Scope of Delay of Game & Unsportsmanlike Conduct

[Law Goalie 147]

As currently worded and understood, I think either of these is broad enough to apply to what happened in the Philly/Tampa game last night.

For those who haven't seen it yet, Tampa (at home) sat back in maybe the most passive 1-3-1 neutral zone trap I've ever seen, and the Flyers, in response, just stood there with the puck at their own faceoff dots and refused to advance, while the Tampa fans booed and the Flyers' bench stood up and taunted the Tampa wingers who were camped out next to them.

63.1 Delaying the Game – A player or a team may be penalized when, in the opinion of the Referee, is delaying the game in any manner.

Interestingly, one of the "Infractions" (63.7) is listed as:

(v) Persisting in having players in an off-side position.

So, in essence, a referee can assess delay of game simply for having players positioned in certain places on the ice, even if they aren't doing anything.

75.1 Unsportsmanlike Conduct – Players, goalkeepers and non-playing Club personnel are responsible for their conduct at all times and must endeavor to prevent disorderly conduct before, during or after the game, on or off the ice and any place in the rink. The Referees may assess penalties to any of the above team personnel for failure to do so.

While what Tampa and Philly did was not disorderly but rather orderly to the point of tedium, the key phrase is 'responsible for conduct at all times.'

Twice in the first period the stalemate resulted in the play being blown dead with faceoffs in the Flyers' end when the Flyers actually stopped moving or even touching the puck, and rightly so: it's incumbent on the team with possession to keep the puck moving. However, when they began to very slowly and deliberately skate in circles with it, the refs could do no more. Hockey Ops specifically instructed them "not to interfere with coaching decisions" in this game, according to TSN's Dreger.

It's pretty clear that the Flyers were trying to embarrass Tampa in front of their home fans, and effectively put an economic squeeze on them: it'll be fans in Tampa demanding their money back, or not showing up in future. The larger problem is that the game was broadcast nationally, and the league looked like a joke.

One of the major reasons that neutral zone traps work is because of the density of players in the neutral zone. That's why the GMs have been considering for the last few years the idea of going to 4v4 all game (as an extreme measure, admittedly) and why OT works as it currently does. In fact, things really seemed to open up in OT in this game.

Rather than writing some inane rule specifically to deal with this, I think it would be possible and positive for the refs to hand out corresponding Delay of Game minors to any team that refuses to advance the puck and Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalties to any team that sits back and refuses to forecheck. That would knock the game down to 4v4 (and eventually 3v3) and temporarily open the ice up enough (hopefully) for some pace to develop.

The only thing they'd have to do is make the Delay minor a bench minor rather than one targeted at the defenceman who has possession, since the rule could then be used to chip away at teams with very strong defences: in this case, Philly could have lost Pronger and Tampa could have selected any player on the ice (and one far less valuable) to serve theirs, resulting in a net win for Tampa. If both teams are given bench minors and bale to select who serves, they're on even terms.

[TeamHonda401 54]

I personally place the cause of the incident more on the Flyers than the Bolts, as I think that the onus of advancing the game should be on the team with posession of the puck. However, I do agree that both teams were somewhat at fault here. The Bolts stuck to their trap to the point of rediculiousness; abandoning any sort of forecheck and just stitting back and waiting for the Flyers to try and break out. But if the Flyers were just standing there not moving, then why should the Tampa players move? It's kind of a chicken or the egg situation, and a case can be made that both teams were in the wrong.

As far as the penalty situation, Law you hit it on the head on this one. It's impossible to run a 1-3-1 if you only have four players lol, and would have ended the stalemate had the refs decided to go that route. The league needs to come up with a plan to handle this situation if it were to arise again, as it made everyone involved with the hockey game look bad. The easiest solution would be what Law said above, the teams should get the hint, and there's more open ice as a result.

Crazy situation last night and I can't believe that happened.

[wrangler 157]

Application of 75.1 seems a bit problematic to me, but I see 63.1 and the following language of 63.2 as broad enough to apply:

63.2 Minor Penalty - 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.

I'd say that there was an effective stoppage of play by the Flyers, because of the way they played the puck. Both teams basically stopped playing hockey.

I agree that the situation in last night's game was silly, and amounted to a pissing contest.

[chippa13 1844]

As I recall, there is a passage somewhere in the rules about the team in possession of the puck technically having to always be advancing the puck up ice. I think if an official had decided that he had seen enough then he could at the least have blown the play dead and the faceoff would have been at the nearest dot to the puck at the time of the whistle.

[Law Goalie 147]

Yup - and they did, twice in the first period, and Tampa got a scoring chance off one of those faceoffs. After that, the Flyers' D would circle with the puck, and that satisfied the requirement to advance the puck. When they got whistled for it, they were actually not even touching the puck for about 30s.

While I do agree that the absurdity of what happened was largely down to the Flyers, I don't think it would be fair to penalise them and not Tampa; they're the efficient and effective causes of the same problem, and so both need to be dealt with. Penalising both means they're technically on even terms, but the ability to create the conditions of a stalemate is diminished.

[Chadd 916]

I wouldn't change the rules, as you end up with unintended consequences. The league should fine any team that plays that way for conduct detrimental to the game. No team will play that style if it costs them $1m a game.

[Joshison 1]

The trap is not that hard to beat btw.

[Law Goalie 147]

Who said it was hard to beat?

It is, however, even easier to beat 4v4. So much easier, in fact, that the league changed the rules in the 80s so that the Oilers couldn't just tear through everyone during offsetting minors, even when you could hook a guy and ride him like a sled-dog from red-line to goal-line.

I wouldn't change the rules, as you end up with unintended consequences. The league should fine any team that plays that way for conduct detrimental to the game. No team will play that style if it costs them $1m a game.

I would agree, but for two issues: 1) fines after the fact won't deter until and unless the league issues a guideline, and 2) for $1M a game, closing in on the playoffs, some teams might actually take that fine.

What I still like about using the spirit of the rules as written is that's simple, elegant, and has an immediate impact on the game when teams stalemate like this.

My only real concern is that teams that prefer to play 4v4/3v3 might be able to continually attempt to create stalemates in order to change the game, but that *could* be something that gets fined after the fact.

[CommodoreColt 19]

Hi guys, first post here.

Law Goalie's assessment seems to address the two real issues which many fans and press analysts are too emotionally polarized to understand clearly.

I had no idea that the delay of game rules were so specific about prohibiting an offside trap defense, but still remain so broad that it doesn't address other kinds neutral zone traps like Tampa's shutdown.

Others may have a different opinion than mine, but the 1-3-1/0-4-1 strategy's primary advantage isn't to keep attackers in an offside position. I feel that it's main effect is taking away space in the neutral zone by eliminating passing options, creating odd-man confrontations to force turnovers. All it does is concentrate defensive presence in the neutral zone at the cost of a forecheck.

Again, your interpretation of 63.7 may put Tampa to blame if you see the 1-3-1/0-4-1 as a way to catch skill forwards offsides. But this should be at the core of the discussion on defensive traps, not the emotional conjecture we're getting from the press.

On to unsportsmanlike conduct. Yes, the pre-meditated stalling tactic appeared to fall well within consideration of an unsportsmanlike act. As hilarious as it was to watch, it's effectively in the same mind as a lewd gesture after a fight or a disrespectful goal celebration.

I'm really most interested to see if the game will self-regulate trap defenses, or if it will come to a drastic rule change in the future.

[t6lock 24]

i didnt mind the strategy when phi was up 1-0 :)

[Law Goalie 147]

Colt, my intent in mentioning 63.7 (which is merely some example infractions of the broader 63.1 Delay of Game rule) was simply to point out that there is already a mechanism in place for penalising teams for certain positional play. Currently, the relevant example in 63.7 is specific to deliberate offside play, but the point is that to transfer this rule to other kinds of positional play (e.g. the neutral zone trap, whether in general or extremis) is not that much of a stretch.

My only regret is that the refs didn't (or couldn't) make those calls in the ice, just as they could have nailed Avery for unsportsmanlike the minute he started harassing Brodeur. I get the sense that refs would rather defer to Hockey Ops than to make a creative call on the ice.

[chippa13 1844]

Persisting in having players in an off-side position doesn't have anything to do with the trap.

[camhockey16 5]

i think the nhl could solve it somewhat by saying that if you are going to play the 1-3-1 that in this case marty st. louis must actually forecheck - he can't just stand there.

they could also hand out penalties or other things - but i think telling them they must forecheck might be enough.

[CommodoreColt 19]

Currently, the relevant example in 63.7 is specific to deliberate offside play, but the point is that to transfer this rule to other kinds of positional play (e.g. the neutral zone trap, whether in general or extremis) is not that much of a stretch.

Thanks for clearing that point up, Law Goalie. Agreed, it isn't much of a stretch, but it seems the existing language is trying to eliminate gray areas in calling such infractions. I'm sure they're thinking about how to add or remove language from it as we speak. I'd hate to see refs need to make difficult on-ice calls for such obscure rules.

Camhockey, isn't forechecking only a set of techniques under the broad spectrum of hockey defense? Forcing players to forecheck on every breakout is like banning the forward pass or not allowing tenders to go to their knees to stop shots. There should be no motivation in the game for anyone to "stand there", offensively or defensively. That goes for Coburn, Pronger, and Timonen as much as it goes for St. Louis.

[camhockey16 5]

i mean if a team decides it is going to play the 1-3-1 then it should be a rule or required that the "1" player - in this case st. louis - must forecheck in some way - i think if st. louis goes at pronger or coburn then the puck actually gets moved and the whole situation never happens. After the refs blew the play dead, st. louis went over to guy boucher and said "what do you want me to do?" if boucher had told him to forecheck and go after the player with the puck i think that would have solved the problem.

i know there is no real rule against playing the trap - but the nhl can't let this stuff keep happening - it is bad for the sport and boring for the people that pay good money to go to the games. I think that would be the easiest solution - otherwise you have to call penalties or else outlaw the trap entirely.

[wrangler 157]

Isn't there any heat from the fans and the local press?

[chippa13 1844]

The Devils have been paying at the gate for carrying their old reputation of being a boring team. I don't think any outlawing of the trap is the solution, let's just play by the rules we've got and let the officials enforce them before we go writing more rules and standards that will just slip over time.

[wrangler 157]

I don't like the idea of outlawing defenses, either -- where will it end?

One could even interpret the Flyers' tactic as a tacit admission of incompetence, namely an inability to coach how to handle a particular defense.

Let's play hockey.

[chk hrd 164]

In my opinion Tampa was less to blame than Philly. The object for the offensive team is to put the puck in the openents net, likewise the defensive team is trying to keep from being scored on. That said Philly did nothing to attempt to score because Tampa was playing a passive 1-3-1. Philly was delaying the game by doing nothing. Tampa was actually doing something by doing nothing because Philly did not have a scoring chance. Both teams were wrong but Tampa was less wrong. It was not good hockey for either team.

Why not allow the refs to blow a whistle and have a face off in the defensive zone of the offending team. If it happens again give a bench minor fordelay of game.

[jds 20]

Gino Reda is now referring to the whole discussion of the play as "Trapgate". Funny

[wrangler 157]

In my opinion Tampa was less to blame than Philly. The object for the offensive team is to put the puck in the openents net, likewise the defensive team is trying to keep from being scored on. That said Philly did nothing to attempt to score because Tampa was playing a passive 1-3-1. Philly was delaying the game by doing nothing. Tampa was actually doing something by doing nothing because Philly did not have a scoring chance. Both teams were wrong but Tampa was less wrong. It was not good hockey for either team.

Good point. The Tampa defense worked perfectly, achieving its objective, while the Flyers sat out.

[BoDangles 0]

If anything is going to change, should be that in this case Philly has to try and advance the puck.The 1-3-1 is an effective defensive style, just because Philly could not find a way to beat it, they should not just be able to hang on to the puck in their own end.

The NBA has the 8 second rule (think it's 8) to move the puck ball to the offensive end of the court.

Not saying that it the solution, but something along those lines seems more reasonable than having a rule against a defensive style of play.

Edit: thanks jds haha

[jds 20]

The NBA has the 8 second rule (think it's 8) to move the puck to the offensive end of the court.

If the NBA involved a puck, I might actually watch it.

[wrangler 157]

I think the NBA rule is 10 seconds; at least it used to be. The NBA also has rules about the defense having to come out and challenge the offense (think backcheck) in certain situations. This kind of stuff would be a real can of worms in hockey.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

I actually favor PHI on this one...the casual hockey fan doesn't pick up on the 1-3-1 because the game is so fast...and to do it in Tampa was sheer genius.