Would you (as a fan) support this?

I think it would depend on whether or not the delay of game was intentional. Obviously, it's kind of hard to tell that though so I'm not really sure.

F**k the trapezoid rule though!

I have often been confused about this call. Shooting the puck over the boards is called delay of game and results in a penalty. Icing the puck takes longer to restart the game and the only penalty is loss of 200 feet of ice unless you're short handed and then it's a good play.

Treat the delay of game penalty the same whether shooting the puck into the stands or the length of the ice.

The call is often a judgement call anyway. Did it go off another stick? Did it touch the glass? Would it have gone into the stands if the bench wasn't there?

And how about Ovechkin's penalty the other night. Shot the puck over the glass at the other end from inside his own blue line?

No I would not support this. If this happens in regular season over time and Burke's suggestion is adopted, the team would be short handed for almost the entire over time period. What's next, having other penalties not result in a five on three?

If they don't like that this can be the result of this rule being called, then change the rule. Make it so that the delay of game is only called if the referees deem that the puck was sent out of play deliberately.

Putting on my Roger Nielson hat-

So that means that if I'm sitting on a one-goal lead late in the game and I'm already a man down (i.e. less than 2 minutes left), I can exploit this rule to a degree by being able to commit delay of game fouls without suffering the pain of going down 5-on-3 knowing that if we hold onto the lead that delay of game penalty doesn't hurt me unless they tie it up and we go to overtime.

Presumably, I'd lose the offending player who would go into the box but I'd be able to replace him with another player so the player who commits the infraction would in effect be off the ice for 2+ whatever penalty time is remaining on the first penalty.

I'm on the fence about delay-of-game. I understand the objective but I really struggle with it being a 2-minute minor penalty. Treating it like icing where the offending team can't make a line change would be more sensible, or maybe at the 3rd or 4th delay of game of the night the offending team gets a 2-minute minor penalty.

I don't like the trapezoid. Well intended rule with some bad consequences.

Not at all. You make a mistake you pay for it. I see it's advantages, but there's also some disadvantages. So say the guy gets a delay of game 30 seconds into a PK so they're 2 men down for 1:30, then 1 man down for an extra 30...As opposed to being one man down for another 3:30...

You have to think about the momentum gained from killing off a five on three. It pumps players up and makes them work real hard at it. Now a prolonged penalty kill can hurt the flow to a game and and would prevent more star players (who don't kill) from getting ice time thus taking them out of their rhythm. Killing a 5-3 is like scoring a goal to tie the game. It feels that good.

I agree with Expat Mike, a penalty is a penalty is a penalty.

Personally, I think the refs should have discretion on whether their was intent or if it was done in haste even....because of pressure. I hate the ones where there is no pressure on the player and the puck is just rolling and it goes out, I would not like to see a Stanley Cup won like that.

As an aside to Tom, let me clear up the confusion for you- the delay of game for shooting it out of the ice surface was brought on so players who were under pressure couldn't just flip the puck out of play and there IS NO JUDGEMENT CALL. What if it gets deflected off of another stick or off of the glass- then it IS NO PENALTY, it's clear that it's no penalty and there is no judgement involved.

Also, having the face-off in your own zone is NOT the only penalty for icing....you also cannot make a line change.

Leafs Fan brings up a valid point too. I say give the refs more power, they aren't idiots, they can determine intent.

... or when your team is shorthanded... perhaps you DON'T shoot the puck over the glass and delay the game.

Special rules make the game more complicated then it needs to be; The rule as you have proposed would need to be revised with further rules or else it could be exploited ie. If you are in the last 2 minutes of the game and the other team is on the powerplay, you can delay the game on purpose (puck over the glass) to help kill the powerplay, without consequence, rather than going a second man down...

So would the offending player continue to skate until the initial penalty expired, would he sit in the box for up to four minutes while his team skated with 4 anyway, would he just sit on the bench until he went to the penalty box? Disposition of the offending player would have to be settled before I could lean one way or another.

Aside from that, it sounds reasonable to do this, but I'd give the refs leeway in deciding what was flagrant or accidental. A "flagrant" delay of game should still be assessed immediately (equating to a 5 on 3) OR give the player a double minor for a flagrant delay of game. What would be flagrant? I don't know, but perhaps skating 10 feet from the glass and flipping it in the direction of the glass like 20 feet in the air would be different than a cross ice flip or flipping it 20, 30 feet from the glass. My example needs a lot of work, but you get the idea.

This solution begs the questions of, if these infractions are somehow judged to be "less serious", why are they carrying the same penalties to begin with?

I don't support this, just because I think the penalty assessed for a given infraction should be consistent. If, say, hooking 5-on-5 gives you the same disadvantage as a delay of game 5-on-5, I see no reason why the penalties shouldn't continue to be dished out equally even if you're a man down.

Hi

I am against any rule that creates a gray area or can be enforced inconsistently, hell I would rather see them get rid of the Montreal rule and make every penalty enforced for its full till.

Thank You

ps Bob, I have to disagree with the last comment you made about letting the officials judging intent. I would like to point out how often fans clamor and complain about judgment calls now, such as: goalie interference, hooking, tripping, and slashing (the stick). I am a firm believer that all sports should be played by a firm set of rules so you do not create artificial conditions unique to each game played.