What do you guys think of this?

[BuffaloKatanas]

When a team gets a penalty, the other four players have to stay on the ice for the ensuing face off. Kind of like an icing. Not really a big change, would only lead to more goals.

It would really be terrible if your fourth line and bottom pair were out for a long shift when the penalty happens.

Thoughts?

Also, I am not advocating changing the rules, just want to hear your thoughts.

Click to read more...

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

When a team gets a penalty, the other four players have to stay on the ice for the ensuing face off. Kind of like an icing. Not really a big change, would only lead to more goals.

It would really be terrible if your fourth line and bottom pair were out for a long shift when the penalty happens.

Thoughts?

Also, I am not advocating changing the rules, just want to hear your thoughts.

I like it

 

[Il Stugotz]

Daddy like

 

[Gsus]

Not a fan. Having 4 players on the ice is enough penalty for the team penalized.

 

[Treb]

Was expecting a terrible idea, but I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

[CanadienShark]

Sure, why not.

 

[Sojourn]

I don't like it. You're removing strategy from the game, and making it even more likely the referees can negatively influence the game.

I don't think it's a terrible idea, but it's pretty artificial. It won't improve the quality of the game, and a team that is already being punished and placed at a disadvantage is just in a ******** spot now.

 

[The Podium]

Actually pretty good

 

[Super Hans]

Can't see them going for this from a players' safety POV.

 

[Kevin27NYI]

Seems unnecessarily harsh for when a dman takes a penalty.

 

[DJN21]

I wouldn't be opposed but my hold ups are as follows...

It would kind of suck if your center took the penalty and you didn't have one for the next draw. If a dmen takes the penalty do you have to operate a pk with only 1?

Rosters have players whose ice time is predicated on special teams ice time. Roster construction is based on it as well having at least 4 forwards you anticipate rolling out every pk. It may have a wider ripple effect on ice time and player management than one would expect.

Secondly by the time the player argues, coach argues and asks for an explanation, player skates to the box at their leisure and the puck is moved down ice and dropped the players will have a decent rest anyways...though it does mean keeping guys who wouldn't pk out on the ice so there's that...

 

[MXD]

I don't like it, D-Men and all.

It's not terrible though.

 

[Finesse]

A man advantage is already an advantage. Why don't we just make the net 20 feet wide?

 

[Sureves]

I have recommended this on HF before and it was not well received. Generally HF does not like to change rules under any circumstance from what I have seen so far.

But I personally think it makes way too much sense not to do.

 

[Kevin27NYI]

If we are looking for solutions for a better advantage for advantages I'd just do full timed powerplays. The way majors are a full 5, make everything a full timed powerplay.

 

[Sureves]

If we are looking for solutions for a better advantage for advantages I'd just do full timed powerplays. The way majors are a full 5, make everything a full timed powerplay.

That's a much more significant change than the OP is suggesting.

 

[Sojourn]

I have recommended this on HF before and it was not well received. Generally HF does not like to change rules under any circumstance from what I have seen so far.

But I personally think it makes way too much sense not to do.

How does it make sense?

A team is already being punished when they are a man down. This takes away a coach's ability to actually coach, and it turns the penalty kill into a bit of a lucky/unlucky situation. If it's a defenseman or a center, it suddenly hurts you a lot more. There is no need for that.

I'm against change for the sake of change. It could increase scoring, but in a pretty artificial way.

 

[Sojourn]

That's a much more significant change than the OP is suggesting.

It's more significant, but it actually makes sense.

 

[BuffaloKatanas]

Just for clarification, this would only be for the ensuing face off. If the penalized team can clear, then they can change to their PK right away.

 

[CHaracter79]

When a team gets a penalty, the other four players have to stay on the ice for the ensuing face off. Kind of like an icing. Not really a big change, would only lead to more goals.

It would really be terrible if your fourth line and bottom pair were out for a long shift when the penalty happens.

Thoughts?

Also, I am not advocating changing the rules, just want to hear your thoughts.

I think it's a great idea only issue nhlpa may have is extended shifts may lead to injuries especially during out numbered situations where they may b forced to chase the puck etc

But it's really interesting

 

[Sureves]

How does it make sense?

A team is already being punished when they are a man down. This takes away a coach's ability to actually coach, and it turns the penalty kill into a bit of a lucky/unlucky situation. If it's a defenseman or a center, it suddenly hurts you a lot more. There is no need for that.

I'm against change for the sake of change. It could increase scoring, but in a pretty artificial way.

It does the opposite. It increases the coach's need to coach by ensuring that all of his players are competent at PKing if they are not on the primary PK unit.

In what way is this "artificial"? It's basically just making a penalty more punitive, and with the PP success rate at a comparatively low level compared to historical averages, it absolutely makes sense.

It's more significant, but it actually makes sense.

In what way does this make more sense than the idea in the OP? This is far too drastic of an impact and makes penalties far too severely punished.

Even as someone open to rule changes, this is a very bad idea.

 

[McNurse]

I like it, add the icing penalty to the pk and I'm all for it