Quote:
Originally Posted by fleury
I think from a skill building perspective, this is good. But where I see a major problem is the pressure on the refs to make a call. Now I assume refs will be more reluctant to call a penalty when the PP yield goes up and many games can be determined by a PPG. What are the downstream effects of refs being reluctant to make calls?
|
My issue with hockey penalties is the
limited options in severity of penalization. 5 minute majors, beyond fighting (which let's face it, is basically just a rest after a fight) is so rarely used, therefore the vast majority of penalties result in 2 minutes shorthanded.
Therefore,
because referees don't have a useful gradient of punishment to reflect the severity of a play, referees adjust their threshold to call the subjective penalties based on the perceived severity of the penalty. I think this is the fundamental problem with some penalties like slashing. The 'gentle' slashes aren't technically allowed, but are not severe enough to be punished the same way that a severe roughing penalty should be punished. As a result, the gentle slashes go uncalled.
Then there are some penalties that are black-and-white, like puck-over-glass. Although it's nice to have a deterrent to making those plays, there's no way that flipping the puck over the glass should be penalized the same as some of the roughing or slashing penalties that get called.
I'm far from a fan of football officiating, but the concept of a range of punishment (5, 10, 15 yard penalties, ball placed at the place of foul, loss of downs, etc) allows referees to slap the wrist of minor offenses and cripple a team that does something real stupid.
This isn't a solution, just a problem that bothers me. I suppose it's possible to hand out 30 second penalties for a small slash to the hands and 3 minute penalties for a slash that's a little harsher than typical, but that opens a whole other can of worms. I don't know the answer.