Rule change proposal: Penalties in the last two minutes

[Huggy]

Just dont like it.

By nature penalty calls at the end of the game benefit the defender as they can ice the puck and change.

I thinm adding time is ******** just cant justify it. You had 55 minutes to score more goals than they did. I know entertainment ramps up at the end of the game but

Say a penalty is called on a team with an extended clock. Does it extend again, a 5-3 goal when the clock says 63:34 thatd be funny

Never happening

 

[TheFinnishTrap]

I don't really like it and I don't see it happening. In theory it's a good idea, but as it has been pointed out, it would probably result in referees calling even less penalties late in the game and players doing more diving. I also don't like the idea of extending the regulation time. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and there are arguments as to why NHL would want to keep the games shorter. I think it makes sense that the trailing team would get some kind of compensation if they get a power play with less than 2 minutes left, but I think that maybe a penalty shot would serve the purpose better.

However I like the idea that if a team gets a power play late in a period, they get to begin the next period in the opponents zone.

 

[Summer Rose]

So you're on the side of the teams who use the limited time to their advantage by using every dirty trick in the book to thwart scoring attempts because there's so little time left and a power play is meaningless, so go ahead and haul any player down by any means necessary. That's an even more bastardized version of hockey right there.

From a pure probability standpoint, I don't think that defensive tactic is either very advantageous or actually makes a significant enough impact to warrant changing the rules of the game. Of course, I'm just imagining probabilities in my head, but the chances of a team tying the game with so little time remaining aren't very high to begin with. The advantage gained (i.e. reduction in probability of conceding the tying goal) by doing something illegal does not seem like it would offset the slightly increased probability of conceding a tying goal with one less skater on the ice as the result of the penalty, except perhaps in very rare cases. Of course, I don't have a statistical study to back this gut feeling up, but you'd think that if it were widely considered advantageous to do it then we'd see it a lot more often.

One very rare case I could imagine where it would be a huge advantage to take a penalty though is, say, with a very small amount of time left (say under 10 seconds) an attacking player gets the puck in the low slot and has a good opportunity to score. It would be pretty prudent of of a defending player to do just about anything to him in that situation, such as hook him down. Down a man for just a few seconds is in fact practically meaningless at that point, plus you go from the attacking team having puck possession to an end zone faceoff, where the defending team will have a more or less 50% chance to win the faceoff and prevent the attacking team from even getting an opportunity for a shot on goal. How often do you see this happen, though? Or for that matter, how many refs do you know who will actually call a 2-minute minor with just a few seconds left? As a ref myself, in that hypothetical situation, I may very well judge that it's more advantageous to the trailing team to simply let play continue, and deliberately not call the penalty.

 

[jw2]

Don't blame the clock. Blame the team that couldn't score for 60 minutes.

 

[bobholly39]

So, I've noticed something that's happened twice in Round 2, and it's bugged me. A player takes a penalty in the last two minutes of the game, and the opposing team doesn't get a full power play, simply because the clock's about to run out - and, to top it all off, the team on the power play is exactly one goal behind - meaning they lose some time to tie up the game.

The two games where this happened are the Game 4 in the Chicago/Minnesota series, and game 3 in the Anaheim/Calgary series. In the first game, Chicago's ahead 4-3, and has a penalty at 19:45 of the third period for too many men on the ice. Minnesota only gets 15 seconds of PP time - and, of course, they don't score in that short time. In the second game, it's a puck over glass penalty that gives Calgary only 92 seconds of PP time while trailing 3-2 - not a terribly unfair, but unfair nonetheless. In that case, Gaudreau does get a PPG, forcing OT, so this rule wouldn't come into play.

Here's my proposal. When a team is 1 goal ahead and commits a non-matching minor penalty in the last 2 minutes of the third period, play continues until the penalty clock runs out - not just the main clock. In theory, the last period could last as long as 22 minutes. If the offending team scores a SHG after the main clock runs out (but the penalty clock is still running), game over, because they're now two goals ahead, and a PPG would empty the penalty clock and they'd still be 1 goal ahead. If the PP team scores after the main clock runs out (but before the penalty clock runs out), then the third period is over, the game is tied, and you go into OT.

I know there are already a few rules in place to prevent stupid fights from happening in the final minutes - like the automatic suspension of an instigator. The only problem I'd see is if there's a brawl at the end of a close game when the game over horn sounds - if one team gets an extra minor, it's back on the ice. That could be a controversial thing. Plus, I'm not sure exactly how to deal with double minors in this case - but a double minor in the last two mintues probably doesn't happen often enough to warrant consideration. I used to think a penalty in the last two minutes didn't happen often enough to warrant consideration, but those two games show that it might be a way to adjust the game to make it more fair.

One technical consideration is that you'd have to add a decimal point to the penalty clock...but I think we have the technology to handle that.

It's funny I read the thread title, and then i read your first 2 paragraphs, and I was 100% sure I knew what you would propose, but this wasn't it.

What about this idea instead:

43 seconds left in the game...random player, let's say Patrick Kane, takes a 2 minute minor penalty. Regardless of what the score is (whether Chicago is winning, trailing, or tied)...if the game ends and there's still 1:17 left on the penalty (meaning other team didn't score on the PP to end the PP) - Patrick Kane starts the next game in the penalty box for 1:17.

If it's a major - Patrick Kane spends the rest of the major penalty in the box the next game.

If it's a 10 minute misconduct -Patrick Kane spends the rest of the 10 minutes not available to play the next game (in the box - but it's not an actual "power play" against Chicago).

That right there would hold players accountable.

In the regular season - well odds are if Chicago was playing Anaheim when he took the penalty - the next game Chicago probably plays a different team. Let's say it's St-Louis? Well - St-Louis is lucky and starts the game on a powerplay for 1:17.

This does a few things:


1. Make the beginning of certain games more exciting

2. Holds players accountable for taking penalties

3. Holds an even bigger importance in the playoffs - where the next game is against the same team you took the penalty on.

And if Patrick Kane was scratched for the next game (obviously - Kane wouldn't be scratched but say it was a 4th liner instead of Kane) - well Chicago *still* starts the next game on a penalty kill for 1:17 and they can pick to put someone else in the box instead of him.

What do people think about this idea?

 

[ImIdaho]

This is what they do in football. It doesn't matter if the clock hits 0 after the ball has been snapped, if the defense commits a foul, the offense gets another shot on offense while moving the ball depending on the type of foul.

And guess what happens if the defense commits another stupid penalty?

So, why can't this league implement something like this? I also remember people were frowning upon coaches being able to challenge calls. With the way these dumb refs have been calling games, I think it's a forgone conclusion that coaches will be able to challenge calls. That will deter the zebras from making bogus calls are putting away their whistles in the final two minutes.

 

[glovesave_35]

There is nothing "unfair" about only getting 15 seconds of a PP if the penalty occurred with only 15 seconds in regulation. This is a solution searching for a problem.

 

[roboninja]

Messing with the game clock is just not a good idea. It would never be approved by the Board of Governors.

If you are worried about lack of PP time for late penalties, make a rule that any penalty with under 1 minute left is a penalty shot.

 

[glovesave_35]

That right there would hold players accountable.

In the regular season - well odds are if Chicago was playing Anaheim when he took the penalty - the next game Chicago probably plays a different team. Let's say it's St-Louis? Well - St-Louis is lucky and starts the game on a powerplay for 1:17.

This does a few things:


1. Make the beginning of certain games more exciting

2. Holds players accountable for taking penalties

3. Holds an even bigger importance in the playoffs - where the next game is against the same team you took the penalty on.

And if Patrick Kane was scratched for the next game (obviously - Kane wouldn't be scratched but say it was a 4th liner instead of Kane) - well Chicago *still* starts the next game on a penalty kill for 1:17 and they can pick to put someone else in the box instead of him.

What do people think about this idea?

Bleeding one game into the next might be worse than OP's idea. Why should a random team get to start a game on the PP when they did absolutely nothing to earn it. New games are new games. Clean slate and the whole bit.

 

[glovesave_35]

Messing with the game clock is just not a good idea. It would never be approved by the Board of Governors.

If you are worried about lack of PP time for late penalties, make a rule that any penalty with under 1 minute left is a penalty shot.

This is what I assumed OP's suggestion would be. I'm not sure I would be for it, but it seems like a much simpler way to keep players honest and messes with the fabric of the game the least.

 

[Jakomyte]

Messing with the game clock is just not a good idea. It would never be approved by the Board of Governors.

If you are worried about lack of PP time for late penalties, make a rule that any penalty with under 1 minute left is a penalty shot.

Yeah, I agree that anything that changes the length of regulation just won't fly. If we want to ensure that penalties in the last minute are felt a bit strong I'd do one of two things:

1) What this poster said, make any penalty in the last minute a penalty shot

2) If a 2-minute minor is taken with less than 1 minute left in regulation, make it a 5-on-3 until time runs out. If a goal is scored, it negates remainder of the penalty (so it doesn't go to 5-on-4 if a goal is scored).

I think both would make taking a last-minute penalty less appealing. Ultimately I think the penalty shot makes a bit more sense, because it doesn't introduce anything too 'new' to the table.

 

[colchar]

So, I've noticed something that's happened twice in Round 2, and it's bugged me. A player takes a penalty in the last two minutes of the game, and the opposing team doesn't get a full power play, simply because the clock's about to run out - and, to top it all off, the team on the power play is exactly one goal behind - meaning they lose some time to tie up the game.

The two games where this happened are the Game 4 in the Chicago/Minnesota series, and game 3 in the Anaheim/Calgary series. In the first game, Chicago's ahead 4-3, and has a penalty at 19:45 of the third period for too many men on the ice. Minnesota only gets 15 seconds of PP time - and, of course, they don't score in that short time. In the second game, it's a puck over glass penalty that gives Calgary only 92 seconds of PP time while trailing 3-2 - not a terribly unfair, but unfair nonetheless. In that case, Gaudreau does get a PPG, forcing OT, so this rule wouldn't come into play.

Here's my proposal. When a team is 1 goal ahead and commits a non-matching minor penalty in the last 2 minutes of the third period, play continues until the penalty clock runs out - not just the main clock. In theory, the last period could last as long as 22 minutes. If the offending team scores a SHG after the main clock runs out (but the penalty clock is still running), game over, because they're now two goals ahead, and a PPG would empty the penalty clock and they'd still be 1 goal ahead. If the PP team scores after the main clock runs out (but before the penalty clock runs out), then the third period is over, the game is tied, and you go into OT.

I know there are already a few rules in place to prevent stupid fights from happening in the final minutes - like the automatic suspension of an instigator. The only problem I'd see is if there's a brawl at the end of a close game when the game over horn sounds - if one team gets an extra minor, it's back on the ice. That could be a controversial thing. Plus, I'm not sure exactly how to deal with double minors in this case - but a double minor in the last two mintues probably doesn't happen often enough to warrant consideration. I used to think a penalty in the last two minutes didn't happen often enough to warrant consideration, but those two games show that it might be a way to adjust the game to make it more fair.

One technical consideration is that you'd have to add a decimal point to the penalty clock...but I think we have the technology to handle that.

Just leave the game alone.

 

[talkinaway]

It's funny I read the thread title, and then i read your first 2 paragraphs, and I was 100% sure I knew what you would propose, but this wasn't it.

What about this idea instead:

43 seconds left in the game...random player, let's say Patrick Kane, takes a 2 minute minor penalty. Regardless of what the score is (whether Chicago is winning, trailing, or tied)...if the game ends and there's still 1:17 left on the penalty (meaning other team didn't score on the PP to end the PP) - Patrick Kane starts the next game in the penalty box for 1:17.

If it's a major - Patrick Kane spends the rest of the major penalty in the box the next game.

If it's a 10 minute misconduct -Patrick Kane spends the rest of the 10 minutes not available to play the next game (in the box - but it's not an actual "power play" against Chicago).

That right there would hold players accountable.

In the regular season - well odds are if Chicago was playing Anaheim when he took the penalty - the next game Chicago probably plays a different team. Let's say it's St-Louis? Well - St-Louis is lucky and starts the game on a powerplay for 1:17.

This does a few things:


1. Make the beginning of certain games more exciting

2. Holds players accountable for taking penalties

3. Holds an even bigger importance in the playoffs - where the next game is against the same team you took the penalty on.

And if Patrick Kane was scratched for the next game (obviously - Kane wouldn't be scratched but say it was a 4th liner instead of Kane) - well Chicago *still* starts the next game on a penalty kill for 1:17 and they can pick to put someone else in the box instead of him.

What do people think about this idea?

It's funny, because after writing this post, two other alternate ideas that I thought of before they were even posted were this and the "make minors in the last two minutes a penalty shot".

I'm not a big fan of the "to be continued" minors in the regular season. I don't like the luck factor of drawing a team that happens to have taken a penalty on the last game. Now, there's other league-imposed sanctions that come into play that are very similar - namely, handing out suspensions. Speaking from a Bruins-centric perspective and only going back two years, we've had two suspensions: one on an enforcer for 15 games which, frankly, didn't exactly hurt us a ton, and one for 2 games on a skilled pest that might have hurt us a little.

The difference is that with suspensions, there's at least a review of what happened, typically along with a video featuring a disembodied voice explaining the suspension. If you let penalties linger until the next game, everyone will debate if it's really a penalty - which will REALLY cause the refs to swallow the whistle.

 

[talkinaway]

Just leave the game alone.

Why?

My original post details an issue that can affect the outcome of a game. I give two specific instances in the very recent past - one where it really did affect the game, and one where it came pretty close - to show that the problem exists. I also propose a solution to the problem.

You can either make an argument that there's not really a problem, or that the solution is worse than the problem. There are legitimate arguments to be made in both columns, and I accept that. (Specifically, the fallibility of refs is probably the best argument.)

The idea of leaving the game alone for the sake of leaving the game alone is a non-starter. Should the game have been left alone when Jacques Plante wore a mask, or was making the helmet mandatory a good idea?

 

[glovesave_35]

Why?

My original post details an issue that can affect the outcome of a game. I give two specific instances in the very recent past - one where it really did affect the game, and one where it came pretty close - to show that the problem exists. I also propose a solution to the problem.

You can either make an argument that there's not really a problem, or that the solution is worse than the problem. There are legitimate arguments to be made in both columns, and I accept that. (Specifically, the fallibility of refs is probably the best argument.)

The idea of leaving the game alone for the sake of leaving the game alone is a non-starter. Should the game have been left alone when Jacques Plante wore a mask, or was making the helmet mandatory a good idea?

If a team is down by 1 goal with less than two minutes and they take a penalty can we just call the game done? That seems as reasonable to me as extending regulation from the allotted 20 minute period, 60 minute game.

 

[talkinaway]

If a team is down by 1 goal with less than two minutes and they take a penalty can we just call the game done? That seems as reasonable to me as extending regulation from the allotted 20 minute period, 60 minute game.

Given that some people probably leave the stands when that happens, I think they already do that.

And do I need to say that SHGs happen frequently? Not with the same frequency of a PPG, obviously, but they happen. A better construction of the argument would be to end the game when you're down 5 goals and there's 2 minutes left. And, no, I'm not actually advocating that. I'm just saying that if the cost of doing X is 2 minutes on the PK, make sure that the offending team pays for doing X at the end of a game - especially if it can change the outcome.

 

[glovesave_35]

Given that some people probably leave the stands when that happens, I think they already do that.

And do I need to say that SHGs happen frequently? Not with the same frequency of a PPG, obviously, but they happen. A better construction of the argument would be to end the game when you're down 5 goals and there's 2 minutes left. And, no, I'm not actually advocating that. I'm just saying that if the cost of doing X is 2 minutes on the PK, make sure that the offending team pays for doing X at the end of a game - especially if it can change the outcome.

I just don't see where you're coming from on the whole topic. "It's not fair" just seems to me a ludicrous point of view.

Team A takes a penalty. Team B takes a penalty 40 seconds later during their PP. If the cost of doing X is 2 minutes on the PK, why do we stop that 2 minutes just because the other team also did something naughty. In the world you're proposing there should be no such thing as abbreviated PP's with overlapping 4 on 4. I don't see why the end of the game has such bearing in your mind. If you are using one metric (penalty X always equals 2 minutes down a man) there should be no reason to not enforce such a rule at all times.

Games are the totality of everything that happened in the allotted time, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Dahlin 2 Eichel]

Hockey becoming soccer. Love it.

 

[Preisst*]

Given that some people probably leave the stands when that happens, I think they already do that.

And do I need to say that SHGs happen frequently? Not with the same frequency of a PPG, obviously, but they happen. A better construction of the argument would be to end the game when you're down 5 goals and there's 2 minutes left. And, no, I'm not actually advocating that. I'm just saying that if the cost of doing X is 2 minutes on the PK, make sure that the offending team pays for doing X at the end of a game - especially if it can change the outcome.

Why don't you advocate this? It's a better idea then what is in the OP and it's certainly better then the cockomany concept of carrying penalties over into the next game.

I've got no problem with changing rules for the betterment of the game. But coming up with ideas that quite simply put defy logic is silly at the very least.

There's a reason hockey is the best sport in the world. Let's not lose sight of that.

 

[talkinaway]

Why don't you advocate this? It's a better idea then what is in the OP and it's certainly better then the cockomany concept of carrying penalties over into the next game.

I've got no problem with changing rules for the betterment of the game. But coming up with ideas that quite simply put defy logic is silly at the very least.

There's a reason hockey is the best sport in the world. Let's not lose sight of that.

Please outline why having too many men on the ice at 5:00 into a game is worth a 2 minute penalty, while having too many men on the ice at 59:45 is worth a 15 second penalty. Saying an idea is silly without backing it up is, in itself, silly - and, is, by its very definition, devoid of logic.

And what exactly makes hockey the "best sport in the world" (which is an altogether separate debate, although I recognize this claim as what advertisers would call puffery), and how would adding, at maximum, 119.9 measly seconds to a game diminish that greatness?

Again, I'm not married to the idea. There are many reasonable arguments against it, mainly centering on refs. Here are two more.

1) It's too complicated. You don't want people wondering why a game that's supposed to end when the big clock reaches 0 is still going on. You don't want people confused about why, when a team scores a PPG to tie it up, they both immediately go back to the benches to get ready for overtime.

2) It will create more shootouts. I can't believe it took me this long to come up with that, and it's a great argument against this.

As far as the earlier argument about my argument also applying to overlapping penalties - I don't get it. Team A does a "no-no", and does 30 seconds of their minor in the box. Next, Team B does a "no-no" that's also a minor. Following that, both teams get 1:30 of 4v4, and then Team B gets 30 seconds in the box alone. Altogether, each team does 30 seconds solo, and 1:30 together. Equal punishment for an equal sin. I wouldn't be in favor of "cancelling out" that middle 1:30, because I don't see it being a problem - it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but it would be logistically difficult, and not really worth the effort.

I do see a 15 second penalty as being a bit of a problem.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Just leave the game alone.

By that logic we would have 6 on 6 plus a goalie (RIP Rover position) and no forward pass or what ever were the exact rules of the 1st NHL season. Things change. We can argue if they are the right changes but resisting change just because it was how we used to do it isn't a good reason.

Anyway I bring it up once in a while on here and in my life so I'd be for it.

 

[TurdFerguson]

There's too many three point games already. I also don't think the PA would go for it.

 

[The Missing Piece]

How about this, keep the game at 60 minutes.

Any penalty committed with less than 1 minute in regulation play is automatically a penalty shot no 2 minutes.

 

[Kraniumm]

The only idea in this thread that I liked was that the team on a PP which is split by an intermission gets to start the period on the O-Zone. (at least if they were there when the horn sounds, anyway)

 

[Quarter]

This is what they do in football. It doesn't matter if the clock hits 0 after the ball has been snapped, if the defense commits a foul, the offense gets another shot on offense while moving the ball depending on the type of foul.

And guess what happens if the defense commits another stupid penalty?

So, why can't this league implement something like this? I also remember people were frowning upon coaches being able to challenge calls. With the way these dumb refs have been calling games, I think it's a forgone conclusion that coaches will be able to challenge calls. That will deter the zebras from making bogus calls are putting away their whistles in the final two minutes.

Because football is an attack/defend-based game while hockey is not. They're two completely different types of sports.

In response to the OP: I don't like it. It would likely create more problems than it fixes, especially when the problem it fixes can be remedied by scoring as much as or more than your opponent in the preceding 58 minutes.