Strategy question on Penalty Killing (inspired by the last minute of Habs vs. Bruins)

[MXD]

In summary : There's one minute left. Habs on the PK, Bruins have 6 skaters. A Habs D-Men (Jeff Petry) gets a 2-min penalty for delay of game.

The Habs are two men down until 19:59 or 20:00

Is there a reason why the Habs can't turn it into hold/grab/hook/trip/breakstick/whatever fest? Maybe not at 19:00, but, say, 19:30. I mean, what's the worst that happens? Habs get a penalty. Still 6-on-3. Extra bonus breaking whatever play the Bruins are setting up.

Click to read more...

 

[SladeWilson23]

It's just not that easy.

 

[Fledgemyhedge]

I've thought about this but just concluded that it would never happen

 

[HockeyShack]

Penalties carry over to overtime?

Plus you typically have good players out that you'd want in overtime.

 

[MXD]

It's just not that easy.

Never said it was easy, but there were opportunities to do so.

And I concur that, for the first 20 seconds it might be an issue. And that the Bruins PP is a bit impotent. Still, with a faceoff, you get a chance to win the puck back. Much more than if you play in the rules during a 6-on-3...

 

[MXD]

Penalties carry over to overtime?

Plus you typically have good players out that you'd want in overtime.

Well, they do. But the Bruins have to score two goals, and they're likelier to lose the puck on the faceoff.

 

[Fledgemyhedge]

Penalties carry over to overtime?

Plus you typically have good players out that you'd want in overtime.

But taking these penalties would likely stop the team from getting it to overtime

 

[Boardish]

Never said it was easy, but there were opportunities to do so.

And I concur that, for the first 20 seconds it might be an issue. And that the Bruins PP is a bit impotent. Still, with a faceoff, you get a chance to win the puck back. Much more than if you play in the rules during a 6-on-3...

You still want your best defensive players on the ice. You don't want David Desharnais taking the faceoff because everyone else is in the box.

Players should take penalties if it gets close to being dangerous though. There's nothing the refs or the other team could do.

 

[MXD]

You still want your best defensive players on the ice. You don't want David Desharnais taking the faceoff because everyone else is in the box.

Players should take penalties if this clos to being dangerous though. Nothing the refs or the other team can do about that.

If anything, Desharnais is one of the guy I send out there for the sole purpose of winning a faceoff or taking a penalty if he fails to win said faceoff.

 

[Boardish]

If anything, Desharnais is one of the guy I send out there for the sole purpose of winning a faceoff or taking a penalty if he fails to win said faceoff.

I'd argue that the best strategy would be to send your best defensive players and let them take penalties if the situation needs it.

No point in having Desharnais on the ice to maybe shave off 2 seconds on the clock. The game doesn't automatically stop if you're taking a penalty anyway.

 

[MXD]

I'd argue that the best strategy would be to send your best defensive players and let them take penalties if the situation needs it.

No point in having Desharnais on the ice to maybe shave off 2 seconds on the clock.

Sure, if Krug and Krejci are just going back and forth at the blue line, you don't bother. I wasn't talking of Habs player going full-lumberjack

 

[Boardish]

Sure, if Krug and Krejci are just going back and forth at the blue line, you don't bother. I wasn't talking of Habs player going full-lumberjack

It's a fair point though. I just guess it doesn't happen enough to have rules against it.

 

[TT1]

Because sooner or later you'd get your face bloodied and Boston would still be on the PP

 

[nilan30]

Sure, if Krug and Krejci are just going back and forth at the blue line, you don't bother. I wasn't talking of Habs player going full-lumberjack

I don't know if you want to go full lumberjack when the other team has twice as many guys on the ice as you.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

iv always felt that under 30 sec, any penalty is a good penalty.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Recall something being posted here recently how someone abused the too many men rule in this situation constantly tossing 5, 6, 7, and 8 players or more on the ice late in the game situation. Worse they could do was call a too many men penalty and on the faceoff 5 on 3 down tossed 5 more guys out there to get the penalty again, until they managed to kill the game this way.

Think they put in a rule intentional too many men late in the game like that was a penalty shot or something. Not sure if it's just intentional too many men or all type intentional penalties to take advantage of lack of ability to go down more than 2 men

 

[JackSlater]

Recall something being posted here recently how someone abused the too many men rule in this situation constantly tossing 5, 6, 7, and 8 players or more on the ice late in the game situation. Worse they could do was call a too many men penalty and on the faceoff 5 on 3 down tossed 5 more guys out there to get the penalty again, until they managed to kill the game this way.

Think they put in a rule intentional too many men late in the game like that was a penalty shot or something. Not sure if it's just intentional too many men or all type intentional penalties to take advantage of lack of ability to go down more than 2 men

Roger Neilson abused that strategy until the rules were changed. Intentionally taking a penalty in situations like this results in a penalty shot.

 

[izzy]

why doesnt everyone just stand in the net?!