Fundin
Registered User
- May 11, 2015
- 78
- 0
Hey guys, I'm sure more than a few of you are familiar with the part of the delay of game rule as it relates to the goalie covering outside the crease. I'll refresh your memories before getting to my query.
It reads:
"A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player, including the goalkeeper, who holds, freezes or plays the puck with his stick, skates or body in such a manner as to deliberately cause a stoppage of play. With regard to a goalkeeper, this rule applies outside of his goal crease area."
And this part: "If a goalkeeper comes out of his crease to “cut down the angle†on a shot and after making the save covers the puck, this shall be legal. If the goalkeeper races out of his crease in an attempt to beat the attacking player to the puck and instead of playing the puck jumps on the puck causing a stoppage of play, this shall be a minor penalty for delay of game."
Seems easy enough. It's a little different than say, USA Hockey's, where a goalie outside his crease can't cover it behind the goal line, but is able to cover it in his "privileged area" outside the crease above the goal line, which is an area outlined by connecting the end zone face-off spots with an imaginary line and imaginary lines from each face-off spot running perpendicular to the end boards.
For some reason, the behind the goal line part rankles me, haha. Maybe because they punish that, but then allow the goalie to cover the puck anywhere in that "imaginary box." Covering in that area is way worse and delays the game more than doing it behind the goal line, IMO. Maybe the goal line is their version of the trapezoid? (Jk). I digress...
Anyway, my question is, in the NHL, has anyone ever seen the delay of game assessed in a situation other than the play where the goalie races out to beat the attacker to the puck outside of his crease and smothers it? Usually, the ref will implore the goalie to play it, and give him ample time to do so, before enforcing the rule. But you do see it called, maybe more often than we think.
I just can't recall seeing called it in any other circumstance in all my years of watching NHL hockey. To the letter, you could technically penalize a goalie for covering a centering pass if he's outside the crease, or in some of those circumstances where an announcer will say "and he decides to cover the puck and stop play" or something. Try as I might, I just can't remember anything like that happening. I imagine having any opponents in the vicinity is a mitigating factor to a ref in all of this. A penalty can be applied when it's covered in the crease with no opponents around, but that's another conversation altogether.
Is this rule more of a guide to the refs than anything? Is that why it's really only called in the scenario I mentioned above? I can imagine a slew of these penalties being called if it were called to the exact specifications of the rule. But yeah, can anyone remember a time that it was applied rather, "unjustly"? I like the rule's "grayness" as opposed to the USA hockey interpretation (I really dislike the behind the goal line part, as mentioned), but that also brings about my question.
Thanks guys.
It reads:
"A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player, including the goalkeeper, who holds, freezes or plays the puck with his stick, skates or body in such a manner as to deliberately cause a stoppage of play. With regard to a goalkeeper, this rule applies outside of his goal crease area."
And this part: "If a goalkeeper comes out of his crease to “cut down the angle†on a shot and after making the save covers the puck, this shall be legal. If the goalkeeper races out of his crease in an attempt to beat the attacking player to the puck and instead of playing the puck jumps on the puck causing a stoppage of play, this shall be a minor penalty for delay of game."
Seems easy enough. It's a little different than say, USA Hockey's, where a goalie outside his crease can't cover it behind the goal line, but is able to cover it in his "privileged area" outside the crease above the goal line, which is an area outlined by connecting the end zone face-off spots with an imaginary line and imaginary lines from each face-off spot running perpendicular to the end boards.
For some reason, the behind the goal line part rankles me, haha. Maybe because they punish that, but then allow the goalie to cover the puck anywhere in that "imaginary box." Covering in that area is way worse and delays the game more than doing it behind the goal line, IMO. Maybe the goal line is their version of the trapezoid? (Jk). I digress...
Anyway, my question is, in the NHL, has anyone ever seen the delay of game assessed in a situation other than the play where the goalie races out to beat the attacker to the puck outside of his crease and smothers it? Usually, the ref will implore the goalie to play it, and give him ample time to do so, before enforcing the rule. But you do see it called, maybe more often than we think.
I just can't recall seeing called it in any other circumstance in all my years of watching NHL hockey. To the letter, you could technically penalize a goalie for covering a centering pass if he's outside the crease, or in some of those circumstances where an announcer will say "and he decides to cover the puck and stop play" or something. Try as I might, I just can't remember anything like that happening. I imagine having any opponents in the vicinity is a mitigating factor to a ref in all of this. A penalty can be applied when it's covered in the crease with no opponents around, but that's another conversation altogether.
Is this rule more of a guide to the refs than anything? Is that why it's really only called in the scenario I mentioned above? I can imagine a slew of these penalties being called if it were called to the exact specifications of the rule. But yeah, can anyone remember a time that it was applied rather, "unjustly"? I like the rule's "grayness" as opposed to the USA hockey interpretation (I really dislike the behind the goal line part, as mentioned), but that also brings about my question.
Thanks guys.
