Just a tiny insignificant rule change idea

[JoVel]

If a player scores on a penalty shot, the players who would've gotten assists if he had scored on the play leading to the penalty shot should still be awarded with assists.

It's a humongous and a ridiculous idea and would completely start a new era in the league, I know.

Click to read more...

 

[MtoD]

no

 

[McTrashBoat]

what a 2am thread

not a terrible idea, but why?

 

[lakai17]

not a terrible idea, but why?

To benefit his fantasy team of course.

 

[Mobiandi]

What about if the shot's saved or you miss, you get the powerplay anyway

 

[SotasicA]

Yes. If the play was such that there would be an assist or two, then I don't see why an infraction by the defenders would reduce the importance of those assists.

And obviously, like, if the penalty shot was awarded for something like closing hand on puck in the crease etc, then no assists awarded just like now.

Daly/Bettman, make it so.

 

[cowboy82nd]

No assists on a penalty shot.

 

[JoVel]

what a 2am thread

not a terrible idea, but why?

Just because

 

[saffronleaf]

One minor rule change that I've seen people discuss is that if a team scores during a delayed penalty, they still get the PP after. It wouldn't cancel out the PP.

Another good one I think is that if you score on the PP, the PP doesn't end.

 

[ijuka]

One minor rule change that I've seen people discuss is that if a team scores during a delayed penalty, they still get the PP after. It wouldn't cancel out the PP.

I've always wondered why it cancels the PP. It really shouldn't.

After all, the player's not even in the penalty box yet.

 

[RageQuit77]

I would get rid off penalty shots altogether. If there occur a situation that warrants a penalty shot, then that situation should be handled simply by giving 5 minutes penalty (or 2+2, or 5+2).

Delayed penalty is idiocy that shouldn't even exist, at least in its current form. Penalty was not actually delayed in those situations where a goal was scored as it didn't even happen after the fact. Where was the penalty? Why it was delayed?

 

[Eisen]

One minor rule change that I've seen people discuss is that if a team scores during a delayed penalty, they still get the PP after. It wouldn't cancel out the PP.

Another good one I think is that if you score on the PP, the PP doesn't end.

It ends because the 50s Canadiens were too good at it.

 

[saffronleaf]

It ends because the 50s Canadiens were too good at it.

With the cap and parity, I guess we can bring it back.

 

[CanadianPensFan1]

Oh dear. Sid's secondaey assist haters would all jump off bridges.

 

[Shakey Rustie]

If the player doesn't score he has to play for the opposing team for the rest of the game.

 

[SotasicA]

One minor rule change that I've seen people discuss is that if a team scores during a delayed penalty, they still get the PP after. It wouldn't cancel out the PP.

Another good one I think is that if you score on the PP, the PP doesn't end.

I'm not happy with one minor infraction costing a team 2 goals. That's nearly the entire game on one single, minor, call.

 

[dangomon]

What about if the shot's saved or you miss, you get the powerplay anyway

I've always thought you should be able to decline a penalty shot in favour of 2 mins on the PP. I don't think you should get two shots at it (penalty shot and PP if you miss), seems excessive.

 

[lakai17]

Although the player who gets the game winner in a shoot out result with both teams should be awarded the goal for seasonal stats. Doesn't the goal itself count on team stats.

 

[JoVel]

Although the player who gets the game winner in a shoot out result with both teams should be awarded the goal for seasonal stats. Doesn't the goal itself count on team stats.

Some stat sites ignore shootout winners, some don't. I got no idea which is the official way.

 

[Nico Hischier]

Shootouts only matter statistically for goalies

 

[Nico Hischier]

Shootouts affect GA and GF but no player gets awarded the goal

 

[Sgt Schultz]

What about if the shot's saved or you miss, you get the powerplay anyway

I've always thought this was a good idea. The idea of the penalty shot is to give the opportunity back to the shooter that the penalty denied. I think you can argue it provides a better opportunity since he gets to skate in unchallenged by pursuing defenders. But be that as it may, the penalty still did occur, so if you restore the opportunity and it leads to no goal, enforce the penalty, just as you would on a random hook or hold. In essence, the penalty shot just allows the play in which the foul occurs to conclude.

I would not enforce the penalty when a goal is scored on the play or the penalty shot. My rationale is the "harmed" team got an advantage from the penalty by having a 6 on 5 situation (or a penalty shot), and that resulted in a goal. No point in penalizing the offending team twice when a goal already resulted.

 

[SympathyForTheDevils]

I've always thought this was a good idea. The idea of the penalty shot is to give the opportunity back to the shooter that the penalty denied. I think you can argue it provides a better opportunity since he gets to skate in unchallenged by pursuing defenders. But be that as it may, the penalty still did occur, so if you restore the opportunity and it leads to no goal, enforce the penalty, just as you would on a random hook or hold. In essence, the penalty shot just allows the play in which the foul occurs to conclude.

I would not enforce the penalty when a goal is scored on the play or the penalty shot. My rationale is the "harmed" team got an advantage from the penalty by having a 6 on 5 situation (or a penalty shot), and that resulted in a goal. No point in penalizing the offending team twice when a goal already resulted.

The big problem with this is that it then becomes significantly more advantageous to dive and embellish on a break away than to actually try to score. You end up with the original hampered opportunity; if you don't score on it you get the PS; if you miss on the PS you get a powerplay. That's overkill.

The penalty shot is perfect. It's the only disciplinary intervention in the sport that is completely fair. Got unfairly hindered during a prime scoring chance? You get another, even better one right back. Generally I see way less complaints and frustration about penalty shots than I see about every other penalty call. No reason to make it worse by adding punishment for punishment's sake.

I'm always baffled that people continuously complain that referees are terrible, and at same time frequently suggest (in this thread and others) that we should make powerplays more impactful, and so give them more power to decide games. I don't want to be watching games where the highlight of the night is the ref raising his arm. Powerplays are the worst thing about hockey (well, maybe after brain damage).

As for OP's suggestion, it makes a certain kind of sense, but it's also hard to justify, and too trivial to actually put effort into changing it.

 

[saffronleaf]

I'm not happy with one minor infraction costing a team 2 goals. That's nearly the entire game on one single, minor, call.

better work on that PK if you're letting in 2 goals on a 2 min minor.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

The big problem with this is that it then becomes significantly more advantageous to dive and embellish on a break away than to actually try to score. You end up with the original hampered opportunity; if you don't score on it you get the PS; if you miss on the PS you get a powerplay. That's overkill.

The penalty shot is perfect. It's the only disciplinary intervention in the sport that is completely fair. Got unfairly hindered during a prime scoring chance? You get another, even better one right back. Generally I see way less complaints and frustration about penalty shots than I see about every other penalty call. No reason to make it worse by adding punishment for punishment's sake.

I'm always baffled that people continuously complain that referees are terrible, and at same time frequently suggest (in this thread and others) that we should make powerplays more impactful, and so give them more power to decide games. I don't want to be watching games where the highlight of the night is the ref raising his arm. Powerplays are the worst thing about hockey (well, maybe after brain damage).

As for OP's suggestion, it makes a certain kind of sense, but it's also hard to justify, and too trivial to actually put effort into changing it.

Don't lump me in that group. I'm not one to complain about the referees. Do they miss calls? Sure, and I expect them to. Just like I expect shooters to sometimes miss open sections of nets and defensemen to misplay pucks. I also think they generally do a better job of officiating than I see in other sports and a better job of preventative officiating by giving direction to players during the game than in any other sport.

I'm also not in favor of making power plays shooting galleries. I've seen the suggestions for not allowing free icing for penalty killers and making minor penalties two minutes regardless of whether a goal is scored. At best, a penalty prevents a single goal from being scored (save the guy who knocks somebody out of the game), and the goal shouldn't be to do any more than even that score. I don't want to see an interference call well away from the puck result in two or three goals.

Speaking of penalty shots, I am about to see one (Canadiens vs. Blues). Legitimate call. Not successful...and not really a great attempt, either.