Penalty Shot or Power Play

[DaRadniz29]

So a thought has been churning in my head for a while.

For instance, let's say Patrick Marleau is hooked on a Breakaway by Wayne Simmons (First player I saw on the game I'm watching) and is awarded a Penalty Shot.

Should the team awarded the Penalty Shot have the option to choose Penalty Shot or Power Play?

In my opinion I can see an argument for and against the option.

My argument against the option: A player, in this case Marleau has been awarded a Penalty Shot, a one-on-one vs the opposing Goalie to give him his scoring chance back. A power play instead of Penalty Shot gives the team possibly more than one scoring chance.

My argument for the option: Marleau isn't guaranteed to score on his scoring chance and he guaranteed to score on his Penalty Shot and his team isn't guaranteed to score on the Power Play - so two minutes is better than one-on-one vs the goalie if he's hot or the shooter is cold or not very good at Penalty Shots.

I've also heard some fans say that take the Penalty Shot, if player misses his team gets a Power Play. While I've also thought of this, I would say that it gives a player more than the one scoring chance the player got on the breakaway. However, on the flip side a penalty is a penalty, so Simmons hooking is a Penalty regardless of if happened on a breakaway or along the boards among a heap of players. For those wondering the NHL does mention rules that regardless of the result of the Penalty Shot a minor penalty shall not be assessed:

24.6 Results - Should a goal be scored from a penalty shot, a further penalty to the offending player or goalkeeper shall not be applied unless the offense for which the penalty shot was awarded was such as to incur a major, match or misconduct penalty, in which case the penalty prescribed for the particular offense shall be imposed.

If the offense for which the penalty shot was awarded was such as to normally incur a minor penalty, then regardless of whether the penalty shot results in a goal or not, no further minor penalty shall be served.

The NHL doesn't seem to mention being able to decline a Penalty Shot for a Power Play though. Thoughts on the option? Argue for and/or against like I did, if you want to.

[-kj]

In the USA Hockey rules, when it mentions an infraction would result in a penalty shot, it lists it as a "penalty shot/optional minor"; meaning that the team does have the option of taking a minor instead of the penalty shot. When I refereed, it was procedure to ask the team which they wanted; I can't remember any team ever taking the optional minor in lieu of the awarded penalty shot.

You're right, the NHL rules don't seem to allow for this.

[BBTV]

I guess it would come down to simple math, right? If a goon gets the penalty shot and he's a 20% shooter, but the team is 40% on the PP, then they'd take the PP, right? (I have no idea if those numbers are realistic or not since I'm not a hockey expert.)

Having the optional minor might keep defenses honest, because they wouldn't just hook a crappy player who's on a breakaway or has an open net or something.

[TorinK92]

Based on simple statistics and shootout records, the Senators would probably always pick the power play, as would many of smart teams/coaches.

The penalty shot gives you one shot for scoring, while the penalty gives you two full minutes of a man advantage, which if your a good PP team you should have possession for over 70% of the time, probably getting up to 4-5 chances in front of the net, where the goalie might even be screened. But I don't know, that's just my rambling for entertainment and fanbase sake.

I'd be for the notion of the rule change, but I'm not sure if the league should actually do it though.

[Funky Bunky]

I guess it would come down to simple math, right? If a goon gets the penalty shot and he's a 20% shooter, but the team is 40% on the PP, then they'd take the PP, right? (I have no idea if those numbers are realistic or not since I'm not a hockey expert.)

Having the optional minor might keep defenses honest, because they wouldn't just hook a crappy player who's on a breakaway or has an open net or something.

No, neither of those numbers are realistic. Top PPs are around 25-30%, and if somebody was shooting 20%, they'd probably have 60 goals.

... Considering your powerplay works about 20% of the time, and penalty shots work about 35% of the time, I'd probably take the penalty shot.

[Kramerica Industries]

It's more like, when I ran the percentages a few years back, the penalty shot conversion rate between 1997-2010 was about 22% or so, which is marginally better than an above average power play (top-rate units can top out at 25% or so).

If Steven Stamkos is the person who incurs the penalty shot, you take your chances. If it's Nate Thompson, I'd opt for the man advantage. I've been a fan of this concept for a long time now. Nikita Kucherov incurred one today in Montreal; there, I say there's gray area and you do what you want.

[WSU151]

Based on simple statistics and shootout records, the Senators would probably always pick the power play, as would many of smart teams/coaches.

The penalty shot gives you one shot for scoring, while the penalty gives you two full minutes of a man advantage, which if your a good PP team you should have possession for over 70% of the time, probably getting up to 4-5 chances in front of the net, where the goalie might even be screened.

I'd say that for goals sake, I'd be for the notion of the rule change, but I'm not sure if the league should actually do it though.

Smart teams/coaches would always pick the power play?

No.

If my star player gets awarded a penalty shot...I'm letting him go for it. It's far easier to defend a power play than my best skater/shooter one on one. I would probably think that logic extends to anyone on the first line.

[cmm]

If you've got a lead late in the third, wouldn't it make sense to take the power play since you get a chance to eat some time? I watched the Flyers-Kings game today, the Flyers were up 1-0 and went on the PP with around 3 minutes left. They were able to take a minute off the clock before scoring and basically clinched the game.

[jmoe12]

Not exactly on topic, but I've been wondering lately, Let's say Team A is losing to Team B by 1 with about :15 left. Team B commits a penalty, let's say coss checking. In a normal circumstance, Team A would get a powerplay, but there's not much time for that now. Would Team A get a penalty shot?

[oddball]

I've thought about this for a while because the Kings can't score on one. I do believe it should be an option. I think that when a team misses a penalty shot opportunity, they lose momentum, whereas a power play, even if you don't score you can keep momentum. Though, some might argue that if a team kills a penalty, they get momentum. What I think should happen, is they should award a penalty shot and a power play. So therefore the team fouled gets two opportunities to score.

[DaRadniz29]

In the USA Hockey rules, when it mentions an infraction would result in a penalty shot, it lists it as a "penalty shot/optional minor"; meaning that the team does have the option of taking a minor instead of the penalty shot. When I refereed, it was procedure to ask the team which they wanted; I can't remember any team ever taking the optional minor in lieu of the awarded penalty shot.

You're right, the NHL rules don't seem to allow for this.

Yeah I'm not sure there's an option in the NHL level. While it doesn't specifically say a team has option, I searched this possibility in google and someone of HF Boards remembers the Sharks TMac getting awarded a Penalty Shot and taking the Power Play but he couldn't remember the details though. I've been search through previous Sharks games and haven't found any evidence of it though.

Not exactly on topic, but I've been wondering lately, Let's say Team A is losing to Team B by 1 with about :15 left. Team B commits a penalty, let's say coss checking. In a normal circumstance, Team A would get a powerplay, but there's not much time for that now. Would Team A get a penalty shot?

From my understanding: A Penalty Shot is only awarded when a Player has a clear scoring chance taken away by the opposing player committing a penalty. For example: breakaway, even though a Player does not need to be on a breakaway to be awarded a penalty shot.

I've thought about this for a while because the Kings can't score on one. I do believe it should be an option. I think that when a team misses a penalty shot opportunity, they lose momentum, whereas a power play, even if you don't score you can keep momentum. Though, some might argue that if a team kills a penalty, they get momentum. What I think should happen, is they should award a penalty shot and a power play. So therefore the team fouled gets two opportunities to score.

Well, lately the Sharks seem to suck the life out of their five-on-five play because the PP can't do anything except try fancy passes in the neutral zone that are read by the defense, sparking odd man rushes and/or breakaways for the other team.

[WSU151]

What I think should happen, is they should award a penalty shot and a power play. So therefore the team fouled gets two opportunities to score.

Why would you give teams two chances to score for one penalty? That'd be like two free-throws and the ball every time there was a foul in basketball.

EDIT: I guess two free-throws and the ball is the "clear basket" foul in the NBA. Still kind of stupid.

[oddball]

What I think should happen, is they should award a penalty shot and a power play. So therefore the team fouled gets two opportunities to score.

Why would you give teams two chances to score for one penalty? That'd be like two free-throws and the ball every time there was a foul in basketball.

EDIT: I guess two free-throws and the ball is the "clear basket" foul in the NBA. Still kind of stupid.

Why not? Why not punish the team fouling twice as much. If a player knows that if they foul a player from behind with a clear scoring opportunity (usually a breakaway), and they'll face a penalty shot and power play, they won't foul, therefore allowing the player attempting the shot to have a clear attempt at scoring allowing excitement in the game if he scores and excitement if the goalie makes an unbelievable save. If the goalie makes the save, then he has to face a penalty shot and power play. Of course if the guy fouled misses the net, it becomes a delayed penalty, and delayed penalties are another subject for debate with me.

[-kj]

Remember that the awarding of the penalty shot doesn't hinge on the player scoring or not; the related condition has to do with the denial of the opportunity.

From the NHL rules:

There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for the Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from behind. They are:

(i)The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carriers own blue line);

(ii) The infraction must have been committed from behind;

(iii) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a more reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded);

(iv) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper.

This, of course, refers to the foul from behind. There are other reasons a penalty shot can be awarded, such as a throwing a stick at the puck or covering the puck in the crease.

[The_Admiral]

I'd always take a penalty shot over a power play. Even with a weak shooter against a good goalie, there are so many fewer variables involved in a penalty shot. I mean, look how many useless shlubs have won shootouts.

If you've got a lead late in the third, wouldn't it make sense to take the power play since you get a chance to eat some time?

Or you can score on the penalty shot and extend your lead.

[WSU151]

What I think should happen, is they should award a penalty shot and a power play. So therefore the team fouled gets two opportunities to score.

Why would you give teams two chances to score for one penalty? That'd be like two free-throws and the ball every time there was a foul in basketball.

EDIT: I guess two free-throws and the ball is the "clear basket" foul in the NBA. Still kind of stupid.

Why not? Why not punish the team fouling twice as much. If a player knows that if they foul a player from behind with a clear scoring opportunity (usually a breakaway), and they'll face a penalty shot and power play, they won't foul, therefore allowing the player attempting the shot to have a clear attempt at scoring allowing excitement in the game if he scores and excitement if the goalie makes an unbelievable save. If the goalie makes the save, then he has to face a penalty shot and power play. Of course if the guy fouled misses the net, it becomes a delayed penalty, and delayed penalties are another subject for debate with me.

If you're into heavy penalties, why not make it a 5-minute major if you commit a foul on a breakaway, plus a penalty shot?

The one penalty-for-one breakaway seems a little more fair.

[slapshot]

If you've got a lead late in the third, wouldn't it make sense to take the power play since you get a chance to eat some time?

Or you can score on the penalty shot and extend your lead.

Shorthanded teams can still score. On a penalty shot, only the team taking the shot can score.

[Stampman]

If you've got a lead late in the third, wouldn't it make sense to take the power play since you get a chance to eat some time?

Or you can score on the penalty shot and extend your lead.

Shorthanded teams can still score. On a penalty shot, only the team taking the shot can score.

The shorthanded thing would be the best case for taking a penalty shot.

On rare occasions a team has scored more than once short handed. But I can't remember any off the top of my head, But I remember hearing about it.

[Stampman]

Actually I just did search and found this of Boston scoring three shorthanded goals on one power play.
Too bad the Hurricanes couldn't have opted for a penalty shot.

Worst case scenario would have been the score stayed the same.

[Kramerica Industries]

EDIT - that's kinda funny how we were on the same wavelength there, eh?