Rule Change Proposal: SHG kills the penalty

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

So I was having a conversation and in that conversation an idea for a rule change was brought up, now personally I'm sick of rule changes but I wanted to bring this up because I thought it was interesting.

It's basically this if you are on a PP and you give up a short handed goal the penalty is over short handed goal = instant kill.

The logic presented was if you have a 1 and sometimes 2 man advantage you shouldn't be giving up goals because you have more players so if the short handed team scores they should get for a PK, and if we did that then more teams would try offensively while short handed and scoring would increase.

I think it's interesting what do you think?

Click to read more...

 

[member 298589]

I think the shorty against is embarrassing and detrimental enough

 

[SUX2BU]

Don’t get penalties

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

So I was having a conversation and in that conversation an idea for a rule change was brought up, now personally I'm sick of rule changes but I wanted to bring this up because I thought it was interesting.

It's basically this if you are on a PP and you give up a short handed goal the penalty is over short handed goal = instant kill.

The logic presented was if you have a 1 and sometimes 2 man advantage you shouldn't be giving up goals because you have more players so if the short handed team scores they should get for a PK, and if we did that then more teams would try offensively while short handed and scoring would increase.

I think it's interesting what do you think?

Scoring wouldn't increase because of this ...

I think the shorty against is embarrassing and detrimental enough

Teams on the PP would play a lot more conservatively to avoid giving up a SHG if they knew that as soon as one is scored the PP is over. So how is forcing teams to play more conservative and not take offensive chances going to increase offense?

 

[josra33]

So I was having a conversation and in that conversation an idea for a rule change was brought up, now personally I'm sick of rule changes but I wanted to bring this up because I thought it was interesting.

It's basically this if you are on a PP and you give up a short handed goal the penalty is over short handed goal = instant kill.

The logic presented was if you have a 1 and sometimes 2 man advantage you shouldn't be giving up goals because you have more players so if the short handed team scores they should get for a PK, and if we did that then more teams would try offensively while short handed and scoring would increase.

I think it's interesting what do you think?

Lol did you think that not putting the rule change in your thread title would get more views?

I already hate it based off that alone.

 

[Akrapovince]

Your benefit for scoring a goal on a penalty kill is scoring a goal on the penalty kill....

You don’t get off the hook on something you did after you just got rewarded for it, that doesn’t make too much sense does it?

 

[Djp]

No...PP goes full 2 minutes

 

[Oddbob]

So I was having a conversation and in that conversation an idea for a rule change was brought up, now personally I'm sick of rule changes but I wanted to bring this up because I thought it was interesting.

It's basically this if you are on a PP and you give up a short handed goal the penalty is over short handed goal = instant kill.

The logic presented was if you have a 1 and sometimes 2 man advantage you shouldn't be giving up goals because you have more players so if the short handed team scores they should get for a PK, and if we did that then more teams would try offensively while short handed and scoring would increase.

I think it's interesting what do you think?

The goal against is already punishment enough.

 

[LakeLivin]

What this basically proposes is that a team should be penalized if they give up a short handed goal. Let's extend that logic even further. If a PP team doesn't score on a 5-on-3 the remainder of their PP should be canceled when the 2-man advantage expires (because a team should score up 2 men). And if the short-handed team on a 5-on-3 scores a shortie, not only should the remainder of the penalty be canceled but they should be given a 2-minute PP. Because if you're going to penalize a team for giving up a shortie you should really penalize them for giving up a shortie up 2 men. I'm sure there are other ways to penalize a team for poor performance; I think we should explore those as well.

 

[dekelikekocur]

What this basically proposes is that a team should be penalized if they give up a short handed goal. Let's extend that logic even further. If a PP team doesn't score on a 5-on-3 the remainder of their PP should be canceled when the 2-man advantage expires (because a team should score up 2 men). And if the short-handed team on a 5-on-3 scores a shortie, not only should the remainder of the penalty be canceled but they should be given a 2-minute PP. Because if you're going to penalize a team for giving up a shortie you should really penalize them for giving up a shortie up 2 men. I'm sure there are other ways to penalize a team for poor performance; I think we should explore those as well.

There are, ask Matthews what time his flight out of TOR is.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

If you want to increase scoring, making the nets bigger and/or further restricting goalie equipment seem better options than this.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

No...PP goes full 2 minutes

This is the one. If you really want scoring to increase, have the powerplay run the entire duration regardless of whether a team scores or not.

Of course, it's the NHL, and it loves to punish teams that score, so they'd just call even less penalties.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is the one. If you really want scoring to increase, have the powerplay run the entire duration regardless of whether a team scores or not.

Take that a step further — PPs run the full length regardless of goals scored, and also introduce 1-minute penalties for things like puck over glass and minor obstruction. Give the refs a bit of breathing room to make penalty calls without changing the entire course of the game.

What you’ll get is refs who are willing to call it by the book, players who avoid breaking the rules, ultimately a lot more open ice and free-flowing play. Scoring would only go up slightly, but the game would be far more exciting to watch.

 

[CascadiaPuck]

No...PP goes full 2 minutes

What if they did both? PP goes for full 2 minutes instead of ending when there's a PPG... but penalty is negated if there's a SHG.

Also, short-handed team can only play with one eye open for the duration of the penalty kill.

And random bursts of bowel-shaking sound will play from speakers in the end boards to distract the short-handed team's goalie during the penalty.

...

I think I took it too far.

 

[LakeLivin]

Take that a step further — PPs run the full length regardless of goals scored, and also introduce 1-minute penalties for things like puck over glass and minor obstruction. Give the refs a bit of breathing room to make penalty calls without changing the entire course of the game.

What you’ll get is refs who are willing to call it by the book, players who avoid breaking the rules, ultimately a lot more open ice and free-flowing play. Scoring would only go up slightly, but the game would be far more exciting to watch.

Love the 1 minute PP (add embellishment to the list), but PPs that run the full length regardless of goals scored would just lead to the refs to calling even less than they do now.

 

[Mersss]

If you want to increase scoring, making the nets bigger and/or further restricting goalie equipment seem better options than this.

Or you know, your team could just get a better goalie instead of f'in up the whole game of hockey...

 

[Jday1199]

So I was having a conversation and in that conversation an idea for a rule change was brought up, now personally I'm sick of rule changes but I wanted to bring this up because I thought it was interesting.

It's basically this if you are on a PP and you give up a short handed goal the penalty is over short handed goal = instant kill.

The logic presented was if you have a 1 and sometimes 2 man advantage you shouldn't be giving up goals because you have more players so if the short handed team scores they should get for a PK, and if we did that then more teams would try offensively while short handed and scoring would increase.

I think it's interesting what do you think?

I agree with this 100%, only exception would be a major penalty. I think it would get more skilled guys on the PK rather than the defense only specialist.

 

[Machinehead]

I mean, it's kind of fun, but why?

I don't understand all these "increase scoring" proposals. Scoring is already through the roof and the quality will suffer if it gets any higher.

 

[swiftwin]

No...PP goes full 2 minutes

Not if the team with the PP scores.

 

[Coffey]

This is terrible.

 

[PG Canuck]

How about powerplays last as long as the penalty is given?

You take a 2 minute minor? You stay in the box for 2 mins, I don't care if they score 10 goals on that powerplay.

 

[Butch 19]

So I was having a conversation and in that conversation an idea for a rule change was brought up, now personally I'm sick of rule changes but I wanted to bring this up because I thought it was interesting.

I think it's interesting what do you think?

You had me at "personally I'm sick of rule changes" - you should have stopped there

 

[66871]

They should get one of the duck pond games you see at the carnival where you pick out a duck as its floating by and whatever is written on the bottom of the duck is what you win. Set it up in the scorer's box and whenever a team scores a shorty, the machine is turned on and the guy who scores picks a duck. The duck has a number from 1-3 written on the bottom and that's how many goals the scoring team is awarded.

BTW, I'm sick of rule changes and gimmicks.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

I think this would be a change just for the sake of changing something.

I don't see a problem with PP running for full 2 minutes.

 

[deaderhead28]

So I was having a conversation and in that conversation an idea for a rule change was brought up, now personally I'm sick of rule changes but I wanted to bring this up because I thought it was interesting.

It's basically this if you are on a PP and you give up a short handed goal the penalty is over short handed goal = instant kill.

The logic presented was if you have a 1 and sometimes 2 man advantage you shouldn't be giving up goals because you have more players so if the short handed team scores they should get for a PK, and if we did that then more teams would try offensively while short handed and scoring would increase.

I think it's interesting what do you think?

Keep it the way it is..