End of Game Penalties

[Preisst*]

Tennis deals with "deuce" scenarios like this, so no reason hockey couldn't. Maybe successfully tying it during the extension gets you to a shootout, instead of constantly going back and forth. Otherwise, time expires, game over. I dunno, I can imagine plenty of ways that it "could" be done if gamesmanship of taking penalties late in games was really deemed to be an issue worth addressing.

If Team A takes a penalty with 1 minute left in the game and then they are playing the extra minute of the penalty after the regulation 60 minute game is over, THEN Team A (or B) takes a penalty when there are only 5 seconds left to play in the "penalty time" now the teams have to play another 1:55 to play out the 2nd penalty. This penalty taking could go on forever, and the game might never end.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

So now we're changing the rules based on the in-game score?

Well, yeah. Because otherwise why are we caring about minor penalties curbing a single scoring opportunity late in a game? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

It is just an out and out bad idea with zero ways of nuancing the rules to make it work. Just my opinion, frankly I can't believe I'm even participating in a discussion about something so inane.

I do appreciate you trying to think it out and see if there is a way to make it work but look at it this way, there is nothing wrong with the way it is. It's life. Games have an expiration time on them for a reason.

Games also have provisions for extending beyond "regulation time" already, presumably also for "reasons"...

edit: but again, let's imagine a compromise. What if the got rid of what we know as "overtime" altogether. The only games that would get extended with playing time would be games with penalties that must be served at the end. All ties, whether "in regulation" or as the result of the extension go to shootouts. Relatively easy, probably results in fewer minutes played by players over the course of the season because of no even strength OT, and they wouldn't have to get rid of their pet shootout gimic either.

 

[Preisst*]

Well, yeah. Because otherwise why are we caring about minor penalties curbing a single scoring opportunity late in a game? Hypothetically speaking, of course.



Games also have provisions for extending beyond "regulation time" already, presumably also for "reasons"...

edit: but again, let's imagine a compromise. What if the got rid of what we know as "overtime" altogether. The only games that would get extended with playing time would be games with penalties that must be served at the end. All ties, whether "in regulation" or as the result of the extension go to shootouts. Relatively easy, probably results in fewer minutes played by players over the course of the season because of no even strength OT, and they wouldn't have to get rid of their pet shootout gimic either.

Getting rid of OT would not eliminate the problem of overlapping penalties possibly extending a game to infinity.

Plus, and this is more of a personal issue rather then a logistical one, the elimination of OT would only increase the shootout which is a gimmick that I think should be eliminated altogether.

It's simply an out and out bad idea that would not even make it to the discussion table cuz it's really that bad of a suggestion. Possibly the worst one ever put forward.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Getting rid of OT would not eliminate the problem of overlapping penalties possibly extending a game to infinity.

That's not a realistic concern... at all. With teams averaging 16 goals for every 87 PP opportunities (even in one of the lowest scoring years on modern record), you'd be unlikely to see as much as 10 minutes played before a goal either ended the game or set up a shootout; especially as 1 man advantages turn into 2 man advantages if teams (having already played nearly a full game, mind you) really tried to explore the possibilities behind extending the game with overlapping penalties. I don't think any team has successfully killed as much as 20 consecutive minutes of powerplay in any game, ever, and I don't think they'll start being able to after having already played 60 minutes that night.

 

[Preisst*]

That's not a realistic concern... at all. With teams averaging 16 goals for every 87 PP opportunities (even in one of the lowest scoring years on modern record), you'd be unlikely to see as much as 10 minutes played before a goal either ended the game or set up a shootout; especially as 1 man advantages turn into 2 man advantages if teams (having already played nearly a full game, mind you) really tried to explore the possibilities behind extending the game with overlapping penalties. I don't think any team has successfully killed as much as 20 consecutive minutes of powerplay in any game, ever, and I don't think they'll start being able to after having already played 60 minutes that night.

I'd say it's just as realistic as getting the apparent top hockey minds in the world to even consider such a concept though. Let's face it, it is an out and out BAD idea.

 

[coolboarder]

There should be a special rule for hockey in term of penalty called in the 1:59 or less. Penalty is called accordingly and if the game goes without a PP goal by the end of the 3rd period when game's over with a 1 goal difference or game tied at end of OT then a penalty shot is automatic rewarded to the team with an untimed play. That way, the defending team cannot get away by hooking, holding, interference to preserve the lead or a chance to get into the shootout.

In the NFL, a fair catch after a punt at the end of the half can be played with a free kick or a defensive penalty resulted in an untimed play as NFL's special rules.

In chess, there's promotion, en passant and castling as chess's special rules.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I'd say it's just as realistic as getting the apparent top hockey minds in the world to even consider such a concept though. Let's face it, it is an out and out BAD idea.

Never ending hockey games where teams are never at even strength to end the game is not even close to as realistic, sorry. Other major sports have tinkered with how they approach the last minutes of regulation time (re: abusing anything that wastes time/kills clock). Let's face it, one of these things (tweaking last minute rules) has happened before in professional sports (multiple times), the other (never ending games) hasn't.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

If the game ends on a penalty in the playoffs, it should extend to the next game of the series.

 

[Preisst*]

Never ending hockey games where teams are never at even strength to end the game is not even close to as realistic, sorry. Other major sports have tinkered with how they approach the last minutes of regulation time (re: abusing anything that wastes time/kills clock). Let's face it, one of these things (tweaking last minute rules) has happened before in professional sports (multiple times), the other (never ending games) hasn't.

I don't completely disagree but let's take a step back for a moment, is it really even an issue?

If it is an issue what is the issue?

What's the big deal about it?

If the only concern that fans have is that it's not "fair" then it just verifies how pointless it is to drastically change the game because of it.

 

[Preisst*]

If the game ends on a penalty in the playoffs, it should extend to the next game of the series.

For what purpose?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I don't completely disagree but let's take a step back for a moment, is it really even an issue?

If it is an issue what is the issue?

What's the big deal about it?

If the only concern that fans have is that it's not "fair" then it just verifies how pointless it is to drastically change the game because of it.

I said as much earlier on. I haven't identified any particular problem with it over the years. But as a thought experiment, I have a few ideas about how it could play out.

 

[Tom Collins]

Penalties should carry over to the next game.

Keep those ideas in Derpifornia.

You have 60 minutes to make a difference. I don't feel anyone should be given any extra chances regardless of penalties.

 

[adsfan]

Still can't believe Emelin wasn't suspended for that but I guess we can't forget what team he plays for.

As a Nashville fan (neutral), he SHOULD have been suspended. I would not want to be in his skates the next time those two teams play. Everybody, including the trainer, is going to be after him after the lack of justice from the league office. This is just terrible! I am glad that JVR didn't get a broken neck from that hit at the end of the game.

 

[Preisst*]

As a Nashville fan (neutral), he SHOULD have been suspended. I would not want to be in his skates the next time those two teams play. Everybody, including the trainer, is going to be after him after the lack of justice from the league office. This is just terrible! I am glad that JVR didn't get a broken neck from that hit at the end of the game.

I agree and it's not a case of being a Maple Leafs fan for me either. As my friends can attest I abhor hitting from behind. In this case I don't even care there were only .08 seconds left on the game clock, it was the act itself.

I saw Brad Hornung get paralyzed in the mid-80's but I've hated hits from behind into the boards before even then.