Penalty Shots

[Purple Phart]

OK, here's a couple of questions I have regarding penalty shots.
In a recent game ( London vs Kitchener ) a penalty shot was awarded. However, the player who took the shot, wasn't the player who was fouled. Now, I might be mistaken, and stand to be corrected, but isn't the player fouled the one who should be taking the shot....or at least a player who was on the ice at the time the penalty shot was called ?
Second question : If it's OK to have a designated shooter take the shot, which player on your team, would you prefer....or does it depend on the goaltender they'd be going against ?

Click to read more...

 

[AttackSound]

OK, here's a couple of questions I have regarding penalty shots.
In a recent game ( London vs Kitchener ) a penalty shot was awarded. However, the player who took the shot, wasn't the player who was fouled. Now, I might be mistaken, and stand to be corrected, but isn't the player fouled the one who should be taking the shot....or at least a player who was on the ice at the time the penalty shot was called ?
Second question : If it's OK to have a designated shooter take the shot, which player on your team, would you prefer....or does it depend on the goaltender they'd be going against ?

There's a whole rule that goes into depth on this matter that has some different outcomes and reasons for why player A can be replaced with player B and for what purpose.

To give the summarized version it comes down to 3 main reasons.

1. It must be a player who was on the ice who will take the attempt.

2. The captain must select a player if the offended player is ineligible to take the attempt themselves.

3. Goalies can be replaced by the defending team but must stay in the game until the following whistle has been blow and play has been stopped.

That's the cut and dry summed-up version there is a whole ruling with like 5-6 different reasons but those are the main ones.

 

[Purple Phart]

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't aware that defending teams have the option of switching goaltenders, so I've learned something new.

 

[Generalsupdates]

Second question : If it's OK to have a designated shooter take the shot, which player on your team, would you prefer....or does it depend on the goaltender they'd be going against ?

The Gens (except Ryan Gagnier) are weirdly horrible at the shootout (aka penalty shots)

This season:
Gagnier: 3/5
Ritchie: 0/4
Roobroeck: 0/3
Serpa: 0/2
Sennecke: 0/1
Torrance: 0/1

 

[dirty12]

OK, here's a couple of questions I have regarding penalty shots.
In a recent game ( London vs Kitchener ) a penalty shot was awarded. However, the player who took the shot, wasn't the player who was fouled. Now, I might be mistaken, and stand to be corrected, but isn't the player fouled the one who should be taking the shot....or at least a player who was on the ice at the time the penalty shot was called ?
Second question : If it's OK to have a designated shooter take the shot, which player on your team, would you prefer....or does it depend on the goaltender they'd be going against ?

Watching that team’s best scorer take the penalty shot, that’s a penalty. I think the awarded team should be allowed to choose any shooter, not just choose from those on the ice.

 

[Purple Phart]

Watching that team’s best scorer take the penalty shot, that’s a penalty. I think the awarded team should be allowed to choose any shooter, not just choose from those on the ice.

But that would amount to a high scorer being given an opportunity to pad their stats. It could potentially affect the outcome of the top scorer race at season's end, if the guy finishing 2nd had fewer opportunities for attempting a penalty shot .
I can see why they limit choosing the shooter from those on the ice, at the time of the call.

 

[Generalsupdates]

But that would amount to a high scorer being given an opportunity to pad their stats. It could potentially affect the outcome of the top scorer race at season's end, if the guy finishing 2nd had fewer opportunities for attempting a penalty shot .
I can see why they limit choosing the shooter from those on the ice, at the time of the call.

You could say that about anything. Some guys are on the ice when the other team has the goalie out late game and some guys aren't.

 

[Purple Phart]

You could say that about anything. Some guys are on the ice when the other team has the goalie out late game and some guys aren't.

Actually, I'm only saying this specifically about penalty shots, ( not shoot-outs ) which are not really all that common. I mean seriously, how often do you get to see your team awarded one, or one called against your team ?
If the opportunities are limited to the players on the ice, then maybe your top scorer is a legitimate candidate...or maybe he isn't.

 

[ohloutsider]

If I had my way penalty shots would be removed from the game and just call penalties/powerplays. Penalty shots are just like shootouts - silly.

 

[HockeyPops]

I don't mind the penalty shot, but I think if the player misses then their team should still get a powerplay. If a player has a clear breakaway and the trailing defender is clearly out of position but still interferes (typically hook or trip) there should be an additional advantage over and above just the typical powerplay awarded. But again, the CHL will never change these kinds of rules without the NHL making the change first.

 

[bobber]

If I had my way penalty shots would be removed from the game and just call penalties/powerplays. Penalty shots are just like shootouts - silly.

I agree. Far too many changes to the old game. Next the players will roll around on the ice like soccer players and the refs will hand out yellow cards. Then the player screaming his leg is broke will jump up miraculously healed. Players use to get cut and call it a war wound. Now they rub their mouths with a tear in their eye looking at the ref.

 

[AttackSound]

If I had my way penalty shots would be removed from the game and just call penalties/powerplays. Penalty shots are just like shootouts - silly.

Couldn't agree more. Same kinda goes for video reviews for me.

I get the idea and in some cases belive that they should be used in certain situations like penalties but when it comes to reviewsit takes forever to sort them out. Like before the NHL came up with this idea that they need to review every single goal I think fans were more than comfortable letting the game play itself out naturally.

Nowadays it's more play for 10 minutes review a minor insignificant play for 30 minutes re-review it for anther 5 minutes. Like I understand the whole idea "Get the call right" but let's be honest here the only time they should be really reviewing anything is when either the puck is under a pile of guys and the official can't see the puck cross the line in which if he can't see it then the play should just be blown dead. Or if someone tries to intentionally hurt another player and caused bodily harm then yeah maybe review it for intentionally to injure another player. But nowadays they review so much and take so much time for the simplest of calls to stand with the original call it doesn't seem to make sense to have the review in the first place.

Like if they really wanted to make it impartial make a time limit say 2 minutes for each review and if they can't determine a reason to overturn it in that time then let the call on the ice stand. Like unless there's an intention to injure a player video reviews have become a tactic to just slow the game down for teams if they wanted to just slow the game down why doesn't the OHL think about doing what football or basketball does and have multiple timeouts instead of just 1 per-team.

In the end have the time the call on the ice stands which ends up being because the play was right and it is a minor play that will have very little to no outcome on the final result of the game.

 

[bobber]

Personally when you look at the amount of reviews in some games it's ridiculous. There are 4 officials on the ice. Players are either bumping into or skating around them like pilons. They still don't always get calls right or they ignore obvious infractions. It is evident in the reviews. No wonder all the coaches ands refs have ulcers. There has to be something missing in refereeing a game? Is it the speed of the game now that makes it difficult to cover? Refs have enough abusive comments directed at them every game. Now they have to endure the embarrassment of having to review whether they are right or wrong in real time. Also players have been honed at embellishments to top it off. Every player that feels a whisper of wind go by their chin tries to rub it raw hoping it bleeds somehow. I think a lot of changes in hockey are owed to catering to the American population trying to get them more interested in the game. Bright red and blue circles following pucks around and even NHL players names now in banners on power plays on the TV screen. They basically have taken the essence out of hockey and made it more boring.