What the NHL needs is the Free Shot rule

[edn88]

I can already hear the steam rising from the hockey purist's head as they contemplate the idea, but hear me out.

One of the challenges in the NHL is that the penalties available to be awarded are face off in own end, face of in own end no change, remove a player from ice or a penalty shot.

I believe that there are a number of calls that need a 'penalty' in between face off with no change and 2 min penalty.

I propose that for things like puck over glass, icing, goalie covering puck, goalie playing puck outside of trapazoid, defensive team sitting on puck etc. the offensive team should get a free shot (with no change for defensive team). Puck would go to an offensive player near the blue line and defensive players would have to start below the hash marks. Offensive player would have 2-3 seconds to make a play - either a shot, pass or carry the puck. At the time the offensive player touched the puck the defensive team can move over the hash marks.
The free shot rule would effectively be a faceoff win for offensive team. It would discourage delay of game type of plays without an overly punitive penalty. I would even go as far as to include penalties that are not directly lead to a goal and use the free shot as the penalty. For example, non stick infractions such as holding, interference could lead to the other team getting a free shot.
I think that referees would be more inclined to call these especially in the neutral zone.

Thoughts? I apologize in advance if have offended anyone's sensibilities.

[N-E-B]

I don't actually think the idea is that bad or crazy, but I also don't really see the need for it. I also think that it's ridiculous to penalize a goalie for covering the puck but that's just me.

[TheScorpion]

Yeah it's not bad in theory but why?

[driveway]

I've toyed with the idea of a 'less than 2-minute' infraction too. The idea that entered my head was a 1-minute penalty that's assessed without a stoppage in play. I was thinking it would be good to apply to minor stick infractions - the little hooks, holds, slashes and tugs that don't quite rise to the level of a 2 minute minor.

[GranteedEV]

Bend it like Bennett

[HOWITZER]

We don't need to treat the symptom, we need to fix the problem.

I would much prefer see referees consistently parade people to the penalty box by calling the game by the rules as opposed to the current "managing the game" bs.

[Oil Stain]

The value of guys like Weber and Ovechkin would sky rocket.

While its an interesting idea, it might be too dangerous to implement.

Which five slobs get the short straw to stand in front of an unobstructed slapshot from the point on plays that happen 5-10 times per game?

Because you know that teams would just stack guys in front of the shooter and hope for the best.

[Gaskal]

Can't imagine this would make it past the NHLPA or the referee's association.

• The importance and use of faceoff specialists throughout the entire league would greatly be undermined. They wouldn't be obsolete, by any means, but the automatic faceoff win rule leads to ultimately less shifts, less ice-time, less opportunity to put up points and earn a bigger contract. Bigger names like Koivu, Bergeron and ROR wouldn't be affected as much, but less "sexy" names like Hanzal, Bozak or Vermette would balk.
  
  
• The linesmen would hate it. Hate, hate, hate it. Instead of making sure two guys are lined up properly, now you have to make sure all 5 players from both teams are lined up properly. How would you ever enforce something like that? Make a winger and dman switch spots? Adding complication to that extent would make it a massive pain in the arse for anyone wearing skates at the time, regardless of any entertainment value for the audience.

I agree that things like too many men or delay of game should be treated much differently than slashing and elbowing, but not where we're overcomplicating things just to fix a handful of infractions. The 1 min penalty seems like it'd be easiest to introduce.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by driveway

I've toyed with the idea of a 'less than 2-minute' infraction too. The idea that entered my head was a 1-minute penalty that's assessed without a stoppage in play. I was thinking it would be good to apply to minor stick infractions - the little hooks, holds, slashes and tugs that don't quite rise to the level of a 2 minute minor.

I don't mind this idea, but how would you execute it without a stoppage in play?

I'd also like to see if you get a 2 minute PP with less than two minutes to go in the game I'd like to see the game extended until the end of the power play. For example if you get a PP with 1:30 to go the clock goes back up to two minutes. Not sudden death though, so if the team on the PP goes ahead or ties it the other team would still have some time left to try get it back. I'd also give the team with the PP the option to decline the extra time if they want to run the clock and end the game as soon as possible.

[MarkGio]

Anything to take away the power from the linesman and the refs.

I don't care if there's a robot cannon shooting the puck onto the ice like bubble hockey to start the play, it's ridiculous to see linesmen play head games with the puck drops and perform head fakes until someone is kicked out of the circle.

If it were up to me there would be no officials on the ice "managing the game" and most of the infractions were automated by sensors.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by driveway

I've toyed with the idea of a 'less than 2-minute' infraction too. The idea that entered my head was a 1-minute penalty that's assessed without a stoppage in play. I was thinking it would be good to apply to minor stick infractions - the little hooks, holds, slashes and tugs that don't quite rise to the level of a 2 minute minor.

I don't mind the 1 minute penalty at all for things like flipping it over the glass or goalies going outside the trap, but definitely not for physical contact plays.

I think if they're going to allow some things, just allow it within strict guidelines. Like if they're going to allow light slashing, it should be prescriptive such as "only striking the outer thighs, cannot involve a swing greater than 20 cm in distance from start of swing to contact, cannot occur more than 2 times against one player for each each shift, and one strike is not allowed within a 10 seconds of another. Must use blade of the stick...." and so forth. That way players can love tap each other all game and a ref isn't going to surprise them with a penalty.

Right now they "unofficially" allow players to slash until some ref decides its going too far and randomly singles a player out while ignoring the previous 30 similar events. So nobody knows the rules and simply take chances.

[savemedrzaius]

I think this is a great idea!

I think your title is misleading though. It's not a free shot, more like free offensive possession.

Personally I would like the rule to be no shot allowed right off possession. No one would want it to be like a free kick in soccer where the guy could get some speed and really get behind a dangerous slapshot.

It would be fun to watch the offensive and defensive setups on a penalty like this.

[Parallex]

Seems like a fine idea but probably unnecessary. A rule change I'd like to see is a kind of "Final 10 Seconds Rule" where if you're up a single goal and you take a obstruction, interference, or Delay of Game penalty in the final 10 seconds the other team get's a penalty shot. Case in point Kesler sitting on the puck.

[edn88]

I've been a ref in the past and I completely agree - if the officials actually called the game to the rule book, the game would be better for it.
Many officials subscribe to this notion that some infractions can be let go because they are borderline. Many fans subscribe to the same notion (let the players play the game).
I think with a penalty that is less of penalty for the defensive team and an advantage for the defensive team would allow officials to call more infractions. I'd leave the really egregious penalties (cross checking, high sticking) to the man advantage penalty. At the same time I'd increase the number of penalty shot penalties - any fowl of a player that takes away a legitimate scoring chance should be a penalty shot.
In answer to the question about stoppage in play - I still think that the 'free shot' is a stoppage in play then set the players.
This also helps in the last minute of a game - if there is an infraction in the corner then it is 'free shot' if it takes away a scoring chance it is a penalty shot.
I completely agree that the NHL is unlikely to make this change, and I agree that it would start to remove the importance of the face off. I'm personally not a fan of the face off - having to get the players set, the linesman slowing things down for perfection, the cheating that goes on regardless of this. When I was contemplating this I was thinking about the reciprocal defensive 'free shot' but that didn't make sense - if the offense did something to warrant a faceoff, the puck typically moves out of the zone and there would be a neutral zone faceoff (but I'd be happy with the defensive team getting the puck in their end with the offensive team starting outside the blue line.)
The other situation that I would award a free shot is if the puck is deflected out of play by a defensive player (same as goalie covering puck).
By the way, the goalie covering the puck is my own personal pet peeve in hockey. This is as much delaying the game as icing, putting the puck over the net etc. I don't think it necessarily warrants a penalty, but at the very least should be treated the same as icing.
Anyway thanks for the feedback - I enjoy discussing this more than who's currently left in the playoffs.

[edn88]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

The value of guys like Weber and Ovechkin would sky rocket.

While its an interesting idea, it might be too dangerous to implement.

Which five slobs get the short straw to stand in front of an unobstructed slapshot from the point on plays that happen 5-10 times per game?

Because you know that teams would just stack guys in front of the shooter and hope for the best.

And (despite the thread title) it would not have to be a shot. If they defense chose to form a wall, that would leave many other offensive players open, and I think that the player with the puck would also have the opportunity to move right away, making a wall a poor defensive choice.

[Resolute 14]

I'm not seeing an actual problem this is meant to fix.

[edn88]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm not seeing an actual problem this is meant to fix.

I probably didn't make a decent problem statement in my original post, so

The problem the NHL has is that referee's don't call 2 min minor penalties enough, allowing various infractions such as slashing, holding and interference as to exist in the NHL. Along the same lines there are too many plays that slow down the game that need a harsher penalty than just a faceoff in defensive end.

A 'free shot' or 'free possession' would allow referees the ability to make more calls. So, for example, rather than a ref ignoring a neutral zone slash on hands, perhaps they give a free possession to offensive team. Or when a defender takes his hand off his stick and 'holds' an offensive player there is a 'free possession'.

[joejoe3]