End of Game Penalties

[TB1299]

I think that the game has a flaw because a player can clutch and grab and take a penalty with the seconds dying down and once the game ends thats it.

I like the NFL rule where the game can't end on a penalty unless you decline it.

Wouldn't mind seeing a PP given if a penalty is take that extends the game.

Or perhaps some see this as just a part of the game?

Click to read more...

 

[zar]

I think that the game has a flaw because a player can clutch and grab and take a penalty with the seconds dying down and once the game ends thats it.

I like the NFL rule where the game can't end on a penalty unless you decline it.

Wouldn't mind seeing a PP given if a penalty is take that extends the game.

Or perhaps some see this as just a part of the game?

In regulation or OT, if there is less than 1:00 to play in the period; every minor penalty should result in a penalty shot, OR major penalty results in 2 penalty shot attempts.

 

[Eric Sachs]

Not sure why you think the NFL has it figured out.

Game can't end on defensive penalties in the NFL. There's still a major loophole that was just manipulated recently where the offense can take a penalty to kill time off the clock. Team goes into punt formation and has everyone just grab and hold a player so they can kill time off the clock and end the game.

It's not really an issue that can be solved neatly.

 

[Kryten]

In regulation or OT, if there is less than 1:00 to play in the period; every minor penalty should result in a penalty shot, OR major penalty results in 2 penalty shot attempts.

I would like this as well but only in overtime

 

[kingsholygrail]

Penalties should carry over to the next game.

 

[Dog]

No need to artificially extend the game past 60 minutes if one team has failed to score the same amount of goals in the same amount of time.

 

[Les Averman]

Penalties should carry over to the next game.

The problem is that does nothing to help the team that was negatively affected by the penalty, and gives an advantage to an opposing team.

Let's just say an Eastern Conference team is on a West Coast trip and is playing the Kings one day and then the Ducks the next day. They take an egregious penalty against the Kings at the end of OT so that it goes to shootout. If you're then going to penalize the Eastern Conference team for the next game, you're then giving a power play to the Ducks to make up for a penalty against the Kings. In reality, you're handicapping the Kings by allowing the EC team to get away with the penalty in the previous game and then giving a rival, the Ducks, an advantage in their following game.

 

[Baemon Severson*]

A penalty committed with less than 15 seconds in regulation or OT should result in a penalty shot

 

[dubey]

The problem is that does nothing to help the team that was negatively affected by the penalty, and gives an advantage to an opposing team.

Let's just say an Eastern Conference team is on a West Coast trip and is playing the Kings one day and then the Ducks the next day. They take an egregious penalty against the Kings at the end of OT so that it goes to shootout. If you're then going to penalize the Eastern Conference team for the next game, you're then giving a power play to the Ducks to make up for a penalty against the Kings. In reality, you're handicapping the Kings by allowing the EC team to get away with the penalty in the previous game and then giving a rival, the Ducks, an advantage in their following game.

Agree - terrible idea

 

[Alwalys]

I think that the game has a flaw because a player can clutch and grab and take a penalty with the seconds dying down and once the game ends thats it.

I like the NFL rule where the game can't end on a penalty unless you decline it.

Wouldn't mind seeing a PP given if a penalty is take that extends the game.

Or perhaps some see this as just a part of the game?

what league are you watching that penalties are called in the last minute of a game?

 

[Roomtemperature]

Not sure why you think the NFL has it figured out.

Game can't end on defensive penalties in the NFL. There's still a major loophole that was just manipulated recently where the offense can take a penalty to kill time off the clock. Team goes into punt formation and has everyone just grab and hold a player so they can kill time off the clock and end the game.

It's not really an issue that can be solved neatly.

Sure if the other team is an idiot that accepts the penalty.

 

[Fig]

How about, those with penalty time after a game must sit out the next game for 2x time remaining for maximum 20 minutes?

For instance, player A has 1:00 remaining after game A. In game B, he can only begin playing at the 2:00 mark or later. The team plays as normal, this player(s) just isn't available for use for their allotted time.

Or, player B involved in a brawl ends up with something like 15:00 of penalties at the end of the game. Player B cannot play until the second period (max 20) of the next game.

Teams that purposefully violate the time "owing" on penalties from the previous game, receive an unsportsmanlike penalty and risk ejection of the player violating the rule depending on how egregious the time remaining violation was when the player got back on the ice.

As for enforcing this, I don't know how it would be done. Shove them in the penalty box and make changes as normal like when you have 2-3 guys in a box but keep playing 4 on 4? Although I'm sure this could be more automatic if player tracking is implemented.


But if it's going to be this damn complicated, maybe it's better to change nothing.

 

[Laveuglette]

The only thing that I could see working is giving the game an extension if the winning team gets a penalty when there's less than 2 mins left. Make it 2 mins. (but not if the losing team gets a penalty : getting a penalty at the end would be an advantage in that case)

Maybe it should just happen in 1-goal games. Can't see the purpose of this when the game is 5-0. But it would be so controversial that refs would never call penalties at the end.

 

[PensBandwagonerNo272*]

Penalties should carry over to the next game.

Against a completely different team?

michaelscottnonono.gif

 

[MacBradley]

I have this thought every single one goal game I watch at the end.

If a team has a penalty called on them with less that 2 minutes remaining, then the game doesn't stop until they kill that penalty.

It is a very logical solution. Right now, you see teams breaking the rules because they know there isn't a large consequence for stopping a good scoring chance in the last 30-60 seconds of a game. They're odds of winning are better if they take a penalty, get a line change, get some rest, and get their 50/50 chance at regaining puck possession off the face off. If breaking the rules of a game give a benefit in any situation, then the rules are flawed, IMO.

At least it isn't like the end of basketball games though, where every losing team ever has a clearly better chance at a comeback through fouling their butts off. It ruins so many basketball games.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

You know, they could just make all penalties last as long as they "should" (i.e. even 2 minute penalties last 2 minutes, no coming out if a goal is scored), and everything would probably work out without having to create this, extend that, etc. You'd see far less obstruction hooking/etc. if those penalties started costing 2, 3 goals sometimes.

 

[StoneHands]

I like the idea that a penalty with less than 20 seconds remaining in a game is an automatic penalty shot.

 

[StoneHands]

You know, they could just make all penalties last as long as they "should" (i.e. even 2 minute penalties last 2 minutes, no coming out if a goal is scored), and everything would probably work out without having to create this, extend that, etc. You'd see far less obstruction hooking/etc. if those penalties started costing 2, 3 goals sometimes.

I'm neutral on the full 2 minute idea. Part of me says yes but another part would feel dirty scoring 3 goals on a PP because a player shot the puck over the glass, or because a center fell on a faceoff and his glove touched the puck, or if a goalie touched the puck in the wrong area of the ice. I would be on board for a full 2 minute PP for what the officials could deem "aggressive" penalties which would be hook, slash, hold, trip, etc and have the penalty end after a goal for too many men, delay of game, etc.

Either way, that wouldn't stop someone from absolutely mugging someone in front of the net with 5 seconds left in a game. I agree that it would probably stop players from taking so many penalties but I think with a few seconds left in a game they wouldn't really care if it's really just a 5 second PP which may never occur if the other team doesn't touch the puck.

 

[Kirikanoir]

In regulation or OT, if there is less than 1:00 to play in the period; every minor penalty should result in a penalty shot, OR major penalty results in 2 penalty shot attempts.

What a horrible idea. All this would accomplish would be to have players on the losing team flopping all over the ice in the last minute to try to draw a penalty shot. And what about the puck over the glass penalty? It`s bad enough they call a 2 minute penalty for accidentally shooting the puck out of play, you want to make it worse by giving a team a penalty shot if it happens in the last minute.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I'm neutral on the full 2 minute idea. Part of me says yes but another part would feel dirty scoring 3 goals on a PP because a player shot the puck over the glass, or because a center fell on a faceoff and his glove touched the puck, or if a goalie touched the puck in the wrong area of the ice. I would be on board for a full 2 minute PP for what the officials could deem "aggressive" penalties which would be hook, slash, hold, trip, etc and have the penalty end after a goal for too many men, delay of game, etc.

You know, I think there's some middle ground that can be found in there somewhere. Like, maybe they don't have to artificially increase the number of things that result in penalties (trapezoid, over the glass) if penalties for the "real" stuff (slashing, holding, hooking, tripping) are costly enough as is (i.e. last full two minutes, possibly yield more than one goal, etc).

Either way, that wouldn't stop someone from absolutely mugging someone in front of the net with 5 seconds left in a game. I agree that it would probably stop players from taking so many penalties but I think with a few seconds left in a game they wouldn't really care if it's really just a 5 second PP which may never occur if the other team doesn't touch the puck.

Maybe there's, again, some middle ground. Say, games can't end until either the penalty expires or a goal removes it from the board (if we're still using "standard" 2 min. penalty rules). Same same but different idea behind extra time in soccer?

 

[SensNation613]

They should bank it for the next game

 

[missingjibbsclub]

Nah leave it as it is. Shouldn't have waited until the last 10 seconds to tie up the game.

 

[llamateizer]

I don't see what we're trying to fix.

By pure justice, yes the player should serve the penalty.

I don't mind penalties being carried over to the next game against the same team.

 

[Seanaconda]

If a team was losing they would take a penalty to extend the game and try to score shorthanded. I think the penalty shot idea could work tho

 

[StoneHands]

If a team was losing they would take a penalty to extend the game and try to score shorthanded. I think the penalty shot idea could work tho

There's a really easy way to fix that. Don't allow it. It's pretty easy to write into the rule that a game will not end if a team is on a powerplay and down by 1 goal. Even if it's a 2 goal game, the game ends because you can't score 2 goals on a 2 minute powerplay.