I’m doing my best to put all personal bias aside, but I’ll understand if anyone feels otherwise when I say this, considering it was Nash who tossed the puck over the glass in that game.

It was a poor call.  No matter how many times I watch, I just can’t see intent.  It’s as if his stick hit the puck, and of all the rotten luck, the way it was hit just sent it sky high, and in to the crowd.

Wasn’t the whole focus of this rule meant to be concerning intent?  At least, that was my understanding.  Nash had little to no pressure on him with the exception of one Russian player that wasn’t within stick’s length of him.  He had a clear view of wide open ice leading in to the neutral zone, and was mere feet from the blue line.

But like I said, I understand if anyone views my little ramble with a bias.

Posted by Michael Turner from Columbus, OH on 05/18/08 at 04:38 PM ET

Wasn’t the whole focus of this rule meant to be concerning intent?

Ever since they started calling this penalty, I’ve never seen it called where the player meant to shoot it over the glass.  Like Cherry said, guys don’t shoot it into the stands on purpose because they know the’ll get a penalty.  It’s not like hooking, etc., where players still do it and hope they’ll get away with it.  If the puck goes over the glass, the play is getting looked at.  Cherry’s right (and it hurts me to say that), the rule is stupid, but it’s been called the same way for 3 seasons now, regardless of the intent of the player.

Posted by K24 from NYC on 05/18/08 at 04:55 PM ET

I don’t believe intent of the player had anything to do with it.  The intent of the rule was to speed up the game (hence calling it delay of game) and to force the players to actually make a play, possibly passing it and getting it picked off and leading to a scoring chance.

The puck can roll on anyone and get shot into the stands by accident - I think it happened to Lidstrom a few games ago, and if anyone can handle a puck, it’s him - but as said, it’s been the same for three years.  Stupid or not, at least it isn’t open to interpretation, and it’s a clear rule, at least.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/18/08 at 05:13 PM ET

I like the rule.  I’m tired of players using the boards as a safe play to clear the zone.  Oops I shot it in the crowd, lets get a change and reset.  The intent usually is to shoot it high off the glass to get the clear.  This rule makes this a more dangerous play, and that’s fine with me.  Professional hockey players should be able to deal with it.  Granted I didn’t see the Nash play and understand it can be flukey at times.  Phantom stick infraction calls tick me off way worse.

Posted by RJ on 05/18/08 at 05:16 PM ET

Just to correct myself concerning the play, there was a Russian player much closer than I had realized (like, literally next to him).  However that same player had just misplayed the puck himself to try to keep it in, so he was, by all accounts, behind enough in the play for Nash to not have much real pressure on him.

Just judging the motion of the stick, it seems like he was attempting to chip it out.  But like was said before, he catches it in a bad spot, and it instead goes sailing over the benches, and into the stands.

In any event, in response to Baroque and to K24, I just seemed to recall that the rule had originally called for judgment based off of a player’s intent.  If I could find the actual rule on the NHL website, I’d either be corrected and accept that, or be on the ball.  But I guess that then brings up if there is any difference in the rule’s wording in the IIHF.

Anyway, that’s all I really got.

Posted by Michael Turner from Columbus, OH on 05/18/08 at 05:37 PM ET

At least, as it was pointed out above, not open to interpretation. All that said, I don’t mind Cherry’s suggestion to prevent the defending team from changing with the faceoff in their zone. (same as icing) That seems fair. In 5-5 play, going down 5-4 isn’t that bad, but I’ve seen too many 5-3’s from this penalty, that I’d like to try something else.

Posted by penguinsfan on 05/18/08 at 05:57 PM ET

Ole Sour Grapes is just upset because his boys lost the game to a bunch of talented russians.Gotta blame the loss on something....huh Don!

Posted by Sourgrapes on 05/18/08 at 06:25 PM ET

“I’m tired of players using the boards as a safe play to clear the zone.”

Why isn’t icing treated the same way then?  It happens in similar situations where players are trying to clear the zone under pressure.  It’s also not as easy to accidentally ice as it is to accidentally chop the puck over the glass.

But the main thing is that the punishment is the stupid part here, not necessarily the rule.

Posted by Shane from Saskatoon on 05/18/08 at 07:54 PM ET

It’s an annoying penalty (when it affects your team of course, when it’s against the other guys it’s awesome , but it’s not open to interpretation at all.  And I like it that way.  Penalties should never be about intent (other than, say, intent to injure) because your intent really makes no difference to the other team, the only thing that matters is what you actually did.  It doesn’t matter if you “accidentally” hook someone, or accidentally delay the game, the actual act is what’s impeding the game and is what’s penalized, and that’s the way it should be. 

It wasn’t incidental (he didn’t just deflect it or anything), clearly, so it was the right call; it was very similar to the call on Fedorov early in that same game, the one that eventually led to the the high-stick/5-on-3 for Canada’s 3rd goal.  If it makes people feel better about it all, just look at the two as cancelling each other out (if Russia’s not a man down, does Nash get high-sticked, etc.) It was an exciting game all around, and there were far more controversial calls/non-calls than something that the refs really have no leeway about calling.

Posted by Brad from Washington on 05/18/08 at 08:17 PM ET

I’m tired of players using the boards as a safe play to clear the zone.

Why?  The boards are just as much a part of the game as the ice or anything else.  Being able to get the puck out of the zone using the boards and making sure not to ice it or shoot it over is a skill that’s part of the game.  That’s one of the reasons the boards are there…

Posted by NHLJeff from Boston, MA on 05/18/08 at 08:33 PM ET

yeah, NHLJeff I thought that was a weird comment too.  it’s like saying “I’m tired of seeing guys use the ice to slide the puck around.”

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/18/08 at 09:14 PM ET

Ole Sour Grapes is just upset because his boys lost the game to a bunch of talented russians.Gotta blame the loss on something....huh Don!

Yeah, no kidding.

Had the Russians got a delay of game penalty and Canada scored on the ensuing PP, Cherry would be saying how great a rule that is.

Don Cherry needs to retire.

Posted by PuckHound61 on 05/19/08 at 07:13 AM ET

I have to say… I hate this rule with a passion.  I have ever since it was instituted.  Ask my wife—she gets the brunt of a rant every time it come sup during a game (and that includes when my Wings are playing and the call goes against whoever they’re playing, I still hate it and rant away).

I hate it.  It’s a dumb, lazy rule.  If you don’t trust your own officials to make a judgement call on a play like that, then why do you trust them to officiate at all?

That’s what I don’t like about it.  You trust an official to make a judgement call that is NOT reviewable on an Interference wave-off of a goal… yet you don’t trust that same official to decide if a puck was shot out of play on purpose or not.

It’s ridiculous.

Posted by Primis on 05/19/08 at 08:31 AM ET

The officials have enough penalties to call without adding more nonsense like this. Every time a player falls down or lifts his stick off the ice the whistles blows as it is. How does taking the time to call a penalty speed up the game? The refs called the penalty exactly as the rule book calls for it to be called. However, it is still a stupid rule and always has been. Treat it like icing with a faceoff deep in the defensive zone and don’t allow player changes as has been previously suggested and move on.

Posted by Hockey1919 from Montreal on 05/19/08 at 09:11 AM ET

Call me naive, but is there anything Don Cherry isn’t upset about?  As an American who’s never really watched him for any length of time, I just don’t understand why we care when his diapers chaffe.

The rule sucks, but then so do a lot of them. Trapazoid? Stupidest thing I’ve ever seen. And what about the instigator rule?

Posted by Gabriel from San Diego, CA on 05/19/08 at 09:41 AM ET

Grapes is losing it. Its probably the best rule on the books. No interpretation needed. KEEP THE PUCK IN PLAY!!!!!Its pretty hard to shoot a puck over the glass. I’m tired of lazy, untalented players just shooting the puck off the boards. If it goes in the stands...well too fricken bad for you!!!!!!....Grapes likes to say the Russians never win anything. Well they just won something...just like they won Canada Cup ‘81, Challenge Cup ‘79 and a boatload of Olympic golds WC golds........

Posted by kevin from boston on 05/19/08 at 11:13 AM ET

Had the Russians got a delay of game penalty and Canada scored on the ensuing PP, Cherry would be saying how great a rule that is.

Had that happened, you’re right that he probably wouldn’t have gone on the anti-rule rant, but I don’t think he would have said positive things about ti either.  He has hated this rule for quite a while now, and for good reason.

Shooting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone should be treated like an icing.  No line change and a face-off in your zone.  It makes SO much more sense and takes away being able to shoot the puck over just because you’re tired, because, like with icing, you would not be able to get off of the ice.

Posted by NHLJeff from Boston, MA on 05/19/08 at 01:08 PM ET

Shooting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone should be treated like an icing.  No line change and a face-off in your zone.  It makes SO much more sense and takes away being able to shoot the puck over just because you’re tired, because, like with icing, you would not be able to get off of the ice.

Hence, as with all things in the world which make perfect sense, it is highly unlikely to happen.

I agree with you, though - it still makes it a penalty, but a less severe offense than hooking or holding or high-sticking or something like that.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/19/08 at 01:49 PM ET