OOTS 11/12 playoff edition

[Topper]

No, the benches do not count because the glass is recessed back into the crowd. A rising shot that would hit the glass elsewhere may clear the glass at the benches. Allen's call (he should have gotten award for clearing the glass at the far end, what a shot), was because the shot originated in the Vancouver zone.

I thought Stoll was targeting the bench.

[dbr]

No, the benches do not count because the glass is recessed back into the crowd. A rising shot that would hit the glass elsewhere may clear the glass at the benches.

The rule specifically states that clearing the glass behind the bench is a penalty, not that I would be surprised for the league to allow refs to use their discretion there and tie their hands on pucks clearing any of the rest of the glass.

Allen's call (he should have gotten award for clearing the glass at the far end, what a shot), was because the shot originated in the Vancouver zone.

Too bad he couldn't shoot with that power from the opponent's zone, although with that accuracy it mightn't have mattered.

But yeah I was perhaps not clear on that, the puck going over the glass anywhere is a penalty, as long as it came off the stick (or hand or whatever) of a player in their own zone.

[Topper]

The rule specifically states that clearing the glass behind the bench is a penalty, not that I would be surprised for the league to allow refs to use their discretion there and tie their hands on pucks clearing any of the rest of the glass.

You're right.

When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. 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.

[Cookie La Rue]

Well....there is secret weapon 44....just say's...

Even Bert can't be that moronic, can he? He'll be the last one to do something similar again.
Just imagine what had happened if Weber had fuckin' broken Zetterberg's neck.

[Cornuck]

Just imagine what had happened if Weber had fuckin' broken Zetterberg's neck.

I'm sure that Zetterberg is "Just happy to be alive"™

[Hockey Widow]

The rule specifically states that clearing the glass behind the bench is a penalty, not that I would be surprised for the league to allow refs to use their discretion there and tie their hands on pucks clearing any of the rest of the glass.

You're right.

When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. 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.

I get all of that but my question was, is all discretion gone? To me Stoll intentionally shot the puck over the boards and aimed for the benches so as not to get an automatic penalty. Is the rule now so black and white that the refs can no longer give a penalty for intentional delay of game? Is there a separate rule I guess is what I am asking.

[dbr]

There's a rule for intentional clearing (regardless of whether the player is in his own zone or not) out of play and it's not specific to clearing it over the glass.

That being said the penalty is for the intent so the refs need to put their Ron McLean glasses on to figure out what the offending player was thinking when they did it.

[mathonwy]

Will Pittsburgh even up the series tonight? The first period of last game was an incredibly dominating one by the Pens.

Then, the Flyers took over after the blown offside goal by Briere.

Should be a good one.

I can't fathom the Pens going back to Philly down 2-0.

[Hockey Widow]

There's a rule for intentional clearing (regardless of whether the player is in his own zone or not I would thing) out of play and it's not specific to clearing it over the glass.

That being said the penalty is for the intent so the refs need to put their Ron McLean glasses on to figure out what the offending player was thinking when they did it.

OK, thanks. I don't need to be Ron McLean to KNOW it was intentional

[Meds]

Will Pittsburgh even up the series tonight? The first period of last game was an incredibly dominating one by the Pens.

Then, the Flyers took over after the blown offside goal by Briere.

Should be a good one.

I can't fathom the Pens going back to Philly down 2-0.

I think the Flyers are a much better team than most people, myself included, thought. If the series goes back to Philly with the Flyer's up 2-0, it will be over in 6 games max.

[Topper]

There's a rule for intentional clearing (regardless of whether the player is in his own zone or not I would thing) out of play and it's not specific to clearing it over the glass.

That being said the penalty is for the intent so the refs need to put their Ron McLean glasses on to figure out what the offending player was thinking when they did it.

OK, thanks. I don't need to be Ron McLean to KNOW it was intentional

What I quoted was from the NHL Rule Book http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26355

A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck outside the playing area during the play or after a stoppage of play.

When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. 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.

The first paragraph is the discretionary part.

[clem]

The wording of the first paragraph is ridiculous.

Since deliberately shooting the puck out of the playing area from their D zone is cause for a penalty, & players don’t want to be penalized, it’s not rational to assume that players intentionally do this.

Bush league.

[Topper]

The wording of the first paragraph is ridiculous.

Since deliberately shooting the puck out of the playing area from their D zone is cause for a penalty, & players don’t want to be penalized, it’s not rational to assume that players intentionally do this.

Bush league.

From the D zone it is automatic, anywhere else is ref's discretion.

[clem]

Remove the reference to D zone,

& the first paragraph is still ridiculous.

[Topper]

Remove the reference to D zone,

& the first paragraph is still ridiculous.

May I recommend reading comprehension 101.