Two rules I would like to see added to the NHL

[D-Woww]

I always kind of liked these two ideas. I know this is a random thread, but tell me what you think:


1. If you have a delayed penalty and are about to go on the power play and score, you should still get the power play. I understand the goalie gets pulled, but how often does the team really get set and get off a good chance? All the defending team has to do is touch the puck and if they cant do that then they don't deserve to be relieved of the power play.

2. If you get a power play with under 2 mins left in the 1st or 2nd period, you should be able to elect to start the power play at the beginning of the next period. Power plays are all about flow and setting up for a great chance...having a buzzer go off in the middle of it is crippling. If a team wants, I feel like it should have the option to take the 2 consecutive, uninterrupted minutes.

Anyone agree or strongly disagree? A lot of friends agree with point 1, not as many for point 2

 

[STEED]

You clearly have Bruins ML lol

 

[STEED]

I agree with #2.

No clue what you're talkin' about in #1 and don't want to re-read.

 

[bloodhound]

You clearly have Bruins ML lol

me to

and i like ur reasoning DWow

GL

 

[D-Woww]

im actually not on this game, but that did give me the idea to start the thread, since ive thought these for awhile

 

[orangemonk]

agree with both, especially the first.

 

[Pyppurs]

don't agree with either suggestions.

only rule change I'd like to see is the penalty has to be fully served, can't be let out of the box when the pp team scores.

 

[D-Woww]

don't agree with either suggestions.

only rule change I'd like to see is the penalty has to be fully served, can't be let out of the box when the pp team scores.

fair. i explained why i liked my ideas, would you care to share why you don't like them?


2 i like the most...all power plays should be equal, and a power play with 1.20 left in a period is just not the same. if you don't score in the first 1.20 then you have to start all over next period with 40 seconds...i really dont like that. you should get two full uninterrupted minutes

 

[New_York_Bob]

The NHL use to have it where the full two minutes were served, regardless if a team scored a power play goal.

That was until the mid 50's when the Canadiens powerplay was so mighty that on like 10 occasions they scored multiple power play goals.

One game Jean Beliveau scored a hat trick against the Bruins on one PP.

The NHL had to change the rule to level the playing field.
The "Canadiens rule" was passed on a 5-1 vote.

Care to guess which club voted against the rule change?

 

[D-Woww]

thats great trivia...id guess bruins

 

[Lareux]

I like 2, but 1 is not a good idea at all imo. Like you said, it's not often the team with the extra attacker in a 6 on 5 situation scores...that's why they don't get the power play, because they've scored the goal with the extra man. You can't act as if the defensive team, when they touch the puck, gets "relieved" of the power play...they just let up a goal. I'm sure they would much rather try and kill off a penalty than have the goal scored against them.

The point of the power play is to give the team who drew the penalty a better chance to score a goal (due to the penalty)...scoring it during the 6 on 5 is meaningless really, they've accomplished their objective. In reality, they are getting more than 2 minutes on a power play when they are able to pull the goalie and get that 6th attacker out there. Of course there is a little less space on the ice since it's 6 on 5 as opposed to 5 on 4, but they still have the extra man. If you noticed in the Olympics, there were a bunch of instances where a team possessed the puck for quite some time during the 6 on 5, probably due to the bigger ice surface....but some of them had the puck for a good minute so essentially had a 3 minute power play.

 

[D-Woww]

yeah but what if the penalty is called and the team scores before the goalie even gets to the bench?

why should that team who scored be penalized just bc they scored a goal? If a team chooses to pull their goalie for that, and in turn leave open the risk of the empty net and any crazy shit that could happen, that is their business. But I think the power play should stil stand

 

[Lareux]

yeah but what if the penalty is called and the team scores before the goalie even gets to the bench?

why should that team who scored be penalized just bc they scored a goal? If a team chooses to pull their goalie for that, and in turn leave open the risk of the empty net and any crazy shit that could happen, that is their business. But I think the power play should stil stand

They aren't penalized if they score a goal....they scored the f'ing goal. There is no risk (okay, it may .0000001%) if they pull their goalie, once the defensive team touches the puck, the whistle is blown. I think it may have happened once or twice that a team put the puck into their own net (Billy Smith was credited with a goal this way, the 1st time an NHL goalie scored I think), but that is a once in a million chance that it happens.

If the goal is scored before the goalie makes it to the bench (which is not what you originally asked), then so be it. They still aren't being penalized in any way since they scored the goal. I'm not even sure how often that happens, I can't think of any off the top of my head....but it's such a rare play, I don't think you need to start changing rules on the oft chance that it happens that way.

 

[D-Woww]

but that "goal" that is scored doesnt necessarily negate the penalty. lets say team A has a player get high sticked. The refs arm goes up and the penalty is going to happen. but in the next 10 seconds, they get a scoring chance and score. Why should they be penalized for a goal they would have scored anyway? Then the penalty goes unpunished because the other team happened to score a goal?

Even in scenarios where the goalie is pulled and the team has time to set up an attack and score...the defense needs to stop that and just touch the damn puck., if they cant, thats too bad. and if they do score and get a pp too, then thats just a bigger reason to be careful when it comes to penalties and have discipline

 

[BetCrimes1984]

Dwow, the problem with your scenario in #1 is, Team A penalised stops playing normally because they know they have been whistled. If the team (B) given the penalty then scores, they've done so intrinsically because Team A had a different mindset the moment that whistle is blown. The blown whistle changes the way everyone plays. How can you possibly say Team A would've played things exactly the same (what needed to happen for the play to go the way of the goal that's then scored) if they knew they werent under the burden of knowing theres a penalty coming.
Once you acknowledge this, you acknowledge the whistle being blown is intrinsic with the scored goal then scored, therefore the team (A) who took that penalty didn't go unpunished. The only way your scenario could work would be for the refs not to blow their whistle after an actual penalty, but instead only blow it after the team who committed that penalty touched the puck after the penalty occurred. In that instance, the team receiving the penalty advantage would have no idea they could pull their goalie for an extra attacker, which would then lessen their chances of scoring before their opponents touched the puck.

The whistle affects the way the game gets played, and obviously any kind of goal (EV, PP, SH) only comes about due to the way the game is (being) played.

 

[guaranteeed]

no

 

[KowboyKarl]

thats great trivia...id guess bruins

:thinking:

 

[Lareux]

but that "goal" that is scored doesnt necessarily negate the penalty. lets say team A has a player get high sticked. The refs arm goes up and the penalty is going to happen. but in the next 10 seconds, they get a scoring chance and score. Why should they be penalized for a goal they would have scored anyway? Then the penalty goes unpunished because the other team happened to score a goal?

Even in scenarios where the goalie is pulled and the team has time to set up an attack and score...the defense needs to stop that and just touch the damn puck., if they cant, thats too bad. and if they do score and get a pp too, then thats just a bigger reason to be careful when it comes to penalties and have discipline

Again, they are playing 6 on 5 in this scenario.....that IS a power play in itself D-Woww. They are playing with an extra attacker, why are you not acknowledging and saying too bad they couldn't touch the puck? They are essentially getting a power play that is longer than 2 minutes each second they have the puck in the 6 on 5.

 

[Lareux]

Dwow, the problem with your scenario in #1 is, Team A penalised stops playing normally because they know they have been whistled. If the team (B) given the penalty then scores, they've done so intrinsically because Team A had a different mindset the moment that whistle is blown. The blown whistle changes the way everyone plays. How can you possibly say Team A would've played things exactly the same (what needed to happen for the play to go the way of the goal that's then scored) if they knew they werent under the burden of knowing theres a penalty coming.
Once you acknowledge this, you acknowledge the whistle being blown is intrinsic with the scored goal then scored, therefore the team (A) who took that penalty didn't go unpunished. The only way your scenario could work would be for the refs not to blow their whistle after an actual penalty, but instead only blow it after the team who committed that penalty touched the puck after the penalty occurred. In that instance, the team receiving the penalty advantage would have no idea they could pull their goalie for an extra attacker, which would then lessen their chances of scoring before their opponents touched the puck.

The whistle affects the way the game gets played, and obviously any kind of goal (EV, PP, SH) only comes about due to the way the game is (being) played.

I agree with what you are trying to say, but the refs don't whistle the play dead when the penalty occurs. It doesn't happen until the team about to be penalized touches the puck. I think you mean to say when the ref raises his hand to signal an upcoming penalty, as opposed to blowing the whistle, when you are saying that Team A has a different mindset. The sentence I bolded is exactly how it works now.

If you just replace every instance of "the whistle was blown" with "the referee raised his hand" then it makes a lot more sense, since when the whistle is blown play stops so the whistle really doesn't have any effect on the way the game is played after the whistle....play is stopped.

:shake:

 

[Lareux]

:thinking:

:rofl:

Yeah, it was obviously Montreal who opposed the rule....since it was Montreal who used the rule to their advantage by scoring multiple goals on the same PP.

 

[D-Woww]

Yea no shit my reply was sarcastic fwiw...


But the history part was cool.

 

[Gandolf]

I always kind of liked these two ideas. I know this is a random thread, but tell me what you think:


1. If you have a delayed penalty and are about to go on the power play and score, you should still get the power play. I understand the goalie gets pulled, but how often does the team really get set and get off a good chance? All the defending team has to do is touch the puck and if they cant do that then they don't deserve to be relieved of the power play.

2. If you get a power play with under 2 mins left in the 1st or 2nd period, you should be able to elect to start the power play at the beginning of the next period. Power plays are all about flow and setting up for a great chance...having a buzzer go off in the middle of it is crippling. If a team wants, I feel like it should have the option to take the 2 consecutive, uninterrupted minutes.

Anyone agree or strongly disagree? A lot of friends agree with point 1, not as many for point 2

I don't agree with #1. Essentially what the NHL is saying is that if the penalty occurs while you possess the puck, you're powerplay opportunity starts immediately. If you don't have the puck, play is stopped and you're given the opportunity to get it. If you do have the puck then continuation occurs until you lose possession. I think that's a fair result.

The alternative I see would be to stop play as soon as the penalty occurs, but that is unfair to the team that has been fouled. Likewise keeping the penalty in force if the fouled team scores with the goalie pulled creates an unfair double jeopardy for the team that committed the penalty.

I don't buy the argument that if you score a goal before the goalie has even reached the bench that you've basically scored without the extra help. In a similar vein it could be argued that if you scored during a line change or if one guy scored going one on three through the defense that you didn't utilize the extra attacker to your advantage. So what?

As far as suggestion #2, I can appreciate the sentiment but would offer a different way to handle it. Allowing a team to defer a penalty to the start of a period could create a myriad of tricky situations. What if another penalty occurs in the interim, or offsetting penalties, or a major penalty? Suddenly it becomes tricky to handle.

I would offer the following alternative: The first or second period cannot end with a man advantage. If a penalty occurs that would extend past the end of the period, then the period clock shuts off and the penalty clock defines the end of the period. Extra time! Hey, it works for soccer, why not for hockey? It would be pretty easy to implement and the permutations of multiple penalties also follow logically. Once there is no man advantage the period ends.

If that's too radical then the compromise I would suggest is that if a team starts a period with a power play, the opening faceoff should be in the offensive zone. I don't know why the end of the period trumps the power play in deciding where the next faceoff takes place, even if the penalty occurs at 20:00.

While I'm riffing here I'll also say that there's enough parity in the league that I wouldn't be opposed to going back to the full two minutes being served on minor penalties. The league un-did the Edmonton Oilers 4-on-4 rule a few years ago. So there's precedent for going back to old rules. Imagine the excitement for a team drawing a penalty down 2 with about 4 minutes left? Maybe less fans would head to the exits early.

 

[Dollaz]

I can possibly buy number 2 but not number 1.

 

[guaranteeed]

I don't agree with #1. Essentially what the NHL is saying is that if the penalty occurs while you possess the puck, you're powerplay opportunity starts immediately. If you don't have the puck, play is stopped and you're given the opportunity to get it. If you do have the puck then continuation occurs until you lose possession. I think that's a fair result.

The alternative I see would be to stop play as soon as the penalty occurs, but that is unfair to the team that has been fouled. Likewise keeping the penalty in force if the fouled team scores with the goalie pulled creates an unfair double jeopardy for the team that committed the penalty.

I don't buy the argument that if you score a goal before the goalie has even reached the bench that you've basically scored without the extra help. In a similar vein it could be argued that if you scored during a line change or if one guy scored going one on three through the defense that you didn't utilize the extra attacker to your advantage. So what?

As far as suggestion #2, I can appreciate the sentiment but would offer a different way to handle it. Allowing a team to defer a penalty to the start of a period could create a myriad of tricky situations. What if another penalty occurs in the interim, or offsetting penalties, or a major penalty? Suddenly it becomes tricky to handle.

I would offer the following alternative: The first or second period cannot end with a man advantage. If a penalty occurs that would extend past the end of the period, then the period clock shuts off and the penalty clock defines the end of the period. Extra time! Hey, it works for soccer, why not for hockey? It would be pretty easy to implement and the permutations of multiple penalties also follow logically. Once there is no man advantage the period ends.

If that's too radical then the compromise I would suggest is that if a team starts a period with a power play, the opening faceoff should be in the offensive zone. I don't know why the end of the period trumps the power play in deciding where the next faceoff takes place, even if the penalty occurs at 20:00.

While I'm riffing here I'll also say that there's enough parity in the league that I wouldn't be opposed to going back to the full two minutes being served on minor penalties. The league un-did the Edmonton Oilers 4-on-4 rule a few years ago. So there's precedent for going back to old rules. Imagine the excitement for a team drawing a penalty down 2 with about 4 minutes left? Maybe less fans would head to the exits early.

Ice quality is reason number 1 why that doesn't work, a lot of teams prefer the fresh sheet anyway at the start of a period

also it brings up the issue you all ready mentioned about a penalty occurring during the original penalty and how long does the period hypothetically extend

soccer is a completely different situation, extra time at the end of soccer is because it's a running clock and they are adding in time for subs/goals/time wasting

 

[CASH]

in #1- i believe the rule is the team needs to have control of the puck not just touch it and the refs are very kind about this rule...