End of Game Penalties

[FLYLine27*]

A lashing in the locker room after the game...that's' the only way to solve late game penalties.

 

[Preisst*]

Greatest game on earth yet some want to continue to bastardize it with gimmicky rules......

 

[StoneHands]

Greatest game on earth yet some want to continue to bastardize it with gimmicky rules......

You're right, let's go back to the good old days and remove the forward pass.

 

[Preisst*]

You're right, let's go back to the good old days and remove the forward pass.

lol.......... thanks for proving my point. This may be in the top 10 of all-time worst replies in terms of the context of what is being talked about.

LOL

 

[onlyalad]

How about the power play carries over too.
Canes take a penalty against the Kings On Tuesday.
Wednesday the Ducks get a power play vs the Canes
Thursday the Kings get a power play vs the Sharks.
The Sharks on haven't played since Monday and they took a late penalty vs the Nucks so with the Kings owed a power play and the Sharks due to skate a man down already; Kings get 45 seconds of 5 on 3 and 21 more of 5 on 4

Leave the rules alone please

 

[Eric Sachs]

Sure if the other team is an idiot that accepts the penalty.

If they decline the penalty, the down counts. Meaning all the time that was wasted is still gone and the game is still over..

 

[8816 others]

There will be some sort of payback for Emelin next game.

 

[Preisst*]

If a penalty occurs in the last minute and the game continues past the 60 minute mark then another penalty occurs before the 1st penalty expires so now the game must continue until that penalty expires BUT then there is another penalty and just as that one is about to expire there is ANOTHER penalty and now the game must be played till that penalty expires and on and on and on and on and on and on.......the game might literally never ever end.


As for carrying it over to the next game? Frankly that is so ridiculous it does not merit response.

 

[Preisst*]

There will be some sort of payback for Emelin next game.

Still can't believe Emelin wasn't suspended for that but I guess we can't forget what team he plays for.

 

[piteus]

How about forcing two men off the ice if a penalty occurs with less than a minute?

 

[CrypTic]

The problem is that does nothing to help the team that was negatively affected by the penalty, and gives an advantage to an opposing team.

Let's just say an Eastern Conference team is on a West Coast trip and is playing the Kings one day and then the Ducks the next day. They take an egregious penalty against the Kings at the end of OT so that it goes to shootout. If you're then going to penalize the Eastern Conference team for the next game, you're then giving a power play to the Ducks to make up for a penalty against the Kings. In reality, you're handicapping the Kings by allowing the EC team to get away with the penalty in the previous game and then giving a rival, the Ducks, an advantage in their following game.

I thought s/he meant that the penalty carried over until the next game between the two teams, which could work if it's only regular season games. It doesn't work nearly as well for teams in different conferences bc they see each other so infrequently that there's a good chance it will have to be carried over to the next season. It would work better for teams in the same division but even there, it doesn't work well in their last game of the season bc you'd want it to hurt the penalized team and help the "innocent" team that season. It still might be a slight disincentive to take penalties in the last minute.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

I have this thought every single one goal game I watch at the end.

If a team has a penalty called on them with less that 2 minutes remaining, then the game doesn't stop until they kill that penalty.

It is a very logical solution. Right now, you see teams breaking the rules because they know there isn't a large consequence for stopping a good scoring chance in the last 30-60 seconds of a game. They're odds of winning are better if they take a penalty, get a line change, get some rest, and get their 50/50 chance at regaining puck possession off the face off. If breaking the rules of a game give a benefit in any situation, then the rules are flawed, IMO.

At least it isn't like the end of basketball games though, where every losing team ever has a clearly better chance at a comeback through fouling their butts off. It ruins so many basketball games.

You still have to deal with the We-don't-want-to-affect-the-outcome-of-the-game mentality that some referees have. I think the standard to get something called would end up being unreasonably high. It's still better than nothing, though..

 

[MacBradley]

You still have to deal with the We-don't-want-to-affect-the-outcome-of-the-game mentality that some referees have. I think the standard to get something called would end up being unreasonably high. It's still better than nothing, though..

That is very true. The first problem that would need addressed would be for the league to have refs call penalties as-is, instead of moving their threshold for calls based on current game situations...and that will likely never happen.

 

[StoneHands]

lol.......... thanks for proving my point. This may be in the top 10 of all-time worst replies in terms of the context of what is being talked about.

LOL

How did I prove your point? You made a post about not bastardizing the game with rule changes and at the time, that was a major rule change and the game wouldn't be the way it is today without it. Should we bring back the two line pass? Is that recent enough for you? Rule changes are part of sports, every sport in fact. Evolve or die.

 

[Preisst*]

How did I prove your point? You made a post about not bastardizing the game with rule changes and at the time, that was a major rule change and the game wouldn't be the way it is today without it. Should we bring back the two line pass? Is that recent enough for you? Rule changes are part of sports, every sport in fact. Evolve or die.

This is laughable.

If you think fundamental rule changes like the forward pass and two line passes in any shape, way or form are like carrying a penalty that occurred in a game against Team A on a Monday night in Columbus over to the next game a team plays against Team B on a Thursday night in Vancouver

OR

extending the length of a game to accommodate never ending penalties so the entire 2 minute time frame NEEDS to be completed (and a game conceivably NEVER ending) then you'll have to argue with someone else cuz to me they are so completely different I consider it a waste of time to even think about them or draw a comparison.

Good luck.....

btw - I've got zero problem with rule changes that make sense or are smart to do......

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

This is laughable.

If you think fundamental rule changes like the forward pass and two line passes in any shape, way or form are like carrying a penalty that occurred in a game against Team A on a Monday night in Columbus over to the next game a team plays against Team B on a Thursday night in Vancouver

OR

extending the length of a game to accommodate never ending penalties so the entire 2 minute time frame NEEDS to be completed (and a game conceivably NEVER ending) then you'll have to argue with someone else cuz to me they are so completely different I consider it a waste of time to even think about them or draw a comparison.

Good luck.....

btw - I've got zero problem with rule changes that make sense or are smart to do......

But a PP goal would lead to a whistle and end the game if time had already expired, right? I think teams' conversion rates suggest that games, on average, would be extended less than, say, a 20 minute OT period. But even in the most extreme circumstances where "endless penalties" somehow don't yield 5-on-3 goals for upwards of 20 minutes, that would probably still be some good/exciting hockey to watch at least, and if the defending team extends their chances that long, well all the power to them for using their strengths and gamesmanship to keep giving themselves a chance. Maybe score would have to be factored in to whether it they resort to it, I dunno. Just brainstorming.

 

[TB1299]

I think the solution is simple.

If a team takes a penalty with less than 2 mins left in the game. The full penalty must be served.

If that mean extending the game a minute and a half or so, so be it. However, a team can choose to decline a PP if they are up to avoid having teams that are down trying to extend the game.

Also, any double minors or non fighting 5 min majors with less than 2 mins left would automatically result in a penalty shot from any player the coach chooses.

 

[Preisst*]

But a PP goal would lead to a whistle and end the game if time had already expired, right? I think teams' conversion rates suggest that games, on average, would be extended less than, say, a 20 minute OT period. But even in the most extreme circumstances where "endless penalties" somehow don't yield 5-on-3 goals for upwards of 20 minutes, that would probably still be some good/exciting hockey to watch at least, and if the defending team extends their chances that long, well all the power to them for using their strengths and gamesmanship to keep giving themselves a chance. Maybe score would have to be factored in to whether it they resort to it, I dunno. Just brainstorming.

Anything is possible. I suggest that the NHL would literally laugh the suggestion of continuing games past regulation time just cuz someone got a penalty right out of the boardroom.

There are so many potential issues it is mind boggling.

Here's just another one. What's the point of extending a game just cuz someone got a penalty with one minute left if the score is 6 -1?

Nothing wrong with brainstorming but let's face facts, this suggestion is so absurd it doesn't really merit much more discussion.

Then you get the posters saying the penalty should carry over to the next game?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!?!!? It's inane.

 

[Preisst*]

I think the solution is simple.

If a team takes a penalty with less than 2 mins left in the game. The full penalty must be served.

If that mean extending the game a minute and a half or so, so be it. However, a team can choose to decline a PP if they are up to avoid having teams that are down trying to extend the game.

Also, any double minors or non fighting 5 min majors with less than 2 mins left would automatically result in a penalty shot from any player the coach chooses.

And if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too. Then if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too.

The game might literally NEVER end.

 

[Banana Sandwiches]

For everyone who thinks extending the game or granting automatic penalty shots is a good idea, I can't wait for your favorite team to shoot the puck out of play from their defensive zone or have a face-off violation that allows the other team to tie or take the lead.

Regarding the whole "brawl" scenario in terms of penalties at the end of game, keep in mind the following:

1. Given the direction the league/hockey is going, there are basically no more brawls
2. If a brawl does happen, more than likely it will be in a lopsided game. Why do we want to extend a lopsided game?
3. Carrying over penalties to the following game against a completely different team makes no sense. The team that drew those penalties gets nothing out of this, and some random team who happens to be next on the schedule does.

 

[PensPlz]

I 10000000% agree.

If a game is tied or the trailing team is within 1 goal, the penalty called should extend the game the length of the powerplay.

It's not only gives the team a more fair chance to score, it also for the saftey of the players. I hate seeing a free for all infront of the net in the final seconds of the game. So many dangerous crosschecks and trips and most times just turns into a mosh pit that someone is blasting a puck into.

So ya. Should definitely be looked at and voted on.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Anything is possible. I suggest that the NHL would literally laugh the suggestion of continuing games past regulation time just cuz someone got a penalty right out of the boardroom.

There are so many potential issues it is mind boggling.

Here's just another one. What's the point of extending a game just cuz someone got a penalty with one minute left if the score is 6 -1?

Nothing wrong with brainstorming but let's face facts, this suggestion is so absurd it doesn't really merit much more discussion.

Then you get the posters saying the penalty should carry over to the next game?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!?!!? It's inane.

I already mentioned that the score might have to be factored in. Maybe just in 1 goal/tied games penalties have to be served in full in the last 2 minutes. Don't have to do the same with 5 minute calls for the most part, because I believe most have built-in mechanisms for leading to supplementary discipline if egregious in some way. But we're not actually writing the rules, just imagining different ones.

Carrying over to the next game, against an unrelated opponent, is ridiculous, I agree.

 

[Preisst*]

For everyone who thinks extending the game or granting automatic penalty shots is a good idea, I can't wait for your favorite team to shoot the puck out of play from their defensive zone or have a face-off violation that allows the other team to tie or take the lead.

Regarding the whole "brawl" scenario in terms of penalties at the end of game, keep in mind the following:

1. Given the direction the league/hockey is going, there are basically no more brawls
2. If a brawl does happen, more than likely it will be in a lopsided game. Why do we want to extend a lopsided game?
3. Carrying over penalties to the following game against a completely different team makes no sense. The team that drew those penalties gets nothing out of this, and some random team who happens to be next on the schedule does.

I never saw anyone post anything about a "brawl"......I even double checked the entire thread.

Unless you thought my post about all the penalties was a brawl which I certainly wasn't saying.

Under the theory that a game can't end on a penalty what's to stop the team losing from intentionally taking a penalty to keep the game 'alive' in the faint hope of a SHG to tie the game (possibly with the goalie pulled).

Frankly the idea is so ridiculous I would bet my life it would never even make it to the discussion table.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

And if another penalty occurs before that penalty expires then that full penalty must be served too....

The game might literally NEVER end.

Tennis deals with "deuce" scenarios like this, so no reason hockey couldn't. Maybe successfully tying it during the extension gets you to a shootout, instead of constantly going back and forth. Otherwise, time expires, game over. I dunno, I can imagine plenty of ways that it "could" be done if gamesmanship of taking penalties late in games was really deemed to be an issue worth addressing.

 

[Preisst*]

I already mentioned that the score might have to be factored in. Maybe just in 1 goal/tied games penalties have to be served in full in the last 2 minutes. Don't have to do the same with 5 minute calls for the most part, because I believe most have built-in mechanisms for leading to supplementary discipline if egregious in some way. But we're not actually writing the rules, just imagining different ones.

Carrying over to the next game, against an unrelated opponent, is ridiculous, I agree.

So now we're changing the rules based on the in-game score?

It is just an out and out bad idea with zero ways of nuancing the rules to make it work. Just my opinion, frankly I can't believe I'm even participating in a discussion about something so inane.

I do appreciate you trying to think it out and see if there is a way to make it work but look at it this way, there is nothing wrong with the way it is. It's life. Games have an expiration time on them for a reason.