How should a 5 minute major affect a power play? Should we cap the numbers of goals allowed?

[bobholly39]

Obviously i'm bringing this up because of how the game ended in SJ last night - but it's always been something i've felt too, last night just exposed it. A 5 minute major penalty is a bit overpowering I find.

2 minute penalty - 1 goal scored and it's done.
5 minute penalty - lasts the whole 5 minute, regardless of how many goals scored. And SJ obviously scored 4 yesterday.

Even though it's a rare occurrence, - it seems overpowering to me.

I think there should be a limit to how many goals can be scored on a power play until it's over.

Which of these following options would you like to see enforced on major penalties moving forward?

1. 5 Minute penalty - if 1 goal is scored on the powerplay, the penalty ends

2. 5 Minute penalty - once 2 goals are scored on the powerplay, the penalty ends

3. 5 minute penalty - once 3 goals are scored on the powerplay, the penalty ends

4. No change - 5 minute penalty lasts the whole 5 minutes regardless of goals scored

5. Other (post explanation)

I've always felt that option 2 would be the best way to go. 5 minute major - once 2 goals are scored, penalty is over. Anything more than that seems overpowering. ESPECIALLY when you consider that in contrast, 10 minutes misconduct lead to 0 powerplay, even though they're generally worst offense. Seems inconsistent.

If a 2 minute penalty can end when a goal is scored - the same should be available for a 5 minute penalty (but make it 2 goals, since it's a bigger penalty).

What does everyone else think?

Click to read more...

 

[The Duck Knight]

There's nothing wrong with it as is.

The officials just need to be damn sure such a call is justified.

 

[Le Magnifique 66]

No the rule should not change. A major remains a major
What needs to change is to get the call right

Refs just like every sport need to review decisions they're aren't sure about, simple as that. Especially when it's a major penalty, they should automatic review if it's a 2 or 5

 

[Therick67]

No. It's fine the way it is.

 

[bobholly39]

No the rule should not change. A major remains a major
What needs to change is to get the call right

Refs just like every sport need to review decisions they're aren't sure about, simple as that. Especially when it's a major penalty, they should automatic review if it's a 2 or 5

Don't want to go too off topic in discussing this but - even if there was a willingness for the NHL to do this - there's simply no easy way to implement it.

So when a ref calls a 5 min on the ice - they should review play to see if it warrants 5, or just 2. Seems simple enough. The problem is this happens like 10% of the time.
20% of the time a 2 minute penalty is called when it warrants being a 5 minute call. Do we review those too? And if so - who makes the final call, refs on-ice, or the league reviewers on top?
and 70% of the time the issue is a super blatant obvious penalty (very often that should be 5 minutes) simply doesn't get called at all. Either the refs missed it completely, or simply decided not to call it. Do we review those too? Does the coach ask to review, or the league, or the refs? How do you even begin to police that?

I agree with the idea of being able to review penalties to try and eliminate really bad calls. But how? 5 minute majors are pretty rare - and most of the time when they're called they're warranted. If that's all you're looking to fix i suppose that's fine, but it only addresses such a small part of the overall problem of bad reffing that it seems not enough.

 

[The Duck Knight]

Don't want to go too off topic in discussing this but - even if there was a willingness for the NHL to do this - there's simply no easy way to implement it.

So when a ref calls a 5 min on the ice - they should review play to see if it warrants 5, or just 2. Seems simple enough. The problem is this happens like 10% of the time.
20% of the time a 2 minute penalty is called when it warrants being a 5 minute call. Do we review those too? And if so - who makes the final call, refs on-ice, or the league reviewers on top?
and 70% of the time the issue is a super blatant obvious penalty (very often that should be 5 minutes) simply doesn't get called at all. Either the refs missed it completely, or simply decided not to call it. Do we review those too? Does the coach ask to review, or the league, or the refs? How do you even begin to police that?

I agree with the idea of being able to review penalties to try and eliminate really bad calls. But how? 5 minute majors are pretty rare - and most of the time when they're called they're warranted. If that's all you're looking to fix i suppose that's fine, but it only addresses such a small part of the overall problem of bad reffing that it seems not enough.

They could always err on the side of caution and give the 5 on plays they aren't sure about and review them after the fact. That would seemingly be the most logical thing.

Even under penalizing would be better because then at least supplemental discipline can get involved later. You over do it like last night and there's no recourse that makes both parties feel they were treated fairly.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

If they called more minors there'd be fewer majors to call.

 

[ThaiTanicDK]

The knights are out in force today eh. Wouldnt it have been better if they didnt allow 4 goals in 5 minutes? Look in wards at your special team play instead of lashing out.

 

[KopitarFAN]

Last night was such a rare occurrence, a major assessed on a bad call, and the power play actually coming through and scoring a bunch, so often we see them score 0-1 on a major.

 

[The Duck Knight]

Last night was such a rare occurrence, a major assessed on a bad call, and the power play actually coming through and scoring a bunch, so often we see them score 0-1.

So bad calls are okay as long as the benefitting team doesn't take advantage. I'd rather just see the refs/league do a better job all around.

 

[crazyfisherman]

No problem with the current rules with the majors. Problem is refs cant just make up a major because they see a player on the ice

 

[bobholly39]

The knights are out in force today eh. Wouldnt it have been better if they didnt allow 4 goals in 5 minutes? Look in wards at your special team play instead of lashing out.

Not a knight fan - i'm happy SJ won. Major penalties have always seemed potentially overpowering to me and last night was a great example of that.

Pretty shocked with the poll results - i thought there might be a bit more of an appetite for option 2.

 

[KopitarFAN]

So bad calls are okay as long as the benefitting team doesn't take advantage. I'd rather just see the refs/league do a better job all around.

Did I say that? No. Simply said the stars aligned in a horrible (or spectacular, depending on your perspective) way. Of course they need to do a better job, but that doesn't mean doing away with the punitive nature of the major penalty.

 

[The Duck Knight]

Did I say that? No. Simply said the stars aligned in a horrible (or spectacular, depending on your perspective) way. Of course they need to do a better job, but that doesn't mean doing away with the punitive nature of the major penalty.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. The lack of sleep is getting to me. I agree that there is nothing wrong with the current way majors work.

 

[Fugazy]

There's nothing wrong with it as is.

The officials just need to be damn sure such a call is justified.

Completely agreed.

 

[AuraSphere]

I think in making the decision, refs should be allowed to look at video review to see if it really is a 5 min call.

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

this is not what needs to be changed about what happened last night.

 

[tony d]

I went with Option 4.

 

[FlameChampion]

I think its fine as is.

The problem is the consistency in which the referees/nhl make the calls. I say nhl because they mandate what the referees call.

If you take a look at the play from last night. Is it a major penalty? Well it could be, but I would argue with the way things are regularly called, it shouldnt of been. They made the call based on the outcome. Just because they dont regularly call a play like a major, doesnt mean it shouldnt be a major penalty, at least speaking generally.

As mentioned, the issue is the consistency. Some plays are penalties, some are not. What was a penalty in the regular season, isnt a penalty in the playoffs. What was a penalty in regulation, is not a penalty in overtime. Its confusing as heck.

The other issue is, was it called a major because it was 3-0? If the score was 3-2 or 2-2, would it still be called a major? We dont know for sure, but I would argue that if the game was closer score wise, or it was in overtime, it would of been a minor penalty or no penalty. The referees game manage all the time. Sometimes because they dont want to decide the outcome the game, they dont call stuff, which guess what, controls the outcome of the game.

What they should strive for is calling a penalty a penalty. Doesnt matter if its preseason, regular season, playoffs, overtime. If its a penalty, just call it. It would clean up the game a lot, I think.

As far as the major penalty goes, and how many goals should be scored, as mentioned above, I think its fine as it should be. I would argue that perhaps, teams should get the full 2 minutes of the minor PP to score as many goals as they can. It might help to get some of the stupid penalties out of the game.

 

[Kcb12345]

Maybe be better on the PK instead?

 

[Ralonzo]

This would bother me so much less if the NHL just said "we screwed up the call, the refs can't infer penalties based on results, we'll discipline those guys and try to do better" instead of trying to laughably justify it. Remember what Gretzky said about stuff like that? It's still true, all of it.

So when a ref calls a 5 min on the ice - they should review play to see if it warrants 5, or just 2. Seems simple enough. The problem is this happens like 10% of the time.

A good model would be targeting infractions in NCAA football. Automatic review.

Maybe be better on the PK instead?

Not an argument.

 

[spiny norman]

Lopsided result.