Small rule change suggestion on delayed penalty calls

[powderjunkie]

If a team is awaiting a penalty call and are in their own end, it should not be enough to simply gain possession of the buck, but they should have to clear their own zone.

This wouldn't affect too many plays, but it would occasionally give attacking teams an extra chance or two with their goalie pulled. There are time when the defending team recovers the puck behind their net and does not have a guaranteed breakout, and also removes doubt on 'possession' with some scramble plays in front of the net.

If the team ices the puck, then icing rules apply. Puck over glass rule debate aside (IMO should be treated as icing), but it would also apply.

Any possession in the neutral zone or attacking end would be called as it currently is.

Thoughts?

[Fire]

Not a bad idea, but unnecessary in my opinion.

Personally I think icing should still apply when teams are on the penalty kill. Why should teams have the advantage of icing the puck when down one man?

[RT14]

I kind of agree with both posters ideas. Anything that makes taking a penalty a much greater risk to be scored on is okay in my books as it should in turn force players to think harder before taking a "bad" penalty.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Fire

Not a bad idea, but unnecessary in my opinion.

Personally I think icing should still apply when teams are on the penalty kill. Why should teams have the advantage of icing the puck when down one man?

Because they're down a man. It's a penalty, not vengeance.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If a team is awaiting a penalty call and are in their own end, it should not be enough to simply gain possession of the buck, but they should have to clear their own zone.

This wouldn't affect too many plays, but it would occasionally give attacking teams an extra chance or two with their goalie pulled. There are time when the defending team recovers the puck behind their net and does not have a guaranteed breakout, and also removes doubt on 'possession' with some scramble plays in front of the net.

If the team ices the puck, then icing rules apply. Puck over glass rule debate aside (IMO should be treated as icing), but it would also apply.

Any possession in the neutral zone or attacking end would be called as it currently is.

Thoughts?

I need clarification, because I'm confused on something.

So you're saying that when there is a penalty called and it is delayed, the team that took the penalty has to clear the puck from their own zone before the penalty is called, am I reading this right?

If I did understand it correctly, then if they ice the puck, it wouldn't make much of a difference, as the faceoff comes back into the defensive zone anyway. The only difference might just be the TV timeout and no line change.

Also, if they cleared the puch, and you have to wait to see if it will be icing, what if they scored when the puck got cleared? How would that work?

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by Fire

Not a bad idea, but unnecessary in my opinion.

Personally I think icing should still apply when teams are on the penalty kill. Why should teams have the advantage of icing the puck when down one man?

Because then defending teams would still ice the puck a lot anyways. We would be watching a bunch of stoppages in play. I personally would rather watch the flames try to break in to the offensive zone for 2:00 like usual.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If a team is awaiting a penalty call and are in their own end, it should not be enough to simply gain possession of the buck, but they should have to clear their own zone.

This wouldn't affect too many plays, but it would occasionally give attacking teams an extra chance or two with their goalie pulled. There are time when the defending team recovers the puck behind their net and does not have a guaranteed breakout, and also removes doubt on 'possession' with some scramble plays in front of the net.

If the team ices the puck, then icing rules apply. Puck over glass rule debate aside (IMO should be treated as icing), but it would also apply.

Any possession in the neutral zone or attacking end would be called as it currently is.

Thoughts?

Nah. They get the full two minutes, plus bonus time while they have possession. Kind of a courtesy in that they have a chance to continue while in control. Perhaps more so that they don't lose a scoring chance if/while they have one. But once their control or possession is done, clean the slate, put the offenders down a man, and let them deal with it from there. Why make a penalty more penalizing.

[Traditional_Ale]

So let me get this straight:

A-TEAM has the puck in B-TEAM's zone.

There is a delayed penalty against B-TEAM.

B-TEAM has to clear the puck from their zone for the whistle?

If yes, then I actually really, really like it.

[Joborule]

I'm a fan of clearing the zone in order to end play to take the penalty. It's a subtle enough change.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Fire

Not a bad idea, but unnecessary in my opinion.

Personally I think icing should still apply when teams are on the penalty kill. Why should teams have the advantage of icing the puck when down one man?

Well considering we suck at face-offs I hope this never comes to fruition.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TheDebaser

Because then defending teams would still ice the puck a lot anyways. We would be watching a bunch of stoppages in play. I personally would rather watch the flames try to break in to the offensive zone for 2:00 like usual.

Yeah, it would really kill the flow and also add a lot of time to the game, which in turn is bad for TV deals.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheDebaser

Because then defending teams would still ice the puck a lot anyways. We would be watching a bunch of stoppages in play. I personally would rather watch the flames try to break in to the offensive zone for 2:00 like usual.

No they wouldn't - the last thing you want short-handed is for your players to be stuck out on the PK too long. Keep icing the puck and you'll be hooped if the other team wins the draw and gets possession.

[_Q_]

What if you take a penalty in the offensive zone? How about we stop trying to artificially increase scoring? No more "small" rule changes please.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

The reasoning behind a delayed call is that team can't stop a play going against them by intentionally getting a penalty. It's not so that a team without possession gets a chance they didn't have at the time of the infraction.