Worst Rule/Penalty In Hockey?

Question

The rule I dislike more than any other is the 2 minutes a player gets for delay of game (flipping the puck over the boards). Does that really demand 2 minutes in the box?

Question - should a player be given 2 minutes in the box or should it be treated like icing?

Answer 1

You're right, that should not be a delay of game. It should be the same as icing--can't make a line change, but no penalty. That way there's no reward for flipping the puck over the glass.

Answer 2

Depends. If he did it on purpose then I can see giving him 2 minutes. If he was just flipping it and it got a little away from him then yeah I'm all for treating it like icing. Although then it becomes a judgement call so yeah that would be a mess. Anyway back to the question of WORST rule/penalty I say the Trapezoid. LET THE GOALIE PLAY THE PUCK.

I disagree ryan, I think you CAN be tripped and "dive". Diving is a reference to an EXAGGERATED motion. You could get tripped and exaggerate it to make SURE you get the refs to see it and call the penalty of a dive. The REAL problem with that is they are offsetting penalties so do we really need to call them? Yeah you were tripped but then you exaggerated it so maybe we should just negate the penalties instead of calling both.

Answer 3

As an official I think that the delay of game penalty for shooting the puck out is justified. What I hate is the Low tolerance position we have in the junior leagues. Kids getting thrown on match penalties for a mistimed hit that connects to the helmet or from behind.

Answer 4

Although I dislike the delay of game penalty for the puck going over the glass (mostly because we got burned by it too many times), I have to agree with one of the earlier posters and say the worst is the combo tripping/diving penalty. If someone really trips you, then it can't be a dive, and if you hit someones skate and they flop, you shouldn't get a penalty for their acting job. It should be one or the other, obviously up to referee discretion.

Answer 5

Actually, one of the worst rules in hockey was the "diving" rule. The penalty worked this way: Skater A is skating up the ice with the puck and Skater B would harrass A with his stick close to hooking. Skater A would then go down like he was killed. The Ref would signal a penalty on Skater B for hooking but then penalize Skater A for diving. My question is, if Skater A took a dive to draw a penalty then how can you penalize Skater B? This used to drive me nuts.

I always hated the instigator rule as well.

Answer 6

Without question, the instigator rule! This has opened up the game to a variety of cheap shots and ugly affairs, which no longer allows players to be held responsible for their actions. The enforcers have left the game (for the most part), and to me that is a shame! Fighting, and knowing you will have to answer for dirty play, is part of what made our sport so great. This is another example of how Bettman and Campbell have ruined our game.

Answer 7

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the instigator penalty, this totally goes against the idea of fighting in hockey which is what they aimed for when they made it, I'm sure, but all the same it just encourages more cheap shots instead of players being held accountable for their actions.

Answer 8

its just another SUPER-rule thanks to bettman. make the sport more "americanized" by forcing the other team to either play it through the middle (to avoid the penalty, but also usually not clearing it out) or play it on the boards (play it softly so it doesn't go over, and often becomes a turnover). this all leads to more offense, which = more fans......right? at least it does in bettman's mind and that's all that matters. oh, and the board of heros (aka board of governers) also approved this idiocy of a rule.

Answer 9

Delay of Game because it does not really delay the game for that long

Answer 10

No icing calls when a team is short handed. The team that is down a man should not be given this advantage.