Looking back, Souray's penalty didn't cost his team the game, although it could have. Regardless, it doesn't really matter if the Canadiens lose a game in January on a delay of game penalty (unless they miss the playoffs by a point), but imagine if they lost a critical playoff game in overtime on a similar call.
I can see the argument in favor of the rule. Granted, shooting the puck into the stands is unintentional in many instances, but so are high sticks, for example. When a player unknowingly cuts an opponent with his stick during a collision in the corner, he is still assessed a double minor, even though the infraction wasn't deliberate (in the AHL, all high sticks that draw blood are majors - I'd love to see the NHL introduce that rule).
The bottom line here is the delay of game rule is something we're going to have to live with. But I can't help but dread the reaction of the fan base when a team loses a playoff series as a result of a delay of game call.
Then again, perhaps it'd be fitting if this year's Stanley Cup was awarded after a power play goal.
But I can’t help but dread the reaction of the fan base when a team loses a playoff series as a result of a delay of game call.
or the reverse, a team loses a game because the refs refuse to call an abvious delay of game in the last minute of a playoff game…
… hmm would that be Buffalo (yet again) losing because Kasparaitis puts the puck in the stands intentionally to stop the clock and the ensuing faceoff results in Mario’s miracle goal.
Joe, the fact is the referees decide games as much by the calls they make and the calls they don’t.
I’m consistently amazed at the preponderance of hockey fans who are willing to throw out the rulebook based on contextual circumstances.
You never hear football fans saying that pass interference shouldn’t be called when the game is on the line.
If the referees have that kind of discretion they will tend to swallow their whistles for veteran players and use it on younger players.
Taking this decision out of their hands puts the blame squarely on the person who has a vested interest in the outcome of the game… the player.
Ta,
“or the reverse, a team loses a game because the refs refuse to call an abvious delay of game in the last minute of a playoff game…
But this was never a serious problem, and the punishment far outweighs the crime.
The rule was introduced several years ago just for goalies. I can’t recall any particular netminder doing it, but it would happen when they were pressured when handling the puck. I bet the goaltending lobby finally convinced league brass that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I was discussing this over a beverage last night, and we came up with the idea that the punishment for clearing the puck over the glass should be akin to the penalty for icing the puck; the tired skaters have to stay on. A two minute penalty is too harsh.
JeffJ,
I disagree that this was not a major problem. The refs were always loathe to give a guy a penalty for delay of gmae for obvious delaying tactics. I can’t count the number of times i watched Adam Foote (in particular) knock the net off… the Stars under Hitchcock were particularly adept at this. I think it stinks. The team that is getting rewarded by the non-call is the one being pressured not the one doing the pressuring.
I have less issue with the goalies putting the puck in the stands than I do the defensemen…. after all goalies don’t have to be good puck-handlers.. but D-men, they know how to use their sticks to play the puck, it’s essential to their game… therefore, in my mind, the number of penalties given out this year for this infraction just shows me how big the discrepancy was between intentions and penalties called.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor used to say, “You do only what you train. If you train half the technique then that’s what you’ll throw.” Well, if defensemen are putting pucks in stands at situationally-convienient times… well, they must have trained themselves to do it.
Sorry, I don’t buy that these guys are angels. They all play the puck, at least half-intending to put it in the stands, and that is delay of game. Define the punishment as you like (I could live with Ninja’s suggestion), but it needs to be called more often than not.
Ta,