Ever since returning from the lockout season of 2004-05, the league has enacted a wide array of rules with the sole aim of increasing goal totals. In the season of return, the league did away with the two-line pass rule in hopes of allowing more odd-man rushes. Penalties automatically brought the impending draw in front of the offending team’s net. Icings would not allow the offending team to make a change in players, resulting in tired defenders. The NHL created a delay-of-game infraction for shooting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone, regardless of intent, as to increase power plays. Additionally, the league instituted a trapezoid of playable area behind the net for goaltenders, apparently to destroy Martin Brodeur’s dreams of a 20-goal season.
Each of these rules is well-known, and to a new generation of hockey fans, widely accepted as the norm. Hockey has undoubtedly undergone numerous rule alterations since its early inception in Canada, as the roving 6th skater and backward-only passes have long since gone extinct in the name of excitement and simplicity. There is certainly no argument that all rule changes are detrimental – quite the contrary. However, there is undoubtedly a beauty to the game as it exists right now, which is the argument to which many purists adhere. Conversely, the golden scoring era of the 1980s is looked upon with reverence and extreme fondness, for all of its faults and shortcomings in parity and defensive play. Neither extreme fully or honestly represents the counterpoints to his position, and the result is a constant struggle between old-school and new-school, conservative and radical.
In Game 2 of the Ottawa-Boston series earlier this evening, a delay-of-game penalty was called against Zdeno Chara for clearing the puck over the glass with 12 seconds remaining in regulation. Ottawa’s Dion Phaneuf didn’t score on the ensuing powerplay in overtime, but did shortly thereafter, and largely a result of that powerplay’s momentum. The scene is one that was all-too-familiar – nearly any fan can recount a horror story resulting from this rule’s implementation. Pittsburgh nearly suffered a death blow last playoffs when they were forced into overtime following three of these infractions in a row. Although no fan is dissatisfied to see their own squad on the powerplay, the rule feels slightly unjustified and slightly tainted. For all intents and purposes, clearing the puck over the glass effectively achieves the same end as icing the puck. Not allowing line changes seems fair punishment to players who would opt to take the easy route after being hemmed in their own zone. Applying a two-minute penalty, regardless of the intent, seems frivolous and irrational.
It seems only a matter of time before a pivotal series is determined solely by this sort of inadvertent mishap.
In college hockey, it isn’t an automatic penalty if you shoot the puck over the class. The ref has the discretion on whether or not it was intentional. There are very few delay of game penalties for shooting the puck out of play in college. I’d rather see that rule in place than what they have now if they are going to keep the rule. Otherwise, I’d be perfectly fine with just limiting it to prohibiting a line change.
Great point of view. The DOG penalty is always a punch in the gut for the offending team. I can’t see Bettman changing it any time soon though.
People seem to be forgetting just how often teams would flip the puck over the glass if they were in trouble. I remember. So does Pepperidge Farm(lol). It was dreadful to see the offensive team have complete offensive zone control only for the defending team to quickly grab it and shoot it over. Teams should not be given easy outs on D if they can’t contain or control their own zone.
I don’t trust refs to make judgement calls because they’ve consistently proven they can’t make them. And the “unable to make a line change” on icings hasn’t deterred anyone from icing the puck. Especially when teams delay the faceoff after icings like that joke of an end to tonight’s Flames-Ducks game where Manson purposely broke his stick and slowly glided to the bench for a new one and slowly glided back, killing about 45 more seconds on top of all the other delays they deployed.
I completely understand your reasoning. I think your best argument against altering the rule to a no-line-change situation is to keep offensive pressure up with fewer options of recourse for the defending team. I do, however, believe that the icing rule has definitely encouraged players to hit the red before firing it down. In truly desperate situations, teams will do whatever it takes to clear the puck out of danger, including icing the puck.
I would simply prefer a return of obstruction penalties as opposed to these oftentimes accidental misfires. When obstruction rules were enforced religiously in 05-06 and 06-07, scoring saw its only truly significant hike in the modern era.
Great comment!
You and I agree 1000% on the obstruction needing to be called. Don’t know why it’s happened but hockey is slowly returning to the clutch and grab era and that is not a good thing.
The other rule I hated in the Boston game was the review of offsides on Stafford’s goal. It’s just completely unnecessary. They need to simplify the offsides rule and get rid of the touching the ice part. And remove challenges on it, if they miss it, they miss it.