Scope of Delay of Game & Unsportsmanlike Conduct

[bigdmac 12]

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.

+1. Perfectly said

[Fury of One 6]

Flyers weren't prepared for team defense after playing the Blue Jackets.

[Krev 86]

Put the NHL on Olympic size ice. Problem solved.

[Chadd 916]

Put the NHL on Olympic size ice. Problem solved.

Noteben remotely true. The European game is extremely slow compared to the NHL.

[troy 12]

Is that because of the ice surface?

[Law Goalie 147]

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

Of course not; I don't think I was particularly clear about why 63.7 is relevant.

In principle, allowing the refs to penalise teams for persistently having players in an offside position gives the referee license to penalise teams simply for where their players are on the ice in and of itself, without respect what they are doing in that position or have caused as a result of that position. (In the case of 63.7, to penalise for having a player persistently in offside position, rather than for causing repeated offsides calls.) Thus, in essence, there is already at least one rule in place that allows teams to be penalised for an 'illegal formation' and if you were to reapply that general understanding to the specifics of a neutral zone trap, you would have a valid rule.

I am absolutely not suggesting that the NHL should do this. Equivalents to the NBA's zone defence rule were considered in the 90s re: the Devils and rejected because, simply put, they won't work. Any rule specific enough to prevent those defences would be either unenforceably specific or hopelessly broad.

The problem is not the trap: it's the stalemate. Yes, the trap creates the conditions of the stalemate, but as Craig Button said of this incident, it takes two to tango: one to set a ridiculously passive trap, and one to refuse to engage with it -- that is, one for unsportsmanlike conduct and the other for delay of game.

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.

Most of the NHL players that have been interviewed seem to fully support what Philly did, and I was think it was clever to do it in Tampa, delivering the immediate entertainment and economic impact to the team ultimately responsible. However, given that the game was nationally televised and the incident has, as a matter of course, spread everywhere, it really does seem to have made the league as a whole look bad.

I did enjoy the pissing contest between hockey analysts about who could remember the earliest example of this; so far it seems to be Eddie Shore in the IHL in the early 70s, when he had his team have lunch with the puck against a passive defence.

Out of curiosity, does anyone think that issuing offsetting minors and going to 4-on-4 would not successfully break the stalemate?

[farhanshak 1]

Out of curiosity, does anyone think that issuing offsetting minors and going to 4-on-4 would not successfully break the stalemate?

give each team a minor, any player on the team (whether on the ice or bench can serve it) and go 4 on 4.

I understand this is a "coaching tactic" but as a fan, and this is my own opinion, it was not fun to watch when it happened. I watched this game, and I knew what was happening the second Coburn did it off the opening face off. Very disappointing to watch.

having boxed in my younger years, I would compare this to putting two counterpunchers in the ring against one another. For you mma buffs; put two fighters in the cage and just have them circle around the cage patting each other without actually doing anything.