Stampman Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Cool, we both posted at about the same time... Comic Sans walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve your type here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramerica Industries Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Exhibit B: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynTrblmkr Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Look at it this way: there's no guarantee the player would score on the breakaway. If the player scores, the penalty is waved, right? So all the NHL is doing is giving the player the same chance he would've had another player not illegally tried to stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRadniz29 Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 Look at it this way: there's no guarantee the player would score on the breakaway. If the player scores, the penalty is waved, right? So all the NHL is doing is giving the player the same chance he would've had another player not illegally tried to stop them.Yes, however the argument for being awarded the penalty if the preceding penalty shot is not successful would be that in a regular penalty from behind may or may not be a scoring chance, yet the team that gains the man-advantage from the opposing player's foul. So, if you think about it a scoring chance shouldn't have anything to do with a possible scoring chance, but it does an each penalty is different.Also just to clear it up, my initial post was about when a penalty shot is awarded, should the awarded team have a choice. If it's a regular penalty that wouldn't result in a penalty shot, there shouldn't be a choice of a penalty shot. I'm sure people know this, just saw a few posts that might not have thought about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 No, I got that, but I think the current rule is fine. The problem with optioning goons out of taking penalty shots is that they're rarely in the position to be awarded them anyway. It's not a rule change that's a high priority for me. Interesting quirk in the Canucks-Jets game the other night: Burrows got a 4 for high-sticking, but it was a delayed penalty. Jets scored on the delayed whistle, Burrows only served the second of the two minors. So if you were wondering what would happen, that's what happens. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I've always hated that you don't get your power play if you score on the delayed whistle. You haven't been given a power play yet... you're just being smart and taking advantage of the fact that play will stop as soon as your opponent gains control of the puck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Would you be okay with calling the penalty as soon as the foul occurs? I've brought it up before but no one seems to be on board. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramerica Industries Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Maybe Patrick Kane would; I wouldn't.In fact, I don't see why there's a problem with eschewing the penalty if a team scores on the delayed penalty, either. They go on the power play essentially once the infraction occurs, the goalie leaves the net to create a 6-on-5 advantage, and play is stopped the second the to-be-penalized team gains possession of the puck, so I don't see why the penalty should still be issued if a goal is scored on the delayed penalty. That would be akin to re-instating full-length power plays whether or not any PPG are scored during the power play, which was done away with a long time ago because the Canadiens were way too good on the man advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 If a foul is committed against a losing team with fewer than 2 minutes remaining, the game could be extended to the length of the PP, like extra time in soccer. If the losing team scores in the extra time, then regulation would be over and over time would start (if they were losing by only 1 goal). If they were losing by more than one, there would be extra time only in the event of a major or double minor depending on situation. Complicated, yes, but TGDNHL "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramerica Industries Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I've actually thought about that before as well.But then I remember the last 21 seconds of the 2004 Final and just keep my mouth shut on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I really like the idea of extra penalty time. I was going to say "I'd get rid of the 'down one goal' proviso and just extend it whether you're down one goal or a hundred," but then I realized how awkward it would be if you forced <2 minutes of extra time down two, scored after 60:00, and then the game thus concluded with a sudden-death game-losing goal. And would losing 5-4 at 61:30 mean an overtime loss? It reminds me of when there's some inscrutable jumblef-ck at the end of a football game and the ref just says, like, "that's the end of the game." And we thought ties were anti-climactic! ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Here's another one: If a players gets a penalty with less than two minutes left in overtime why is that player still allowed to participate in the shootout? Said player should be ineligible just like he would be if the overtime extended beyond five minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramerica Industries Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 What I would wonder in the case of penalties in the last two minutes is how to handle that in the regular season. Just to use the most recent example I know, Eric Brewer was sent off with 1:05 left in a 1-1 game on Saturday. Regulation PP is 5-on-4, overtime PP is 4-on-3, obviously. Would you provide two full minutes to finish the 3rd or no? The different personnel allotment is really the crux of my question there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 My inclination would be to keep it 5 on 4. To get back to your point about how the delayed penalty is a de facto power play because it's 6 on 5, the problem there is that a 5 on 4 is better than a 6 on 5 because more open ice works in favor of the power-play team. It's why some analysts will say you're better off with a 4 on 3 than a 5 on 3 because having your own fifth body out of the way gives your other four more room to operate and get a shot through. I've never been sold on that, personally -- reminds me of the Hoser Math about how a two-goal lead is somehow more dangerous than a one-goal lead -- but it's out there. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.