Speculation: Legit idea for Penalty Shot

Larrybiv

We're CLEAN, we PROMISE!
May 14, 2013
9,845
5,167
South Florida
Been thinking about this for years now. Was reminded about it last game. Why doesn't the league/officials give the opportunity to the coaches to CHOOSE whether they want a 2 minute PP chance OR a penalty shot?
Let's pretend it's Rempe or Lindgren that gets pulled down, and a penalty shot is called. Now, if Lavi has a choice, wouldn't he choose a PP opportunity?
Now, if it's Mika, Panarin, Laffy then yeah. Penalty shot it is.

Honestly though, in addition to that........I always believed that if a team MISSES on the penalty shot, they should get the PP opp. as well.
Reason being, WHY should the penalized team get away with that "in the moment" breakaway where it seems to me would be a lot less pressure on the breakaway player than just the equivalent of impending Penalty Shot attempt. ALL EYES and pressure on that player. If you don't score, that's okay, the TEAM still has a chance to score with the PP.
 
I would be in favor of the either/or scenario, giving the team the option and/or adopting the soccer rule where anybody on the pitch (bench) can take the penalty shot.
 
This would also be beneficial towards the end of a game, say with 2-3 minutes left where the team is up by a goal. The 2 minute PP would be the better choice as it gives you a good chance to score but also dwindles the time left on the clock.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Larrybiv
I would be in favor of the either/or scenario, giving the team the option and/or adopting the soccer rule where anybody on the pitch (bench) can take the penalty shot.
I actually hate that about soccer.

Not a fan of the idea in general. Only time I could think of giving in on it is if it is in the last 2 minutes of the game and the team trailing is going to have a PP, but will not get the full 2 minutes.
 
I don't mind giving the choice but would HATE giving the PP even if the penalty shot was missed. Why are you 1) assuming a penalty shot is harder than a breakway and 2) penalizing the offending team twice?
 
I actually hate that about soccer.

Not a fan of the idea in general. Only time I could think of giving in on it is if it is in the last 2 minutes of the game and the team trailing is going to have a PP, but will not get the full 2 minutes.
Funny enough, I'm not the biggest fan of it either pertaining to soccer but that has more to do with the success rate of PKs and giving a goal to the star player every time.


I wouldn't want them to implement multiple of the changes suggested, just either/or.
I like the choice of PS vs PP because it allows for more in-game strategy by coaches. Average PP% is lower than Average PS/SO success rate but coaches making the decision would weigh game situation vs who is taking the shot. Existing rules of player fouled has to take shot in this scenario.


If they don't want to do that, I like (less so but would be ok with) allowing anybody on the team (maybe just on the ice) taking the shot because even the best players historically have a less than 50% chance of scoring on a PS.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Larrybiv
This would also be beneficial towards the end of a game, say with 2-3 minutes left where the team is up by a goal. The 2 minute PP would be the better choice as it gives you a good chance to score but also dwindles the time left on the clock.
Absolutel! Great scenario, great point. God knows there have been scenarios just like that. Awesome Viper!

No way in hell I'd take a PP over a Rempe penalty shot
That would be quite the spectacle. At least for the 1st time. Unless game was on the line.

Can you imagine MSG if Rempe scored on a penalty shot?
Would blow the roof off!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYR Viper
I don't mind giving the choice but would HATE giving the PP even if the penalty shot was missed. Why are you 1) assuming a penalty shot is harder than a breakway and 2) penalizing the offending team twice?
The only thing I could think of.....what IF it was somebody that isn't really qualified in a breakaway situation. Wouldn't it be a given to interrupt that? In other words, not much of a chance, but on the PP in addition to......well, just seems to me that would benefit that team and lead to more scoring (which is what the league wants anyway, right?)
 
I don't mind giving the choice but would HATE giving the PP even if the penalty shot was missed. Why are you 1) assuming a penalty shot is harder than a breakway and 2) penalizing the offending team twice?
Most penalties don't prevent clear scoring chances, yet they give a full 2-minute advantage with a ~20% goal rate and a significantly reduced rate of goals against. A penalty shot means that there was a penalty worthy infraction and a clear scoring chances was denied by that. So I don't think a bigger penalty is wrong.
 
Take a page from soccer:
  1. Coach decides who takes the shot
  2. Skaters from both teams line up at the blue line, giving them an opportunity to rush to the puck if the shot goes wide / off the post / is deflected by the goalie.
I would also like to see minors not end when the PP team scores and fewer penalties (but with more severe consequences), but that's a different topic.
 
Before instituting new rules, I'd first prefer the league to enforce correct officiating and hold referees accountable for their accuracy/inaccuracy.

The inconsistencies of rules, the subjectivity, the personal vendettas, the swallowing of the whistle at certain times or moments of the seasons. Far too many times have the officials and Toronto been a subject of conversation after games.

Its wishful thinking that any rule changes will result in a fairer game. Honestly I'd rather them hire Boston Dynamics to teach robots how to skate or just be eyes in the sky
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad