What is everyones opinion on delay of game penalty

What is everyones opinion on delay of game penalty

Joined: January 14th, 2006, 6:43 am

May 8th, 2012, 3:37 pm #1

I have a problem with these guys that fall on the puck and make no effort to get up or pull the puck under them and stay on top of the puck to get a face off or kill time. For instance the situation in the Portland-Edmonton game 3 when Samuelsson is cross checking Rattie at the end of the game. My opinion is if it is a penalty to shoot the puck over the glass in the defensive zone for delay of game why is it not a penalty for delibertly laying on the puck. Im sorry but in my opinion if you are going to do that you deserve a couple cross checks.Either force the player to get up or move the puck or it should be a delay of game penalty as well. Just my opinion was wondering what other people thought and if it bugs them as much as it does me. And when I say you deserve a couple cross checks by no means do I mean to the neck or head just a good old hockey cross check in the back.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2006, 12:52 am

May 8th, 2012, 3:45 pm #2

But I prefer a good old fashioned dog pile!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 12th, 2006, 7:14 pm

May 8th, 2012, 4:00 pm #3

I have a problem with these guys that fall on the puck and make no effort to get up or pull the puck under them and stay on top of the puck to get a face off or kill time. For instance the situation in the Portland-Edmonton game 3 when Samuelsson is cross checking Rattie at the end of the game. My opinion is if it is a penalty to shoot the puck over the glass in the defensive zone for delay of game why is it not a penalty for delibertly laying on the puck. Im sorry but in my opinion if you are going to do that you deserve a couple cross checks.Either force the player to get up or move the puck or it should be a delay of game penalty as well. Just my opinion was wondering what other people thought and if it bugs them as much as it does me. And when I say you deserve a couple cross checks by no means do I mean to the neck or head just a good old hockey cross check in the back.
when the ref loses sight of the puck, he should blow the whistle, like when players along the boards freeze the puck without falling on it. Move it or blow the play dead.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 15th, 2010, 11:03 pm

May 8th, 2012, 4:03 pm #4

I have a problem with these guys that fall on the puck and make no effort to get up or pull the puck under them and stay on top of the puck to get a face off or kill time. For instance the situation in the Portland-Edmonton game 3 when Samuelsson is cross checking Rattie at the end of the game. My opinion is if it is a penalty to shoot the puck over the glass in the defensive zone for delay of game why is it not a penalty for delibertly laying on the puck. Im sorry but in my opinion if you are going to do that you deserve a couple cross checks.Either force the player to get up or move the puck or it should be a delay of game penalty as well. Just my opinion was wondering what other people thought and if it bugs them as much as it does me. And when I say you deserve a couple cross checks by no means do I mean to the neck or head just a good old hockey cross check in the back.
by putting into play a highly subjective rule that comes down to what the one-ice officials deem 'illegal.'

Plenty of times there are guys who end up on the ice from a board battle, through totally legitimate means, and in an effort to protect themselves, turtle, often times on top of the puck. That would technically be illegal under your proposed rule, with the only wiggle room being an official deciding that it was an accident.

What about when players are in a goal-mouth scramble, and lay on the puck to freeze it in order to prevent a goal? Technically delay of game.

You might even go as far as mentioning when goaltenders freeze the puck on the back, outside of the next by pushing through the inside of the goal. It's not in their crease, or at immediate risk of going into the net, so would that not be delay of game?

I just think for the small number of scenarios where that actually plays out, it's not worth a rule. Hell, it's not even worth making illegal. If, given Sunday's scenario, you can't keep the puck cycling or at least away from the boards such that a player can turtle on top of it, you've lost the game already. 5 seconds left and a guy is sitting on top of it in your defensive end? Game's already over, he's just sealing the deal. So I guess you can argue it's un-necessary, but really, it didn't change anything anyway.

I agree, if you turtle, you're going to take a beating (stick jabs to try and reach it, being pounded on by players trying to move you, etc) - totally legitimate to me, and probably everyone else who sees it. When you cross that line though, and attempt to injure someone (especially someone with a known issue in the place you're intentionally targeting), you're done.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 15th, 2010, 11:03 pm

May 8th, 2012, 4:04 pm #5

one = on, next = net.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 9th, 2011, 12:52 am

May 8th, 2012, 4:36 pm #6

I have a problem with these guys that fall on the puck and make no effort to get up or pull the puck under them and stay on top of the puck to get a face off or kill time. For instance the situation in the Portland-Edmonton game 3 when Samuelsson is cross checking Rattie at the end of the game. My opinion is if it is a penalty to shoot the puck over the glass in the defensive zone for delay of game why is it not a penalty for delibertly laying on the puck. Im sorry but in my opinion if you are going to do that you deserve a couple cross checks.Either force the player to get up or move the puck or it should be a delay of game penalty as well. Just my opinion was wondering what other people thought and if it bugs them as much as it does me. And when I say you deserve a couple cross checks by no means do I mean to the neck or head just a good old hockey cross check in the back.
the player on top can not cross check a player on the ice, allowing that player to stand up. OR use the stick like its intended to dig the puck out. Players shouldnt fall on it and never move. But putting in a rule that is so dependent on Judgement of a players intent just isnt something that should be in the books.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2005, 7:30 pm

May 8th, 2012, 5:15 pm #7

when the ref loses sight of the puck, he should blow the whistle, like when players along the boards freeze the puck without falling on it. Move it or blow the play dead.
people complain about the delay of game penalty for a defending player shooting the puck over the boards in their defending zone but frankly before the rule was instituted that was a tactic alot of defencemen used when they got stuck in a bad situation. It was frankly a smart play, if the choice is turning it over or shooting it into the crowd for a faceoff and a line change.

If the league starts telling refs to whistle down the play every time they lose sight of the puck (like they're supposed to) without calling delay of game when a defending player lays on the puck smart coaches everywhere will start telling their players to do that.

It would be a great tactic on the penalty kill. Even if you don't allow a line change, the chance to let your penalty killers to breathe for 20 seconds, and then get a faceoff where they can possibly ice the puck and then get a line change is better than allowing play to continue.

-----------


"Now you wear your skin like iron
Your breath's as hard as kerosene"
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 12th, 2006, 7:14 pm

May 8th, 2012, 5:35 pm #8

That's a valid point. If that is the case then don't allow a line change and expedite dropping the puck.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 15th, 2010, 11:03 pm

May 8th, 2012, 5:51 pm #9

people complain about the delay of game penalty for a defending player shooting the puck over the boards in their defending zone but frankly before the rule was instituted that was a tactic alot of defencemen used when they got stuck in a bad situation. It was frankly a smart play, if the choice is turning it over or shooting it into the crowd for a faceoff and a line change.

If the league starts telling refs to whistle down the play every time they lose sight of the puck (like they're supposed to) without calling delay of game when a defending player lays on the puck smart coaches everywhere will start telling their players to do that.

It would be a great tactic on the penalty kill. Even if you don't allow a line change, the chance to let your penalty killers to breathe for 20 seconds, and then get a faceoff where they can possibly ice the puck and then get a line change is better than allowing play to continue.

-----------


"Now you wear your skin like iron
Your breath's as hard as kerosene"
for extremely small, uncommon windows of time in given games. We're talking about the waning seconds of a game where the score is a 1-goal difference 98% of the time; either on a faceoff in the attacking zone, where a team is looking for a one-timer and the defensive faceoff guy drops onto the puck, or when they've got it in a corner with the clock ticking down.

I just don't see the sense in making a rule to cover a play that accounts for an incredibly small percentage of plays (in the single digits percent-wise, if not sub-1% of total games).

Whistling it is the best option for both teams, and is already in place for that reason - lately it seems like officials are letting puck battles and attempts to freeze the puck on the boards play out longer and longer. In the final seconds of a game, I think it would be prudent to be quick on the whistle, especially when it's obvious a guy is trying to freeze it to kill time. No penalty necessary, just stop the clock.
Quote
Like
Share