Why would a team that's leading want to extend the game???
They wouldn't be doing it purposely, but it avoids the current problem where taking a penalty in the final 2 minutes of a game doesn't result in a 2-minute PP.
Opinion: Let's stop splitting power plays between periods
- Thread starter JesseAtATB
- Start date
They wouldn't be doing it purposely, but it avoids the current problem where taking a penalty in the final 2 minutes of a game doesn't result in a 2-minute PP.
I don't really see an issue. The power play team gets 2 minutes regardless. If a team can't get set up and finish their chances in those two minutes, then the power play needs practice. The intermission could be a buzz kill when its 5 on 5, or the power play could suck even if its mid way through the period, and these are simply the nuisances of the game and make it dynamic.
I would like to see some R+D first
I would like to see some R+D first
the only thing I would like changed is when a powerplay happens after a period ends, it should start in the offensive zone not at center ice. Otherwise split period power plays are just unlucky and part of the game.
Stanley Foobrick
Clockwork Blue
Yeah, said this earlier. Then another, then another, then maybe a major...... and on and on.....
I've always thought it would be more accurate to rate PP efficiency by minutes vs opportunities.
A 14 second PP counts the same as a 5 minute major.
A 14 second PP counts the same as a 5 minute major.
The Underboss
Registered User
I noticed that some of you were looking for responses/arguments from me, to which I apologize, as I only check in from time-to-time but will gladfully address some of your points.
For the users who feel that this was click bait, that was not my intention or goal. This is something I've spoken with others about and thought would create good conversation. Some people agree, others do not.
In regards to a concern a few people had about periods extending by a significant amount of minutes, my intention was only to prolong the period by the initial power play's time and only do this for 2 minute minors. In hindsight, I realize this does not necessarily completely eliminate the split power play, but the rarity of two penalties in the final two minutes of a period seems extraordinarily uncommon. A split in a larger timed penalty (i.e 4 or 5 minutes ) creates less of an issue IMO.
The extended time would not shorten the following period but only extend the current.
I do not think that games should be extended by this process, meaning it could only occur between the 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd periods. Only if the team's were tied at the end of the 3rd, would it occur then.
In the end, there are multiple specifics that would need to be worked out, however my intention was to create conversation around this topic to figure them out. Overall it looks like most people would be happy to see the faceoff moved into the offensive zone--a minor change--versus making a drastic one such as suggested.
Either way, thanks for the responses.
For the users who feel that this was click bait, that was not my intention or goal. This is something I've spoken with others about and thought would create good conversation. Some people agree, others do not.
In regards to a concern a few people had about periods extending by a significant amount of minutes, my intention was only to prolong the period by the initial power play's time and only do this for 2 minute minors. In hindsight, I realize this does not necessarily completely eliminate the split power play, but the rarity of two penalties in the final two minutes of a period seems extraordinarily uncommon. A split in a larger timed penalty (i.e 4 or 5 minutes ) creates less of an issue IMO.
The extended time would not shorten the following period but only extend the current.
I do not think that games should be extended by this process, meaning it could only occur between the 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd periods. Only if the team's were tied at the end of the 3rd, would it occur then.
In the end, there are multiple specifics that would need to be worked out, however my intention was to create conversation around this topic to figure them out. Overall it looks like most people would be happy to see the faceoff moved into the offensive zone--a minor change--versus making a drastic one such as suggested.
Either way, thanks for the responses.
Stanley Foobrick
Clockwork Blue
Big of you to admit you never thought this through. Perhaps a good guideline for next time?
colchar
Registered User
- Apr 26, 2012
- 7,790
- 2,431
The power play also gets to come back rested and refreshed.
Penalties are still equal because the team is shorthanded for equal amounts of time.
What if play is stopped because of an injury or a technical issue (say a broken pane of glass or one that becomes dislodged)? Does that somehow make it an unequal penalty?
The whole idea is just plain dumb. It is bad enough that soccer chants have started polluting hockey arenas, we do not need to start doing hockey's version of injury time too.
aemoreira1981
Registered User
I would propose two changes:
1. If there is a carryover power play at the end of the first or second period, the subsequent period shall commence with a faceoff in the offensive zone of the team with the man advantage.
2. If the fame is tied at the end of regulation and one team has a man advantage, the faceoff conditions in 1 shall apply.
3. If a team takes a minor penalty within the last minute of regulation, a double Minot penalty in the last 2 minutes of regulation, or a major penalty in the last 2:30 of regulation, that causes a loss of manpower on the ice, or takes a penalty in overtime that causes a loss of manpower on the ice, where at least 50 percent of the penalty cannot be served in the remaining time on the clock, and the penalized team is leading by 1 goal (2 for a double minor or major), except as prescribed elsewhere in the NHL rules, the clock shall be reset back to the full time of the penalty. If subsequent penalties are committed by the initially offending team, the clock shall be reset again and the time will only run out when all penalties expire, or the team with the man advantage takes a penalty that eliminates all remaining power play time.
1. If there is a carryover power play at the end of the first or second period, the subsequent period shall commence with a faceoff in the offensive zone of the team with the man advantage.
2. If the fame is tied at the end of regulation and one team has a man advantage, the faceoff conditions in 1 shall apply.
3. If a team takes a minor penalty within the last minute of regulation, a double Minot penalty in the last 2 minutes of regulation, or a major penalty in the last 2:30 of regulation, that causes a loss of manpower on the ice, or takes a penalty in overtime that causes a loss of manpower on the ice, where at least 50 percent of the penalty cannot be served in the remaining time on the clock, and the penalized team is leading by 1 goal (2 for a double minor or major), except as prescribed elsewhere in the NHL rules, the clock shall be reset back to the full time of the penalty. If subsequent penalties are committed by the initially offending team, the clock shall be reset again and the time will only run out when all penalties expire, or the team with the man advantage takes a penalty that eliminates all remaining power play time.
I got a terrible idea too guys!!
Lets just make them play 60 minutes straight for 82 days in a row. That will weed out the weaklings. OTSS!!!
Lets just make them play 60 minutes straight for 82 days in a row. That will weed out the weaklings. OTSS!!!
I don't understand why this is people's first response. The game will change, as will the fans. As will society. One day we might find ourselves watching hockey from virtual reality on our "smart eyeware". To suggest that this changing audience will not affect the way the game is played is to know nothing about business and its progression.
This was a bad idea, as indicated by reasonable counter points. There will be more bad ideas, and there will be some good ideas. Griping will not change that. Reasonable discussion, however, will reduce reoccurence and shorten the discussion.
Huh? It hasn't changed much in the past 100 years. The game didn't change that much because of television but smart glasses and twitter are gonna change everything!!
aemoreira1981
Registered User
What the OP is suggesting is that if leading by 1 or 2 late in regulation, or late in overtime when one team is on a breakaway, a skater might "pull a Leggio" and intentionally take a penalty.
Are you being serious?
Commercial breaks? Ads on the boards? Goalie cams, ref cams, broadcasting stations? Reducing overtime, player mics, and the outdoor game. Even the refs jerseys had to change due to television. Players had to change their image, commentary during interviews, and salaries were exposed. The game started with no helmets and no red line. Hockey was a part time job. With television, there's no exposure or revenue. Now athletes spend 4 hours in the gym each day and owners spend millions on scouts.
Jeez that wasn't a well thought out statement.
Kobe Armstrong
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2011
- 15,296
- 8,381
The one move I would like to see is if a team is trailing with less than 2 minutes in the game and a penalty is taken, that they get the full power-play opportunity to try and tie the game. Punish a team for taking a penalty late in the game.
- Jan 22, 2004
- 4,125
- 1,183
I assume that wasn't serious?
Of everything you listed, the red line comment was the only "change" to the game, and the appears to be an afterthought on your part.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaa
Registered User
- May 16, 2009
- 12,252
- 1,586
coolboarder
Registered User
I would make a proposal to this topic for fun. Rather than extending the first or second period except for the third period, if any penalty is called under 1:59 left in the period, the play should end immediately with the intermission and game remaining in the first or second period be carried over the game time to the second/third period, adding to 20 minutes. For example, if the penalty is called at 1:24 left in the period, the 2nd period game time shall be 21:24 with the game time added and the opening face-off of the second or third period in the offensive zone so the power play team get its full two minutes to score a goal without any interruption to their power play minutes and the flow to the game.
Special rule in the third period:
If any penalty in the third period is called at 1:59 or less, the power play is awarded to the team and if the power play does not score, then a penalty shot should be awarded at the end of the game for one chance for the justice to be served. If a major penalty is called in this situation, a powerplay shall be awarded and if they failed to score, two penalty shots shall be held by two different players attempting. If they convert to the power play then no penalty shot shall be held at the end of the third period.
This should be considered a special rules to prevent the cheater at the end of the game. The slow whistle for a delay penalty does apply as a part of the strategy for the potential power play time with a penalty shot. Double minor do not apply in this situation if it is called less than 4 minutes. If the NFL has a special rules regard the free kick after the fair catch at the end of the each half, why could not the NHL have this special rule at the end of third period?
Regular season OT: Special rule apply here for a penalty shot if power play fails to convert. A missed penalty shot, shootout next.
Playoff OT: special rules in the third period does not apply in a continuous OT period but rather, end the period immediately and start the 2nd OT period with a power play in the offensive zone face-off and add the timer according to the penalty minutes to the game timer.
Special rule in the third period:
If any penalty in the third period is called at 1:59 or less, the power play is awarded to the team and if the power play does not score, then a penalty shot should be awarded at the end of the game for one chance for the justice to be served. If a major penalty is called in this situation, a powerplay shall be awarded and if they failed to score, two penalty shots shall be held by two different players attempting. If they convert to the power play then no penalty shot shall be held at the end of the third period.
This should be considered a special rules to prevent the cheater at the end of the game. The slow whistle for a delay penalty does apply as a part of the strategy for the potential power play time with a penalty shot. Double minor do not apply in this situation if it is called less than 4 minutes. If the NFL has a special rules regard the free kick after the fair catch at the end of the each half, why could not the NHL have this special rule at the end of third period?
Regular season OT: Special rule apply here for a penalty shot if power play fails to convert. A missed penalty shot, shootout next.
Playoff OT: special rules in the third period does not apply in a continuous OT period but rather, end the period immediately and start the 2nd OT period with a power play in the offensive zone face-off and add the timer according to the penalty minutes to the game timer.
Players use to smoke cigarettes on the bench. Because of television, its now a billion dollar industry that has resulted in better, faster, stronger players who skate differently, play differently, and use different equipment.
Not withstanding that, here's the changes to the rink alone:
http://thehockeywriters.com/the-origins-of-the-modern-rink/
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey
Originally, you could not make forward passes in hockey. There was no hashmarks, icing, trap, crease, zone face off circles, and so fourth. This is borderline trolling how little googling takes place.
Kaapo Cabana
Next name: Admiral Kakkbar
I liked the idea of starting a period in the shorthanded teams zone when PPs carry over.
The end of a period is like a free clear for the shorthanded team.
When the PP resumes, the PP team has to re-enter the zone and set up knocking possibly 30 seconds or more off the clock which can kill a power play.
Starting periods in the PK zone would even this out a bit IMO
The end of a period is like a free clear for the shorthanded team.
When the PP resumes, the PP team has to re-enter the zone and set up knocking possibly 30 seconds or more off the clock which can kill a power play.
Starting periods in the PK zone would even this out a bit IMO
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: SCF: Florida Panthers vs Edmonton Oilers Part 2 (FLA leads 3 -2) (58 Viewers)- Latest: Ratsreign
-
HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #93: Y'all got any more of those 2nd line centers out there? (65 Viewers)- Latest: Gustave
-
-
-
