Seriously, can we get rid of that penalty already!!!

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!

Of course, in this case it was quite intentional ....

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!

How come Canadians were not making these threads when Russia got two penalties for doing just that?

Don't shoot it over the glass and it won't be a penalty.

I'll admit the refs have to use their discretion more when making that call, but come on Nash flipped that way out, it was his own fault.

Dear OP, learn to loose with honor.

The penalty is just fine.

The last thing we need, at any level of hockey, is another rule that requires the referees to make a judgement on a players intentions.

I'm not too crazy about the 4 on 4 OT for elimination round games, but the Delay of Game for shooting it over the glass is fine the way it is. The best way to avoid it is to NOT shoot the puck over the glass.

But man... what was Nash thinking? He could have taken his time with the puck.

Nash made a bad play. Get over it.

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!

Because the NHL would turn into the NBA stopping play all the time.

Hate the rule but that's not why Canada lost. They blew a two goal led in the third period.

the whole point of it is so the team gets a penalty and a powerplay to "create" more scoring.
stupid idea to begin with

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!


too bad it ended that way, but Canada could have killed off the penalty. Nash just needs to be less careless in that situation. I don't think that penalty took anything away from one of the best games I've ever seen, and to be honest... as a ref I might have ruled that intentional anyways; he sky'd it!

Because the NHL would turn into the NBA stopping play all the time.

because we all know up until a couple of years ago you couldn't go 2 seconds without somebody shooting the puck over the glass.... :sarcasm:

because we all know up until a couple of years ago you couldn't go 2 seconds without somebody shooting the puck over the glass.... :sarcasm:

...or old players shooting the puck over the glass not only because they get beat but so they can catch their breath. :sarcasm:

the whole point of it is so the team gets a penalty and a powerplay to "create" more scoring.
stupid idea to begin with

It also forces you to make a skill play in your own end as opposed to lofting it out of play.

Oh my gosh. Enough of these idiots just repeating whatever stupid Cherry says. Every year he says dumber and dumber things and there are just too many CBC viewers who treat him like a smart guy, which he is not. This is actually a good rule. Of course it happens unintentionally just like most of other penalties, but it happens for a reason. Teams put pressure in the offensive end and a player that panics makes a mistake. How is that different from an accidental high sticking for example? Flipping the puck over board sometimes was used as a weapon to stop the game, I remember some players doing it on a regular basis because when under pressure it is much easier to flip the puck over the glass than just ice it. This is a reallygreat rule, stop following this idiot.

The 3rd goal that was scored by the Canada came on 5-on-3, which was resulted from a delay of game penalty on the Russians.

It's a rule that hurt both teams in this game, not only Canada.

And introducing a referee discretion for giving out the penalty would be very dumb. How would he know whether or not it was intentional? Imagine if he decided not to give the penalty to Nash, when he already gave two to Russia, and then Russia would lose. The outcry would be huge..

The problem is that so many defensemen were intentionally shooting it over the glass. It was a pretty big problem, but of course dopes like Cherry and all the other whiners forget about this.

It's a good rule, it should stay around.

i was at the game, it was pretty good untill the end...

the russians got that same penalty in the sedon, and i said at that time, "i hate that penalty, i think it is so stupid, they need to get rid of it."

then i not, the puck goes out, and immmediatle in my head im thinink aw @#$ game over!

pitty it had to end like that! the game was good, the russian worked hard, and so did canada, a game should not be decided like that.

How come Canadians were not making these threads when Russia got two penalties for doing just that?

Thats what I was gonna say. I like the penalty, its delay of game.

Wow, that was one of the worst flip outs I've seen since the penalty was instituted - he launched it like a friggin' pitching wedge.

I was under the impression if you shot it from your own zone and it went out over the bench, the penalty wasn't called. (Maybe that's what Nash was thinking?) Is there a difference in the IIHF rule or am I off base?

Wow, that was one of the worst flip outs I've seen since the penalty was instituted - he launched it like a friggin' pitching wedge.

I was under the impression if you shot it from your own zone and it went out over the bench, the penalty wasn't called. (Maybe that's what Nash was thinking?) Is there a difference in the IIHF rule or am I off base?

if it goes into the bench, not if you sail it 20 feet over the bench.

If the rule is there, don't throw the puck high up on the boards like that. These guys should be good enough not to panic like that, geez.

if it goes into the bench, not if you sail it 20 feet over the bench.

Right you are:

Rule 51a - 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.

My take on the rule is it's too severe to call it 2 minutes, yet it's too soft to call it using the 'no line change' implementation. Perhaps introducing a non-standard penalty duration of 30/45 seconds would fit the bill.

Make it like an icing... No line change, play stays in the offensive zone.

I hate the fact that its a powerplay and I've been saying this for a long time.

It was intentional. Nash was clearly dog tired and wanted to get off the ice, so he fired the puck toward the bench to try to stop the play, only he put it way too high.

It was a textbook delay of game call, new rule or old.

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!

russia gets 2 times a penalty for same stuff:p:

CAN WE ALSO GET RID OF THE RULE WHERE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO SCORE THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE NET!!!:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!:deadhorse

I have no problem with this rule. In fact, I applaud it.

Many teams use throwing the puck out as a delay of game technique (hence the name of the penalty).

Sorry, when a former defensive defensemen (Ric Natress) was once asked "On a scale of 1 to 10, how easy is it to make a puck-flip-over-the-glass look accidental?" and he responds "20" that kills any arugement against this rule. :teach:

As someone who was supporting Russia in this final:

I think that penalty is ******** too. I want it out of the rules, and I would like its existence removed from my memory also. It's a completely pointless rule.

Who cares about delay of game? They stop the clock anyway and the face-off stays in the zone. It's no different from icing the puck, outside of the fact it might be dangerous to the spectators (and in some situations easier to perform than icing the puck, but still, who cares?).

The problem is that so many defensemen were intentionally shooting it over the glass. It was a pretty big problem, but of course dopes like Cherry and all the other whiners forget about this.

It's a good rule, it should stay around.

One of the few times that I completely agree with you. People must forget how bad it was for a while.

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!

The problem is, that if they let the refs make a judgement call on whether it's intentional or not, the refs won't have the guts to make the call, even if it is intentional.

The problem is, that if they let the refs make a judgement call on whether it's intentional or not, the refs won't have the guts to make the call, even if it is intentional.

Bingo. Especially in the third period or overtime.

Good rule and it should stay.

One of the few times that I completely agree with you. People must forget how bad it was for a while.


I haven't forgotten. I just don't see the big deal in shooting the puck over the glass vs. icing the puck. Maybe we should start calling delay of games on icings too. Especially intentional icings. Especially on international rules where the icing is called immediately.

...

My take on the rule is it's too severe to call it 2 minutes, yet it's too soft to call it using the 'no line change' implementation. Perhaps introducing a non-standard penalty duration of 30/45 seconds would fit the bill.

You sir, are kidding... Right? :help:

It also forces you to make a skill play in your own end as opposed to lofting it out of play.

Unbelievable how many people how problems grasping this....

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!

the 2 delay of game calls against Russia were just as meaningful as that call in OT against Canada. so tell us something that makes sense.

I'll admit the refs have to use their discretion more when making that call, but come on Nash flipped that way out, it was his own fault.

Actually that's why I like the penalty, it removes the ref's discretion fropm the equation so it's a penalty in the 1st period of an exhibition game and it's a penalty of ot Game 7 of the Cup finals.

I actually prefer the penalty being at the ref's discretion. If for some reason the league revokes this rule, they would certainly not allow as much leniency in deeming the clear accidental as they used to. In Nash's case, I would hope the call would remain the same.

I'm so tired of this. If this penalty hadn't happened in that OT, (against Canada) nobody would be talking about revoking the rule.

If anything has to be changed, it's the video replay system. There has to be replays on penalties too. Take the trip on Sushinsky for exmaple : it led to a goal, and shifted the momentum in Canada's favor big time. It was much worse than some delay of gam penalty. I don't understand why nobody is talking about reviewing penalties on goals. So many goals count when they should be disallowed, and vice versa.

You sir, are kidding... Right? :help:

No. I say make all delay of game penalties 1 minute, including icings.

I mean call it if it intentional, but clearing the puck over the glass accidentally is not a penalty and it should not decide game 7 of the stanley cup or the gold medal game of the olympics or the wc in ot and what is up with 4 on 4 in OT?, especially in the gold medal game.....it's bad enough they have shoot-outs to decide these big games!

Basically everyone who is against this penalty seems to have a very short memory. Do any of you remember what it was like prior the Lockout, when players were free to shoot the puck over the glass in their own zone? There would easily be anywhere from 8 - 12 pucks a night over the glass.

These delay of game penalties, over an 82 game season, how many times were they called both for and against your favorite team? Something in the twenties would be my guess. So, we're talking about once every 3-4 games we would see this call.

The rule has done what it was set out to do. That was to make players keep the play alive when they were pressured in their own zone and/or were dog tired.

They can't make the rule like icing, because at least with Icing, you still need to get the puck past the opponent at the blueline and the goalie still has the option to negate the icing call and play the puck back up, which during the 2nd period and Playoff OT, there would be a small chance he would, if he was a Turco, Dipietro, Brodeur type puck handler.

By going over the glass, the opposition has no chance of getting the puck before it goes over the glass.

So, I'd rather take the 1 penalty call every 3-4 games, than the extra 25-35 faceoffs we would see over that same time. Every puck right now that goes over the glass is an Accident. No question, because the rule ensures that anyone stupid enough to do it on purpose will be punished.

And as for leaving to the Ref's discretion, are u kidding me??? No way... It would be like the Diving Call. We see guys dive, but how many times during the 82 game season did you only see the "Dive" called. Usually, you get both the Dive and Hook called, so it's 4 on 4. Rarely, do you see only the diver go off.

I can't think that the refs would ever make that call.

This penalty was implemented for one reason and one reason only: To increase the number of powerplays. Specifically, the league wanted to jack up the number of two-man advantages, since clearing the puck over the glass happens most often when the player clearing the puck is killing a penalty and under severe pressure. It's a joke of a rule designed to help artificially increase scoring. Losing the right to change would be plenty.

This penalty was implemented for one reason and one reason only: To increase the number of powerplays. Specifically, the league wanted to jack up the number of two-man advantages, since clearing the puck over the glass happens most often when the player clearing the puck is killing a penalty and under severe pressure. It's a joke of a rule designed to help artificially increase scoring. Losing the right to change would be plenty.

We need to find some stats on this Penalty on the web or via the NHL.

How many times has this penalty been called each season since the lockout? I would think that the number of calls is decreasing each year.

We can't find this out, because it would take actually watching all 82 games, but how many times would this penalty have been called in the 2003-2004 season? If someone could watch 1 team and count the number of times during the year that this call would have been made (both for and against the team), I think the numbers would scare everyone here. Again, I believe from my memory that about 8 or so pucks would go over the glass from inside the blueline per game prior to the lockout.

We need to find some stats on this Penalty on the web or via the NHL.

How many times has this penalty been called each season since the lockout? I would think that the number of calls is decreasing each year.

We can't find this out, because it would take actually watching all 82 games, but how many times would this penalty have been called in the 2003-2004 season? If someone could watch 1 team and count the number of times during the year that this call would have been made (both for and against the team), I think the numbers would scare everyone here. Again, I believe from my memory that about 8 or so pucks would go over the glass from inside the blueline per game prior to the lockout.

Yes, but they did it because they were tired and wanted the line change. If you keep them from changing, it negates the purpose of the action altogether. To me, doing that is better than adding even more powerplays to a product that has far too many of them as it is, thanks to the bogus "crackdown on obstruction."

Yes, but they did it because they were tired and wanted the line change. If you keep them from changing, it negates the purpose of the action altogether. To me, doing that is better than adding even more powerplays to a product that has far too many of them as it is, thanks to the bogus "crackdown on obstruction."

Well, I guess we are on different sides for this issue. Because, to me, it's more about Relieving Pressure in your own zone, which is why players shot the puck out prior to the lockout.

You can't deny that there would definately be more pucks shot over the glass, if there was no penalty, only no line change.

I have no problem with the penalty. It just happened at a bad time. I remeber going to a leafs game and Bryan McCabe talking a slapshot over the glass on purpose. That could really hurt some one.

I have no problem with the penalty. It just happened at a bad time. I remeber going to a leafs game and Bryan McCabe talking a slapshot over the glass on purpose. That could really hurt some one.

Do you remember him getting a penalty for it? He should have. Deliberately shooting the puck over the glass like that was always called.

Unbelievable how many people how problems grasping this....

Yes, that and wasn't the rule also put in to protect the fans? They have the safety nets which make it physically impossible for it to go out of play when you're shooting in the offensive zone.

I think the only way they'd abolish this rule is if they put safety netting around the entire rink. I've got no problem with keeping the rule though, I agree that you should make a skilled play rather than an easy one.