Rule Change Proposal: Powerplay Face-Offs

[DarkHorse]

Nothing world changing, but it seems like something that makes sense to me.

If a powerplay spills over from the end of one period to the next one, the opening face-off of the next period should take place in the offensive zone of the team on the powerplay. They have the powerplay advantage, and shouldn't have to gain zone entry just because the PP happened to occur toward the end of the period.

Click to read more...

 

[irunthepeg]

This has been suggested many times before and it seems like a lot of people are in favour of it.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Nothing world changing, but it seems like something that makes sense to me.

If a powerplay spills over from the end of one period to the next one, the opening face-off of the next period should take place in the offensive zone of the team on the powerplay. They have the powerplay advantage, and shouldn't have to gain zone entry just because the PP happened to occur toward the end of the period.

What makes more sense to me is to not waive the icing rule when a team is killing a penalty they earned. I'd be ok with line changes after the stoppage, but I don't see why a team killing a penalty should be given such a large benefit that they don't get otherwise.

 

[stahl]

What makes more sense to me is to not waive the icing rule when a team is killing a penalty they earned. I'd be ok with line changes after the stoppage, but I don't see why a team killing a penalty should be given such a large benefit that they don't get otherwise.

This would slow down the game to a crawl with all the whistles. Nothing wrong with icing the puck when killing a penalty.

What they should do though is have the players that were on the ice be required to stay and take the face off after the penalty is called as with icing. It would force teams to not always have their best guys out killing the penalty and certainly make the very beginning of the power play more exciting. Just imagine players that never get PK time forced to get the puck out of the zone and then make a mad dash for the bench.

 

[jw2]

Nothing world changing, but it seems like something that makes sense to me.

If a powerplay spills over from the end of one period to the next one, the opening face-off of the next period should take place in the offensive zone of the team on the powerplay. They have the powerplay advantage, and shouldn't have to gain zone entry just because the PP happened to occur toward the end of the period.

They got the first faceoff in the ozone. They should not be rewarded with another because they couldn't score before the period ended

 

[jw2]

This would slow down the game to a crawl with all the whistles. Nothing wrong with icing the puck when killing a penalty.

What they should do though is have the players that were on the ice be required to stay and take the face off after the penalty is called as with icing. It would force teams to not always have their best guys out killing the penalty and certainly make the very beginning of the power play more exciting. Just imagine players that never get PK time forced to get the puck out of the zone and then make a mad dash for the bench.

I've been told that players will adjust to all rule changes and won't commit the infractions anymore...

2nd part - tired players doesn't create better hockey. If you're just looking for higher scoring games, make goals worth 2 points.

 

[Dylonus]

They got the first faceoff in the ozone. They should not be rewarded with another because they couldn't score before the period ended

So, if a team defending can't stop the cycle game with seconds left and see a player with an open shot and pull him down to end the period... That face-off takes place at center ice to begin the period. Still committed a penalty, but didn't deal with one of the major ramifications of the situaiton.

OP has a solid point here.

 

[LordNeverLose]

I don't mind this, also don't mind if they don't implement this.

 

[LordNeverLose]

What makes more sense to me is to not waive the icing rule when a team is killing a penalty they earned. I'd be ok with line changes after the stoppage, but I don't see why a team killing a penalty should be given such a large benefit that they don't get otherwise.

Agreed.

 

[mouser]

I'm generally in favor of more faceoffs taking place in one team or the other's zone rather then the neutral zone. I think it's one of the easier ways to promote more scoring chances.

For example, I'd like to see "accidental" offside come back to the offending team's defensive zone for the face off instead of the neutral zone.

 

[Jray42]

I'm generally in favor of more faceoffs taking place in one team or the other's zone rather then the neutral zone. I think it's one of the easier ways to promote more scoring chances.

For example, I'd like to see "accidental" offside come back to the offending team's defensive zone for the face off instead of the neutral zone.

I personally wouldn't be a fan of this at all.

 

[PensBeerGeek]

What makes more sense to me is to not waive the icing rule when a team is killing a penalty they earned. I'd be ok with line changes after the stoppage, but I don't see why a team killing a penalty should be given such a large benefit that they don't get otherwise.

A) They'd still do it anyway and B) At least on a dump, the team with the PP is guaranteed puck possession instead of a 50/50 faceoff.

 

[me2]

Nothing world changing, but it seems like something that makes sense to me.

If a powerplay spills over from the end of one period to the next one, the opening face-off of the next period should take place in the offensive zone of the team on the powerplay. They have the powerplay advantage, and shouldn't have to gain zone entry just because the PP happened to occur toward the end of the period.

So if the PK has the puck and is trying to bang in a rebound for a shorthanded goal when the the period ends they have to have the restart in their own end? That seems ludicrous. Should the period start with a face off in the PP teams defensive end since that was where the puck was when the period ended.

To me that makes for more sense, start the period where the puck was when the period ended. This of course opens a can of worms if puck crossed a line on the buzzer, offsidegate can get replaced with buzzergate.

One change I'd be fine with is allowing games to go over 20 mins in the final period to allow the losing team to finish it's PP (team's choice)

 

[Hockeyholic]

There should be a 20 second max time limit to drop the puck after a stoppage.

 

[duxfan1101]

I'm in favor of less faceoffs in general. Just keep the game going.

 

[shoeshine boy]

not in favor. if we're going to do this then why not just have EVERY faceoff during a PP in the PK team's end?
stop trying to fix something that isn't broken.