Should the NHL look into this rule change?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

There is no risk of pulling your goalie, as the wihstle gets blown as soon as the other team touches the puck.

Washington scored on themselves like two days ago.

It's not a huge risk but it can happen.

The point remains that you don't get the extra attacker because it's a delayed penalty, you get the extra attacker because your goalie is pulled.

So I really don't see a reason the penalty should be voided if you score.

[The Cobra]

One rule I would change is that a team awarded a penalty shot should be able to decline the penalty shot and take the 2 minutes man advantage.

Two situations where I could see this used. One, when the team already has a man advantage and would rather the odds of a lengthy 5-3. Second, late in a game where the team getting the man advantage has a close lead and would rather get the man advantage as a defensive measure to stop the other team from scoring.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Washington scored on themselves like two days ago.

It's not a huge risk but it can happen.

The point remains that you don't get the extra attacker because it's a delayed penalty, you get the extra attacker because your goalie is pulled.

So I really don't see a reason the penalty should be voided if you score.

I don't like using the outlier to disprove the premise.

You get the extra attacked because there is virtually no risk in removing your goalie.

The correlation of the extra attacker and the delayed penalty is undeniable.

[tvp2003]

Was there not a time when on a delayed penalty, the defending team only had to touch the puck (versus the current requirement of gaining "control")? Presumably that was changed at some point to increase the chance of scoring on a delayed penalty; I think the current rule is probably fine the way it is.

[FlamingHomer]

Maybe to further complicate things, just apply the rule when a game is tied. There is no point in extending a few seconds in a 6-1 game. You will likely need to go to overtime anyhow, just hold the final buzzer until after the next stoppage in play after regulation time.

[Gemnoble]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Was my answer a little pithy?
Yes. My apologies.
But I stand by this being a bad idea.

Thank you, I don't think the rule needs to change myself. Just fodder for thought and something non arena/COVID related to talk about.

[Krynn]

I have thought about this rule for Years and have always thought it was weird that the NHL never had it in before. No matter what period if a player shoots the puck seconds before the period ends or game ends and puck goes in the goal should count.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Was there not a time when on a delayed penalty, the defending team only had to touch the puck (versus the current requirement of gaining "control")? Presumably that was changed at some point to increase the chance of scoring on a delayed penalty; I think the current rule is probably fine the way it is.

I'd love to see it changed so the defending team has to clear the zone before play is whistled down (or the period ends). If you ice it, then you can't change for your PK.

If it's the end of period 1 or 2, then the next period starts with a D zone faceoff. 3rd period regulation doesn't end until puck is cleared w/o icing.


I'm always a little surprised that under 10 seconds defending teams don't just slash all of their opponents sticks since there is very little recourse.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

One rule I would change is that a team awarded a penalty shot should be able to decline the penalty shot and take the 2 minutes man advantage.

Two situations where I could see this used. One, when the team already has a man advantage and would rather the odds of a lengthy 5-3. Second, late in a game where the team getting the man advantage has a close lead and would rather get the man advantage as a defensive measure to stop the other team from scoring.

I wouldn't change this. Penalty shots have a higher success percentage than the the average PP%. The only real benefit I could see is if a team is winning and needs to kill time. That then becomes a double disadvantage to team down goals. They have to kill a penalty and also lose time.

Don't like it.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

One rule I would change is that a team awarded a penalty shot should be able to decline the penalty shot and take the 2 minutes man advantage.

Two situations where I could see this used. One, when the team already has a man advantage and would rather the odds of a lengthy 5-3. Second, late in a game where the team getting the man advantage has a close lead and would rather get the man advantage as a defensive measure to stop the other team from scoring.

I have never seen a team awarded a penalty shot while on the powerplay.

Has this ever happened?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

I wouldn't change this. Penalty shots have a higher success percentage than the the average PP%. The only real benefit I could see is if a team is winning and needs to kill time. That then becomes a double disadvantage to team down goals. They have to kill a penalty and also lose time.

Don't like it.

I'm not saying teams have to use it, it just seems counter productive that a team has to accept a penalty shot when the odds favour the actual penally.

[JBR]

It was in. 04

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I'm not saying teams have to use it, it just seems counter productive that a team has to accept a penalty shot when the odds favour the actual penally.

Another example is that if I was leading 2-1 with 2 minutes or less to go I would take the PP over the penalty shot to kill clock.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm always a little surprised that under 10 seconds defending teams don't just slash all of their opponents sticks since there is very little recourse.

That's actually an interesting point. I always thought about last-second melees where guys are hooking and holding until the clock runs out. But with 10 seconds left, why wouldn't you just slash McDavid's stick in half, and he won't have time to go to the bench and get a new one. And even if they manage to score on the delayed penalty to send it into overtime, there shouldn't be any carryover because that team already scored.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

That's actually an interesting point. I always thought about last-second melees where guys are hooking and holding until the clock runs out. But with 10 seconds left, why wouldn't you just slash McDavid's stick in half, and he won't have time to go to the bench and get a new one. And even if they manage to score on the delayed penalty to send it into overtime, there shouldn't be any carryover because that team already scored.

I think a good rule change would be that a victimized team about to take a PP in the last 30 seconds (number up for discussion) of the 3rd period, be given the option to add something like 15 seconds to the clock, or to set the clock back up to 30 seconds left.

It happened against us in the playoffs , when Kessler sat on the puck with 10 seconds left to go, and ran 5-8 seconds off the clock before he was called for a penalty.

[VilleN]

The one rule I would change is the double minor for a high stick that draws blood. Wtf. Why not make it a triple minor if he loses a tooth!? It is the most moronic rule in the game.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

That's actually an interesting point. I always thought about last-second melees where guys are hooking and holding until the clock runs out. But with 10 seconds left, why wouldn't you just slash McDavid's stick in half, and he won't have time to go to the bench and get a new one. And even if they manage to score on the delayed penalty to send it into overtime, there shouldn't be any carryover because that team already scored.

Seems very high risk to me. First, you need to have your eyes on McDavids stick, which is not the right place, and their stick needs to be positioned in a certain way for you to be able to break it. If you miss, your positioning is probably off. If you don't get a good enough whack you did something useless, since it's an all or nothing move. If you have really rotten luck, you break your own stick but not McDavids stick. If McDavid moves maybe you hit his hands, and it will look like you blatantly tried to do just that, so you'll get vilified and possibly suspended.

Even if you succeed, if at the next second your team happens to touch the puck (for example because there was a shot on goal), McDavid gets a new stick and you just shorthanded your team.

Hooking and holding are much safer plays in many ways. They don't get called nearly as often, they don't rely on the opponent having their stick in the right place, you're unlikely to accidentally injure anyone, and even a partial success is useful.

[shadowlord]

Originally Posted by JBR

It was in. 04

My thoughts exactly.

Maybe I'm just trumatized, but if this rule were implemented, I could totally see the Flames missing out on a buzzer-beater goal because of it and robbing them of a win.