They aim high but the glass is too low. Make the glass higher so the puck goes out less often and the game keeps going without penalties or stopping for face-offs. Simple.

Teams can go (frank) themselves if they don't want to pay for it. They make millions collectively. It's about improving the game and the product in the long run.
- Unholy_Goalie

That's the point, they'll always aim as high as they can, so raising the glass accomplishes nothing.

If you want to make it a better product give the refs discretion to make a call. It's blatantly obvious when someone shoots the puck over the glass on purpose as opposed to when he sails on a guy. Or, twice this year the Sabres were penalized for shooting the puck into the netting behind the opposing goalie. Both times it was a desperate attempt to ice the puck.

That's the point, they'll always aim as high as they can, so raising the glass accomplishes nothing.

If you want to make it a better product give the refs discretion to make a call. It's blatantly obvious when someone shoots the puck over the glass on purpose as opposed to when he sails on a guy. Or, twice this year the Sabres were penalized for shooting the puck into the netting behind the opposing goalie. Both times it was a desperate attempt to ice the puck.
- Wetbandit1

If the glass was 50 feet high, they wouldn't be aiming that high just because they can. There is definitely an optimum height that can be achieved. And if the glass is high enough, it won't go out and the game can continue without a penalty or a whistle. Mission accomplished. Keep the flow of the game going with fewer stoppages.

The glass, on average, is about 12 feet high. If that became 15 or 20 feet high, around the entire rink, without the short glass along the sides of the rink, you'd see a lot fewer needless penalties and face-offs. If a player throws the puck 21 feet high over the glass, you know it wasn't an accident. And again, a curve or a lip at the top of the glass, knocks the puck down and back into play when the puck is riding up the glass which wouldn't be a penalty but is a needless stoppage that nobody wants to see.

When you put the decision in the hands of the referee, you always leave room for a referee to make a mistake. Make the glass higher and remove the human element entirely. Keep the puck in play as much as possible. The boards are there to keep the puck in play, why shouldn't the glass or even the netting do the same?

If the glass was 50 feet high, they wouldn't be aiming that high just because they can. There is definitely an optimum height that can be achieved. And if the glass is high enough, it won't go out and the game can continue without a penalty or a whistle. Mission accomplished. Keep the flow of the game going with fewer stoppages.

The glass, on average, is about 12 feet high. If that became 15 or 20 feet high, around the entire rink, without the short glass, you'd see a lot fewer needless penalties and face-offs. If a player throws the puck 21 feet high over the glass, you know it wasn't an accident. And again, a curve or a lip at the top of the glass, knocks the puck down and back into play when the puck is riding up the glass which wouldn't be a penalty but is a needless stoppage that nobody wants to see.

When you put the decision in the hands of the referee, you always leave room for a referee to make a mistake. Make the glass higher and remove the human element entirely. Keep the puck in play as much as possible. The boards are there to keep the puck in play, why shouldn't the glass or even the netting do the same?
- Unholy_Goalie

Why not? You're guaranteed not to have the opposition knock it down then.

No way could you have plexi 20' high unsupported like that. The whole system would require a re-engineer, and teams plain won't do that for that once every 4th or 5th game occurrence of a penalty.

The proposed curved section would cause issues with people in the stands and the cameras too, it would act as a lens and would cause both people in the arena and at home to have an obscured view.

If there were 5 penalties a game you might have a point, if the puck went over the glass 30 times a game you might have a point. Neither of those things happen anywhere near enough to justify the immense cost of a re-engineer, the custom plexi, or the viewing issues.

Putting netting all the way around is probably hundreds of times cheaper, and comes with none of the issues.

Confused how debrusk gets stick slashed out of hand by leaf player with 4 min left no penalty but crosby stick slashed out of hand with half the power by giroux is a penalty. Is this just another case of crosby rule which states crosby equals ratings which equals profit.

a curve or a lip at the top of the glass, knocks the puck down and back into play when the puck is riding up the glass which wouldn't be a penalty but is a needless stoppage that nobody wants to see.

?
- Unholy_Goalie

A curve or lip at the top of the glass will be a disaster. It would be difficult to judge how a perfectly round ball would come off it, never mind a puck. Every dump in off the glass will be an adventure as teams hope they get a bounce their way.

Confused how debrusk gets stick slashed out of hand by leaf player with 4 min left no penalty but crosby stick slashed out of hand with half the power by giroux is a penalty. Is this just another case of crosby rule which states crosby equals ratings which equals profit.
- tocchettough

Yes

Why not? You're guaranteed not to have the opposition knock it down then.
- Wetbandit1

There's an optimum height where the glass is high enough that the puck stays in without the opposition being able to knock it down that easily.

No way could you have plexi 20' high unsupported like that. The whole system would require a re-engineer, and teams plain won't do that for that once every 4th or 5th game occurrence of a penalty.

20 feet would be the total height, including the boards, not the height of the glass by itself. And maybe it doesn't need to be that high. Maybe the boards could be a foot higher. Maybe 18 total feet is enough. Maybe 15 total feet is enough. It would have to be tested. Definitely have to make the side glass the same height as the back glass. That 3 foot drop causes a lot of pucks leaving the playing field. Just making that glass equal could make a big difference by itself.

The proposed curved section would cause issues with people in the stands and the cameras too, it would act as a lens and would cause both people in the arena and at home to have an obscured view.

It would have zero effect on watching the game. It would be as distracting as the vertical stanchions that currently exist. I'm not sure we're thinking of the same type of curve or lip. I'd be thinking something very small, like an exaggerated curve on a hockey stick and only a few inches high. Something very small for the puck to bounce back towards the ice instead of going into the stands. And only for the side boards, where pucks are more likely to ride up the glass and go out which isn't a penalty and ends up being a waste of time.

If there were 5 penalties a game you might have a point, if the puck went over the glass 30 times a game you might have a point. Neither of those things happen anywhere near enough to justify the immense cost of a re-engineer, the custom plexi, or the viewing issues.

Even one penalty is too many. It's something that can be prevented and keep the flow of the game going. Fewer penalties, fewer unnecessary face-offs that all add up over the course of a season. Again, these teams make millions, altering some glass is a drop in the bucket. It's minor alterations, not rebuilding entire arenas.

Putting netting all the way around is probably hundreds of times cheaper, and comes with none of the issues.

I wouldn't be against using netting but that definitely can mess with the view of the ice but as long as they could make a system that has a bounce that's similar from what you would get from glass, that could work too.

A curve or lip at the top of the glass will be a disaster. It would be difficult to judge how a perfectly round ball would come off it, never mind a puck. Every dump in off the glass will be an adventure as teams hope they get a bounce their way.
- VT001

See above.

See above.
- Unholy_Goalie

A magnifying glass isn't much of a curve either. I don't think you realize how much of a difference it would make. Both for viewing and cost. Go to a plastic shop near you and ask how much a normal piece of plexi would be and then how much it would cost to add a curve at the top. If anything teams want more commercial breaks to get the ad dollars, not less.

I think you're the only person that thinks that pucks riding the glass and then going out is that big of a deal. It rarely happens. It either just clips the top, which, a curve would have no effect or even help it go out, or it goes straight out whether by a player shooting it out or a deflection. The games aren't that long. Most are ~2 and a half hours from puck drop to completion. NFL games are 3 hours long with the same amount of clock, and they even have a running clock at times.

The puck squirting out of play a few times a game is nothing. There are so many things that need to be fixed before that.

A magnifying glass isn't much of a curve either. I don't think you realize how much of a difference it would make. Both for viewing and cost. Go to a plastic shop near you and ask how much a normal piece of plexi would be and then how much it would cost to add a curve at the top. If anything teams want more commercial breaks to get the ad dollars, not less.
- Wetbandit1

I don't think you realize how small it would or could be, especially if you raised the height of the glass a couple of feet. Every corner of the rink has curved glass, it doesn't stop teams from selling seats with that view. I don't give a poop about cost when we're talking about teams that rake in millions. It's not that extreme of a cost.

They can still have their TV timeouts. It's not about the breaks as much as it is the flow of a game. A puck going out of bounds forces teams to end a play, change lines and take a face-off. It's about pace more than anything. A team could be under a lot of pressure and a legal puck over the glass play stops that. If the glass was a bit higher and designed to keep the puck in, maybe that's a scoring chance or maybe a goal instead of another line change and a face-off.

I think you're the only person that thinks that pucks riding the glass and then going out is that big of a deal. It rarely happens. It either just clips the top, which, a curve would have no effect or even help it go out, or it goes straight out whether by a player shooting it out or a deflection. The games aren't that long. Most are ~2 and a half hours from puck drop to completion. NFL games are 3 hours long with the same amount of clock, and they even have a running clock at times.

The puck squirting out of play a few times a game is nothing. There are so many things that need to be fixed before that.

It's not about the games being too long. It's about maintaining the pace and momentum of plays within a game. It's not ruining the game but it's not adding to it either. Keeping the puck in play as much as possible adds to the game which is the opposite of pucks leaving the field of play. It's like having boards to keep the puck in rather than boundaries like basketball or soccer. It even sometimes takes longer for hockey to get started again after the puck goes out of bounds than it does for soccer to restart. Hockey is a sport that has boards and glass to keep the puck in play, so why not maximize that quality and keep the puck in play as much as possible?

The puck over the glass rule makes perfect sense because it gives the defense a way to stop the play with little to no skill and reduces offense. The stupid part is how easy it is to throw the puck over the glass when they could just make the glass taller and curve it at the top to prevent the puck from going out as often.
- Unholy_Goalie

When a player fires it over the glass, they are not trying to put it out of play. They are trying to clear and/or ice the puck. Revert it back to giving the referees the option to call it (whenever it's intentional, it's pretty damn obvious) and if they don't call it, the offending team can't change. Just like an icing; the thing the player was trying to do in the first place.

As for the crease rule, I'd get rid of the trapezoid and make the crease much bigger, almost exactly the same as the lacrosse crease. The goalie would be allowed to leave his net and play or cover the puck anywhere inside the blue paint. But if he leaves his crease, he's fair game and can be hit by opposing players, not to the head and not from behind, obviously.
- Unholy_Goalie

You do that and I am plowing over your goalie the first chance I get when he tries to go to the bench on a delayed penalty.

All plays should be subject to review at the cost of a delay of game penalty, with the penalty increasing every time a review is called for incorrectly.
- Unholy_Goalie

No.

Another game another blown call(s). Letang just out of the box for a flagrant cross check goes on to execute one of the most obvious and flagrant trips you will ever see the ref decided to say pay no attention to that, he couldn't bear putting letang back in the box after phylly had a 5-3...

no goal 5-4 and phylly on the pp...you don't think that brutal non call impacted the game...

When a player fires it over the glass, they are not trying to put it out of play. They are trying to clear and/or ice the puck. Revert it back to giving the referees the option to call it (whenever it's intentional, it's pretty damn obvious) and if they don't call it, the offending team can't change. Just like an icing; the thing the player was trying to do in the first place.
- freedomgundam

I don't care what he's trying to do because what happens is the puck is going out of play and the game is being stopped. Giving referees the option is creating the opportunity for a referee to make a mistake and cost somebody a game. It's far from obvious to guess what a player was intending to do and further creates complications when a referee guesses incorrectly. The best solution is to simply make it a lot harder to put the puck out of play rather than make a referee guess what a player was intending to do which is way too much of an unnecessary grey area.

You do that and I am plowing over your goalie the first chance I get when he tries to go to the bench on a delayed penalty.

That would be interference and a penalty. It's a very basic concept; if the goalie is in his crease, you can't touch him but if he isn't, he's treated like any other player and that includes illegal hits. You can't hit a player when he doesn't have the puck and you wouldn't be able to hit a goalie if he isn't playing the puck either.

No.

Yes. By far the best solution to the review issue. Give coaches the right to challenge any call on the ice and punish them for being wrong. Coaches can challenge the curve on a hockey stick with a delay of game penalty attached to it if the coach is wrong. The same should be done with any other challenge.

Benjamin Allbright
✔
@AllbrightNFL
Since we've all been having fun with these the last two weeks...

If I had to guess tonight...

1. Browns - Baker Mayfield
2. Giants - Sam Darnold
3. Jets - Josh Allen
4. Browns - Bradley Chubb
5. Bills - trade up with Broncos, Josh Rosen



Make it so

I will laugh so hard if the Jets end up with Allen

Paul any thoughts
http://www.hockeybuzz.com...d-Refs-Die-Hard/155/92371

Another game another blown call(s). Letang just out of the box for a flagrant cross check goes on to execute one of the most obvious and flagrant trips you will ever see the ref decided to say pay no attention to that, he couldn't bear putting letang back in the box after phylly had a 5-3...

no goal 5-4 and phylly on the pp...you don't think that brutal non call impacted the game...
- bogiedoc

Maybe if Cotourier didn't jump in the air and flop like a fish, they would have called a penalty...just a thought...

Ah, so sort of like MLB umps that use their 'discretion' to determine what 'their' strike zone is?

Nothing better than a black and white rule. Don't want a penalty? Don't shoot the puck over the glass. It literally can't get any simpler than that, unlike the grey area of what is goaltender interference. Shot over glass, penalty. Off glass or boards? Not a penalty.

These are the best players in the world. If a puck is shot over the glass, that's where they were aiming.