Penalty shot or 2 minute minor??

[Optimist]

When I saw the refs arm go up after Bunting was nearly raped on his semi breakaway, I quickly thought to myself, please, no penalty shot. But alas, the ref made the dreaded point towards center ice signaling that indeed, this will be a penalty shot situation. Is a penalty shot supposed to be a more severe punishment than a 2 minute minor? After all, it is just a penalty first and the penalty shot designation gets added on because of where the infraction occurred. If the exact same thing happened at center ice it would just be a minor penalty. Should the teams be able to choose the minor penalty over a penalty shot? Let's say that it was Wayne Simmonds (and no offense to Wayne. He's just not our best puck handler) that got hauled down and was awarded the penalty shot. Would you choose that over a 2 minute man advantage? There's also a possible clock management issue here. If this occurred with, say, 3 or 4 minutes left in the game and we were up by one goal, those 2 minutes would eat up some valuable time giving the opposition less time to pull their goalie and go 6 on 5. Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[TMLAM34]

Wouldn’t hate the idea

 

[ACC1224]

Said pretty much the same thing to my daughter when they called it, "they'd be better off taking a PP here".

I will say, no one in the building was disappointed it was a Penalty Shot.

 

[Buds17]

I'd probably be fine with maintaining the status quo. More often than not, I figure that the player drawing and taking the penalty shot should work out to be one of the team's better options. Powerplays occurring at a much more frequent rate than penalty shots also seems likely to make an exercise in futility out of success rate comparisons between the two options.

 

[1specter]

Might need to make it like soccer where anyone on the team can take the shot But yeah, I'd much rather a power play over Alex Kerfoot getting two penalty shots

 

[AvroArrow]

When I saw the refs arm go up after Bunting was nearly raped on his semi breakaway, I quickly thought to myself, please, no penalty shot. But alas, the ref made the dreaded point towards center ice signaling that indeed, this will be a penalty shot situation. Is a penalty shot supposed to be a more severe punishment than a 2 minute minor? After all, it is just a penalty first and the penalty shot designation gets added on because of where the infraction occurred. If the exact same thing happened at center ice it would just be a minor penalty. Should the teams be able to choose the minor penalty over a penalty shot? Let's say that it was Wayne Simmonds (and no offense to Wayne. He's just not our best puck handler) that got hauled down and was awarded the penalty shot. Would you choose that over a 2 minute man advantage? There's also a possible clock management issue here. If this occurred with, say, 4 or 5 minutes left in the game and we were up by one goal, those 2 minutes would eat up some valuable time giving the opposition less time to pull their goalie and go 6 on 5. Thoughts?

Better choice of words please.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

The Leafs PP only scores around 25% of the time. A lot of players should be able to beat that success rate on a penalty shot. I guess if it's someone like Brodie, you'd rather take the powerplay

 

[LeafalCrusader]

Should be able to pick anyone on the ice to be the shooter imo.

 

[Al14]

A penalty shot involves a single shot skater on the goalie. In the old days, when goalies were smaller and wearing smaller equipment, a penalty shot was more exciting IMHO. In today's game, the goalies are bigger, and the equipment is ginormous, so for me it's not as much fun to watch.

I think the fouled team should be given the option of a 2 minute minor or the penalty shot. I also think that the option should be open for any player on the ice be able to take the penalty shot on behalf of the fouled player and the team.

JMHO.

 

[PromisedLand]

I think they should also allow anyone to take the penalty shot from the team like soccer, if they want to keep the penalty shot as is.

 

[Fonzieleaf]

I thought anyone on the ice could take it. Has that rule changed or was that even a rule to begin with? Lol

 

[Yorkshire Leaf]

Penalty shot, if missed/saved then a 2 minute penalty. It would have the desired effect of making it a more severe sanction for the foul play.

 

[rojac]

Maybe. I've often wondered too if a team gets a PP with less than 2 minutes left in regulation, should they be given the option of a penalty shot instead?

I think it would have been nice to have a "Maybe" or "Not sure" option on this poll.

 

[BertCorbeau]

The penalty shot is the most exciting play in hockey… I agree there’s some merit to the idea but at the end of the day I don’t think it should be tampered with

 

[ULF_55]

Goalie has the advantage on the PS.

Only has to focus on one shot, doesn't have to worry about a pass or rebound.

...

Now let's talk about the delay of game for puck over the glass being the same penalty value as a trip, slash across the hands, high stick without blood ...

I think over the glass should be a 1 minute penalty and the offending team cannot change the players.

 

[therealkoho]

Said pretty much the same thing to my daughter when they called it, "they'd be better off taking a PP here".

I will say, no one in the building was disappointed it was a Penalty Shot.

just wondering if you also used that same descriptive phrase the OP used when discussing the play?

as for the question posed I totally agree that the team should have a choice on whether to take the PS or the 2 mins

 

[X66]

You take the PS if it's a forward.

The only times I would decline are...

We have an opportunity at a lengthy 5 on 3(Imagine getting one of those this year??) or a length 4 on 3 in overtime AND the shooter is a dman/enforcer in either scenario.

I also would think about it for a while if it was in a scenario where there was 2 mins left in a game and we had a one goal lead.

 

[LeafSteel]

When I saw the refs arm go up after Bunting was nearly raped on his semi breakaway, I quickly thought to myself, please, no penalty shot. But alas, the ref made the dreaded point towards center ice signaling that indeed, this will be a penalty shot situation. Is a penalty shot supposed to be a more severe punishment than a 2 minute minor? After all, it is just a penalty first and the penalty shot designation gets added on because of where the infraction occurred. If the exact same thing happened at center ice it would just be a minor penalty. Should the teams be able to choose the minor penalty over a penalty shot? Let's say that it was Wayne Simmonds (and no offense to Wayne. He's just not our best puck handler) that got hauled down and was awarded the penalty shot. Would you choose that over a 2 minute man advantage? There's also a possible clock management issue here. If this occurred with, say, 3 or 4 minutes left in the game and we were up by one goal, those 2 minutes would eat up some valuable time giving the opposition less time to pull their goalie and go 6 on 5. Thoughts?

Good thread topic, but very poor choice of words.

Please rephrase.

 

[BayStBullies]

Penalty shot, if missed/saved then a 2 minute penalty. It would have the desired effect of making it a more severe sanction for the foul play.

You know, I actually like this idea. These are usually scoring threats with a large disadvantage.

 

[TMLeafer]

I do think it should be a choice, but on the other hand I also like the definitive nature of a PA call. No overthinking whether they should take a PP instead.

It is funny we've had Brodie, Kerfoot, and Bunting get penalty shots

 

[LeafsNation75]

I know this would never happen but if any team has a penalty shot and does not score, I think they should be given a 2:00 power play for the original trip.

I agree that most of the time you would like to see the power play, however what if Matthews, Marner, or Nylander were awarded penalty shots? Would they be more likely to score a goal in that situation? I remember in the 2017-18 Season against the Kings in the same game, Matthews had two penalty shots. The first one he scored a goal and the second one he missed.



Marner also had a penalty shot goal in Game 1 against Boston in the 2019 playoffs.



Finally, I know last week against the Panthers we saw Nylander get a penalty shot and he missed. However, he also has scored on a penalty shot in overtime that won a game against Chicago during the 2017-18 Season.

 

[egd27]

A penalty shot involves a single shot skater on the goalie. In the old days, when goalies were smaller and wearing smaller equipment, a penalty shot was more exciting IMHO. In today's game, the goalies are bigger, and the equipment is ginormous, so for me it's not as much fun to watch.

I think the fouled team should be given the option of a 2 minute minor or the penalty shot. I also think that the option should be open for any player on the ice be able to take the penalty shot on behalf of the fouled player and the team.

JMHO.

Agreed and would add that the shootout has taken away the uniqueness that a penalty shot used to have.

I think over the glass should be a 1 minute penalty and the offending team cannot change the players.

I'll go one further and say it should be treated like an icing.

 

[Gilmour1996]

Agree that any player on the ice at the time of the infraction can take the penalty shot (coach gets to pick).

 

[Mugzy97]

The definition is that it should be a "clear cut" breakaway, which is open to interpretation, but Bunting was not clear cut in my opinion. This should have been a hooking or holding penalty.

 

[Dayjobdave]

I've always felt the team should have the choice to either take the shot or the penalty. There are a lot of circumstances where the penalty is more valuable - especially late in a game where the team has a lead. It's better to have the 2 mins where you should be in control than a 20-30% chance of a goal, at least in my opinion.

Besides, we are 0-5 on them this year