Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Knocking The Puck Over The Glass, Why Is This A Penalty?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
48 replies to this topic

Poll: Delay of Game Penalty (101 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think accidentally knocking the puck over the glass should be a 2-minute penalty?

  1. No, it should not not be penalized at all. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. No, but it should be treated the same as icing. (44 votes [43.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.56%

  3. Yes, but it should be up to the discretion of the refs/linesmen. (25 votes [24.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 24.75%

  4. Voted Yes, I like the rule the way it is. (32 votes [31.68%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.68%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 Connauton

Connauton

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:21 PM

It is a good penalty and prevents the defensive team from breaking the offensive team's pressure.

No need to change it just because it hurt us.

#32 19eightyfour

19eightyfour

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 10

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:26 PM

SHOOTING the puck out should be a penalty. Knocking it out of mid-air should not.


that's asinine. it's the same action. that's like saying only "intentional" high-sticking should be a penalty, while someone just lifting their stick and "accidentally" hitting another should be waived. the puck over the glass just should not be a penalty. it really is a huge waste of time, and there's already enough of that going on.

#33 19eightyfour

19eightyfour

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 10

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:27 PM

It is a good penalty and prevents the defensive team from breaking the offensive team's pressure.

No need to change it just because it hurt us.

kinda like icing...? only we don't penalize for that...

#34 Kesler_smash

Kesler_smash

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:36 PM

I don't love the rule but I agree with it. Obviously people are going to have more negative opinions about it when it hurts the team you are cheering for. There was no thread about this rule last year when it worked very much in the Canucks favor (SJS series). In my opinion this penatly is most often a result of a mental error by the player shooting the puck...the Canucks simply were not mentally prepared in game 1 and it showed when they got 2 of these penalties back to back...not to mention the overall play in the first couple periods.

#35 darnucks

darnucks

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:45 PM

It's a penalty because it was a common way to relieve offensive pressure without icing the puck. It does delay the game. The only people who used to be called for it were goalies which was stupid because 9 times out of 10 they did it by accident while defensemen intentionally did it.

At that time there was no difference between icing and clearing the puck over the glass. You could change up your lines but the faceoff was still in your end. So you iced it or cleared it over the glass, both relieved pressure without hurting your team. Your argument about it being stupid for goalies being called for it then because it being accidental is now the same as today. What player is going to intenionally shoot it over the glass to get a penalty?The rule is stupid and should be changed to be the same as icing.

#36 Mad_Duck

Mad_Duck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:50 PM

I'd go with the no penalty, no line-change for the offending team, coupled with something like making it a penalty if it happens twice in 2ish minutes. (A bit like how if your team gets waved from a face-off twice consecutively it's a penalty)
I put the F U in Fun!


Posted Image

#37 VAN_FAN_MATT

VAN_FAN_MATT

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:09 PM

I don't like it, but I believe it is neccessary.

If that rule were negated now, I'm as sure as can be that we'd see players every game on multiple occasions purposfully shooting the puck into the stands to get a stoppage in play to relieve D-zone pressure.

Edited by VAN_FAN_MATT, 13 April 2012 - 02:09 PM.


#38 MariWanna

MariWanna

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 699 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:15 PM

Although it seems unnecessary, and annoying, it obviously has its purpose.

BELIEVE


"The more saves you make, the more they rally around you. And you do whatever it takes to keep them believing. That's what a city can do for a goalie, and a goalie can do for a city."

Posted Image





#39 sQuish

sQuish

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,310 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 04

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:21 PM

Although it seems unnecessary, and annoying, it obviously has its purpose.


No one debates its purpose, just the severity of the penalty. It makes no sense for a player who is batting at a puck and it just happens to go over the glass for him to get a penalty. It defies logic. Imagine a game deciding goal in the SCF is scored off a powerplay because a player accidentally batted the puck over the glass? It doesn't make sense.

#40 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,075 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:32 PM

I actually love your idea of treating it as an icing.


If they ever go that way, it would be better if it was still a valid call during a penalty kill. Teams shouldn't be allowed to dump it over the glass just because they are penalty killing.
Posted Image

#41 CanuckinEdm

CanuckinEdm

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,369 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:34 PM

Agreed with you on both. Too hard to prove whether someone is doing something accidentally or on purpose. Would just turn into a nightmare. Not being able to change sounds like a good idea.

Just pisses me off that a pure accident now can potentially decide a series in overtime. Can you imagine a game 7 OT where someone accidentally flips the puck out?


Not really it it is a deflection/ batted out of air then no penalty if it's thrown over because of pressure or a bad pass it's a penalty

#42 coho8888

coho8888

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 06

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:05 PM

Although it seems unnecessary, and annoying, it obviously has its purpose.


I hear what you are saying, but in solving one problem (delay of game, etc...) it creates another (accidental, misfortune etc..) With the rule in place I can assure you that very few if any of the players out there are intentionally shooting the puck out. Most of incidences are accidental, while trying to clear the puck out over the blue line. Therein lies the problem.

#43 IslandNuckNut

IslandNuckNut

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:18 PM

If LA gets 2 penalties tonight for the same thing, and we manage to score on both PP's......you KNOW everyone will be on here tomorrow saying it's the best rule in the book.

Pretty pathetic how it's always ''sucks'' when it's against us but ''the best'' when it's for our benefit.

But i do love the OP's icing suggestion
Posted Image


#44 Canucklehead ll

Canucklehead ll

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:11 PM

If you go back to when knocking the puck out of bounds was braught in you will find that at the same time they braught in "hury up offence" before that the teams were taking they,re time at whistles .Same time as when you could'nt freeze the puck on the boards anymore .So it should be treated as an icing and not a penalty. It would be brutal if the cup was determined buy such a penalty call. To think this call is made with such regularitty (?) and a head shot is not is dumbfounding.
Stay thirsty my friends and don,t riot in your own back yard....

#45 suolucidir

suolucidir

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,221 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 05

Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:20 PM

If they ever go that way, it would be better if it was still a valid call during a penalty kill. Teams shouldn't be allowed to dump it over the glass just because they are penalty killing.

But that's where the penalty as it is is the biggest concern. Marginal call leads to a 5on3 due to a hasty clearing attempt. Instead, keep the penalty killers on the ice, and face off in their zone.
PSN: CloakOfSkill

Quote

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

View Postbahkwan, on 03 December 2010 - 12:55 PM, said:

It bugs me when people pull out the gold medal for an example... Luongo only had to outplay Brodeur.

#46 bounceshot

bounceshot

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Joined: 09-April 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:59 PM

The rule the way it stands makes it cut & dry. The league has basically taken the discretion away from the officials which isn't a bad thing.

#47 Hockey Fever

Hockey Fever

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:23 PM

I hate it too but if we don't have it everyone will be shooting the puck out at the first sign of trouble, and we'll start going back to the dead puck era.

Posted Image

NHL Wikipedia : Operates Major Ice Hockey League known for predetermining Stanley Cup winners and rampant corrupt officiating

"I would love for (the Canucks) to win the Stanley Cup because that would put to bed all the talk about 1994", he says facetiously".
Nathan Lafayette on hitting the post in game seven of the Stanley Cup.


#48 DoItForRaymond

DoItForRaymond

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:28 PM

I actually love your idea of treating it as an icing.

Wow, you mean if they bat the puck out of their zone into the crowd, the face off should be in their zone? FRICKIN GENIUS!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, I like how this is a problem for fans now, only because the Canucks couldn't clear the puck like professionals

Edited by DoItForRaymond, 13 April 2012 - 06:30 PM.


#49 soshified

soshified

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,277 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:41 PM

I think if you have possession of the puck and shoot it out, it should be a penalty. But if you bat it out from the air, it shouldnt be.



Posted Image





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.