Rule change proposal: Penalties in the last two minutes

[Fig]

How about this, keep the game at 60 minutes.

Any penalty committed with less than 1 minute in regulation play is automatically a penalty shot no 2 minutes.

Or keep the way penalties work during that time period and just add a penalty shot on top of the 2 mins?

 

[talkinaway]

Or keep the way penalties work during that time period and just add a penalty shot on top of the 2 mins?

A penalty shot seems a bit too severe - especially for the types of penalties that are called in the last two minutes. Remember, we're not talking about boarding. We're not talking about roughing. Not high sticking. These typically aren't "active" penalties - at least, not in my ultra-small sample.

The penalties in the last two minutes during close games that I noticed were too many men on the ice (granted, I'm not a hockey player, but I imagine that 95% of the time that's just a sloppy brain fart) and puck over glass (which nowadays is almost never intentional). Maybe in the regular season there's a bigger variety - I kind of doubt it, but it's possible.

These are the silly, stupid penalties that have to be doled out to prevent actual cheating. And they're also "automatic" penalties in that they HAVE to be called - the refs literally can't ignore a puck over the glass. I don't think I'd want a penalty shot to be given based on those.

Plus, the median team PP% last year in the regular season was about 19%. The median team shootout percentage was about 31%. If you HAVE to give a penalty shot (and I don't think it's a good substitution), you'd have to take away the PP - and even then, you're giving a little bit too much.

 

[Fig]

A penalty shot seems a bit too severe - especially for the types of penalties that are called in the last two minutes. Remember, we're not talking about boarding. We're not talking about roughing. Not high sticking. These typically aren't "active" penalties - at least, not in my ultra-small sample.

The penalties in the last two minutes during close games that I noticed were too many men on the ice (granted, I'm not a hockey player, but I imagine that 95% of the time that's just a sloppy brain fart) and puck over glass (which nowadays is almost never intentional). Maybe in the regular season there's a bigger variety - I kind of doubt it, but it's possible.

These are the silly, stupid penalties that have to be doled out to prevent actual cheating. And they're also "automatic" penalties in that they HAVE to be called - the refs literally can't ignore a puck over the glass. I don't think I'd want a penalty shot to be given based on those.

Plus, the median team PP% last year in the regular season was about 19%. The median team shootout percentage was about 31%. If you HAVE to give a penalty shot (and I don't think it's a good substitution), you'd have to take away the PP - and even then, you're giving a little bit too much.

Hmm.. that's true too. Didn't think of it that way.

How about a rule that tilts the ice towards the penalized team? I could be mixing up threads, but I think I noticed some type of mention about getting rid of dumping for D (icing and face off in their zone) and offside rule removed for the attackers?

However, could make the game extremely difficult to follow though.

Perhaps just levy stiff fines based on every second of unserved penalty?

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

Virtually all of the people complaining about this suggestion haven't offered a solution to there being a massive incentive for players to hold/trip/etc... with a small amount of time remaining to prevent goals.

 

[Sleepy]

OP's proposal is good. I like it.

It's better than penalty shots or the 1-minute 5on3 proposal, because those are too severe and also are likely to cause refs not to call penalties in the final 2 minutes.

It doesn't span games. Someone's penalty in the final minute of 1 game shouldn't carry over to the next.

There's some stuff to be worked out with overtime, etc. But overall I think it's good. Also, starting faceoffs in offensive zones when on the PP following an intermission is good too.

 

[Quarter]

Virtually all of the people complaining about this suggestion haven't offered a solution to there being a massive incentive for players to hold/trip/etc... with a small amount of time remaining to prevent goals.

6-on-3s tend not to be too fun to kill off.

And exactly how much of a knee-jerk reaction is this thread to begin with? Two examples of penalties from 22 games that weren't used to kill off time and all of sudden it's something that needs to be addressed? Meh, come back with suggestions on how to fix it once there's hints of intentional penalties to delay time becomes an epidemic in the league. Until then, deal with the 58 minutes you had before the penalty took place.

 

[talkinaway]

6-on-3s tend not to be too fun to kill off.

And exactly how much of a knee-jerk reaction is this thread to begin with? Two examples of penalties from 22 games that weren't used to kill off time and all of sudden it's something that needs to be addressed? Meh, come back with suggestions on how to fix it once there's hints of intentional penalties to delay time becomes an epidemic in the league. Until then, deal with the 58 minutes you had before the penalty took place.

There are already some measures to prevent penalties at the end of a game, like the automatic game misconduct for instigating in the last five minutes. And I honestly do think that most play towards the end of a game seems fair - usually, if players get their blood boiling, they'll wait until the end of a game to start something, like the Habs/Bolts 6-2 game.

It's not exactly a knee jerk reaction - I'd though of this scenario long before the playoffs. Frankly, I don't know how often it happens. The small sample size is a reasonable critique. If there's a way to search a database for penalties by game time, it wouldn't be too tough - any penalty that generates a PP from 58:00 to 59:59 (I want to exclude those end-of-game brawls at 60:00, which are silly and usually wind up matching penalties anyway) when the score is within 1 goal.

I'd be curious how many games out of 1230 meet these criteria. I'm pretty sure it's less than 2 in 22, but 2-3% of games, or 2 games per team per season, wouldn't shock me. But maybe it's just some ridiculously high number, like 0.1%, or barely over 1 game in the league per season.

 

[mmbt]

Virtually all of the people complaining about this suggestion haven't offered a solution to there being a massive incentive for players to hold/trip/etc... with a small amount of time remaining to prevent goals.

It's no different than, say, in football where a team punting out of the endzone with a few seconds left and a 3+ point lead can have everyone on the line hold their guy, then have their punter run around until time expires, knowing that the penalty for holding is essentially meaningless when you plan on taking the safety anyway. Or in soccer taking a handball to prevent a goal. You could say it's taking advantage of the rules, but creating an even more bizarre set of rules to deal with it would just get silly. Next thing you know, an otherwise minor, meaningless penalty away from the play with 1 second left, instead becomes a 2 minute opportunity to tie the game.

If it's so advantageous to do it, after all, then why don't we routinely see teams protecting a 1 goal lead suddenly just tackle everyone on the ice with like 30 seconds left? I don't think it's nearly as serious a problem as some make it out to be, there's just a few fans who are upset that their team lost with PP time remaining. But go ask Marty Mcsorley if he thinks it was advantageous to have that illegal stick in the '93 Finals, after all there wasn't a full 2 minutes left and all the Kings had to do was keep icing the puck, right?

Just leave it as it is, and be thankful it's not as stupid as basketball, where you can intentionally foul and thus concede 2 FTs, then come down the other side and shoot a 3 pointer. Now THAT is stupid and repeatedly exploited.

 

[AlowlyMcOilersfan]

although I agree with the above that it's not that much of an issue^


Just don't allow line changes on late penalties(whoever is on the ice that's not the offender has to stay for the next faceoff) and reactivate icing?

 

[Roomtemperature]

It's no different than, say, in football where a team punting out of the endzone with a few seconds left and a 3+ point lead can have everyone on the line hold their guy, then have their punter run around until time expires, knowing that the penalty for holding is essentially meaningless when you plan on taking the safety anyway.

Has that scenario ever happened in the NFL?

 

[Sleepy]

If it's so advantageous to do it, after all, then why don't we routinely see teams protecting a 1 goal lead suddenly just tackle everyone on the ice with like 30 seconds left? I don't think it's nearly as serious a problem as some make it out to be, there's just a few fans who are upset that their team lost with PP time remaining.

It's not a game-breaker, but the NHL has been around a long time. You can make tweaks to slightly improve things without changing the core game.

I'd say this issue comes up multiple times per year per team. In a sport where playoff spots often come down to a single point, it's significant enough with a simple-enough fix to at least discuss.

 

[Preisst*]

Please outline why having too many men on the ice at 5:00 into a game is worth a 2 minute penalty, while having too many men on the ice at 59:45 is worth a 15 second penalty. Saying an idea is silly without backing it up is, in itself, silly - and, is, by its very definition, devoid of logic.

And what exactly makes hockey the "best sport in the world" (which is an altogether separate debate, although I recognize this claim as what advertisers would call puffery), and how would adding, at maximum, 119.9 measly seconds to a game diminish that greatness?

Again, I'm not married to the idea. There are many reasonable arguments against it, mainly centering on refs. Here are two more.

1) It's too complicated. You don't want people wondering why a game that's supposed to end when the big clock reaches 0 is still going on. You don't want people confused about why, when a team scores a PPG to tie it up, they both immediately go back to the benches to get ready for overtime.

2) It will create more shootouts. I can't believe it took me this long to come up with that, and it's a great argument against this.

As far as the earlier argument about my argument also applying to overlapping penalties - I don't get it. Team A does a "no-no", and does 30 seconds of their minor in the box. Next, Team B does a "no-no" that's also a minor. Following that, both teams get 1:30 of 4v4, and then Team B gets 30 seconds in the box alone. Altogether, each team does 30 seconds solo, and 1:30 together. Equal punishment for an equal sin. I wouldn't be in favor of "cancelling out" that middle 1:30, because I don't see it being a problem - it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but it would be logistically difficult, and not really worth the effort.

I do see a 15 second penalty as being a bit of a problem.

It's not a 15 second penalty. It's a 2 minute penalty. It just happened to happen with only 15 seconds left in the game. It's pretty simple and I'm not going to over think it. It's a 60 minute game. The game is played within the confines of that time parameter.

Based on this proposal the game could possibly NEVER end. There could conceivably be another penalty before the penalty that extended the game ends and they could be playing the same game three seasons from now. I think the players might be getting a little bit tired by then and some of the fans might have to be at work the next day.

 

[YesCubed]

I like the idea (I have always thought they should do this at the end of regular season OT, so teams couldn't literally get off scot-free before the shooutout) and I think it would go great in conjunction with a coach's challenge.

It's not a 15 second penalty. It's a 2 minute penalty. It just happened to happen with only 15 seconds left in the game. It's pretty simple and I'm not going to over think it. It's a 60 minute game. The game is played within the confines of that time parameter.

Based on this proposal the game could possibly NEVER end. There could conceivably be another penalty before the penalty that extended the game ends and they could be playing the same game three seasons from now. I think the players might be getting a little bit tired by then and some of the fans might have to be at work the next day.

Better get rid of playoff OT then

 

[Preisst*]

Better get rid of playoff OT then

Hilarious. You less experienced fans sure come up with some doozies.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Hilarious. You less experienced fans sure come up with some doozies.

Well if we come up with ridiculous scenarios that can never happen

 

[Captain Bowie]

No, they're just hooking and holding and interfering and tackling and groping as much as they want. And why shouldn't they? - they take a penalty, and now they can fling the puck at the empty net at every opportunity with no fear of icing. It's BS.

The only issues is the refs not calling infractions. If a team can't tie the game in 60 minutes, they don't get extra time because of the timing of an opponents penalty. What if it's a too many men that has no affect on a scoring chance? Penalty doesn't fit the crime.

What about a minor penalty taken in the last 10 or 15 seconds can be a penalty shot if it prevents a scoring chance?

 

[Preisst*]

The only issues is the refs not calling infractions. If a team can't tie the game in 60 minutes, they don't get extra time because of the timing of an opponents penalty. What if it's a too many men that has no affect on a scoring chance? Penalty doesn't fit the crime.

What about a minor penalty taken in the last 10 or 15 seconds can be a penalty shot if it prevents a scoring chance?

Under this proposal the team that is ahead by a goal can accidentally trip an opposing player in the other teams end with one minute left in the game.

Now the other team gets a power play with the faceoff starting in the other end and they also get to add an extra minute of time added to the end of the game.

Add in the fact that if another penalty is accidentally committed by the team in the lead, or worse yet the team that is behind successfully sucks the ref in by embellishing or diving OR if the ref makes a mistake and innocently calls a bad penalty the team that is behind now gets even more time added to the end of the game.

It is a logistical nightmare.

The OP mentioned something about being fair. Is it fair to anyone to make awkward changes? Is it fair to mess with black and white common sense for the benefit of a possible maybe potential gray area that might possibly maybe happen by happenstance every once in a while? It reminds me of cases where we see a knee jerk reaction just cuz 1 out of 1000 ppull might complain about something.

 

[RedWingsForPresident]

I do like the thought of the idea, but I just don't see how it could ever truly work

 

[Jumptheshark]

So if there is a penalty in extra time you need to play that time as well and if a penalty happens during that time you then have to play that time as well. So in theory in a rough game a period could go on for ten to twenty minutes more