Why is a delayed penalty called off when a team scores even if they haven't pulled the goalie to put on an extra attacker?

[Jacob]

The purpose of the penalty is to restore the aggrieved team’s scoring opportunity. That’s the whole purpose of the delayed penalty, to allow them to follow through and not give the offending team the benefit of shutting down the scoring chance entirely.

If they immediately score a goal, there’s nothing to restore.

Penalties aren’t always taken to prevent a scoring opportunity though. And there are also rules meant to punish or deter dangerous plays like high sticks or knees. It doesn’t really make sense to not make someone serve a penalty for something like kneeing just because the puck happened to go into the net possibly in some unrelated play.

 

[Albatros]

Agreeing with all of the people saying that even if the goal is scored with the goalie pulled you should still get the PP.

Or even just have the player sit the penalty without a PK for his violation, it's a very minor punishment then but at least not nothing like now. If it's a team penalty like too many men on the ice then fine, cancel it.

 

[Bizzare]

Because there's an obvious shift in momentum from 'equal play' to advantage for the team carrying sole possession.

Also, give me one example of a goal being scored on a delayed call without the goalie gunning it for the bench.

I mean it happens fairly often, usually on breakaways or a slash/hook when a player is about to shoot.

That being said, I think the OP’s suggestion is strange. If anything delayed penalties should not be canceled if any goal is scored.

 

[Anglesmith]

Because there's an obvious shift in momentum from 'equal play' to advantage for the team carrying sole possession.

Also, give me one example of a goal being scored on a delayed call without the goalie gunning it for the bench.

I think what's being targeted here is bang bang plays. Like hacking a guy going in on a breakaway but he scores anyway.

From one perspective, cancelling the penalty seems reasonable as no advantage was ultimately gained. From another, cancelling the penalty means the defending player got a free illegal shot in without consequence.

 

[wgknestrick]

I like making penalties more of a punishment, but then I remember NHL refs "Not wanting to affect the outcome", by not enforcing the rules, and thus leaving it up to the players who are willing to break the rules to "affect the outcome". Image the standard to become a penalty if PPs converted at ave 50%?

I like watching goals being scored. I'm sorry that I'm just a whore to seeing talented players create highlight real hockey clips. Booooo! Me. Boooooo!

I seriously love this stuff and would also LOVE to see someone have a chance at Gretz's records. If the NHL can get goals/game back up to 7-8 for 10-15 years, then Gretz's records will fall.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Penalties aren’t always taken to prevent a scoring opportunity though. And there are also rules meant to punish or deter dangerous plays like high sticks or knees. It doesn’t really make sense to not make someone serve a penalty for something like kneeing just because the puck happened to go into the net possibly in some unrelated play.

Copying my other response above:

“No rule is going to fit every situation, but that is the underlying principle in the system. Theoretically they could be justified in blowing the whistle immediately when there’s no offensive opportunity, but the rules aren’t that nuanced.”

If we think there’s something wrong with waving off the penalty after a goal is scored, then the solution would be to not have delayed penalties unless there’s an immediate scoring chance.

 

[Darcy Tucker]

And a goal shouldn’t end a PP.

Lets just get rid of offsides too. Play with a neon glowing puck. Add a 4th period. Americanize the game to bring in more fans.

 

[geebster]

Copying my other response above:

“No rule is going to fit every situation, but that is the underlying principle in the system. Theoretically they could be justified in blowing the whistle immediately when there’s no offensive opportunity, but the rules aren’t that nuanced.”

If we think there’s something wrong with waving off the penalty after a goal is scored, then the solution would be to not have delayed penalties unless there’s an immediate scoring chance.

Advantage works in Soccer because of how valuable possession is and how much you can reset plays etc, but given how small the playing surface is and how quickly possession changes in hockey...I dont know if refs will successfully navigate that. That is, I think if we had a rule where it was up to the refs discretion as to if theres a potential scoring chance or not, they would often mess it up and blow plays dead that they shouldnt. Having them watch for a possession change is a lot less complicated and honestly works. Its not perfect but its at least consistently applied.

I disagree with your framing though, "a denied scoring chance being restored" (paraphrase) is more applicable to penalty shots in my opinion. The current rule moreso provides for the non offending team to maintain possession and not be punished by the opposition committing an infraction. In that paradigm, the current implementation is perfectly adequate.

A more accurate system (that the refs would absolutely mess up) would be that if the penalty taken prevented a scoring chance, then a penalty shot should be given, and if the penalty had nothing to do with a scoring chance then the play goes until the offending team gets possession as to not punish the non offending team by blowing play dead when they have the puck. I prefer powerplays to penalty shots so I like what we have now.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Advantage works in Soccer because of how valuable possession is and how much you can reset plays etc, but given how small the playing surface is and how quickly possession changes in hockey...I dont know if refs will successfully navigate that. That is, I think if we had a rule where it was up to the refs discretion as to if theres a potential scoring chance or not, they would often mess it up and blow plays dead that they shouldnt. Having them watch for a possession change is a lot less complicated and honestly works. Its not perfect but its at least consistently applied.

I disagree with your framing though, "a denied scoring chance being restored" (paraphrase) is more applicable to penalty shots in my opinion. The current rule moreso provides for the non offending team to maintain possession and not be punished by the opposition committing an infraction. In that paradigm, the current implementation is perfectly adequate.

A more accurate system (that the refs would absolutely mess up) would be that if the penalty taken prevented a scoring chance, then a penalty shot should be given, and if the penalty had nothing to do with a scoring chance then the play goes until the offending team gets possession as to not punish the non offending team by blowing play dead when they have the puck. I prefer powerplays to penalty shots so I like what we have now.

It exists in soccer, it doesn't mean it actually works. One of the largest issues in the rules of soccer is the imbalance between punishment for fouls between teams with the ball and without it.

 

[PaulD]

I have never understood this. The team/player who commits the offence receives no punishment, even though the goal had nothing to do with the penalty being called.

Am I completely out to lunch and missing something here?

Oh come on.
It isn't that complicated.
If you think it is.......then yes, you are missing something.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Advantage works in Soccer because of how valuable possession is and how much you can reset plays etc, but given how small the playing surface is and how quickly possession changes in hockey...I dont know if refs will successfully navigate that. That is, I think if we had a rule where it was up to the refs discretion as to if theres a potential scoring chance or not, they would often mess it up and blow plays dead that they shouldnt. Having them watch for a possession change is a lot less complicated and honestly works. Its not perfect but its at least consistently applied.

I disagree with your framing though, "a denied scoring chance being restored" (paraphrase) is more applicable to penalty shots in my opinion. The current rule moreso provides for the non offending team to maintain possession and not be punished by the opposition committing an infraction. In that paradigm, the current implementation is perfectly adequate.

A more accurate system (that the refs would absolutely mess up) would be that if the penalty taken prevented a scoring chance, then a penalty shot should be given, and if the penalty had nothing to do with a scoring chance then the play goes until the offending team gets possession as to not punish the non offending team by blowing play dead when they have the puck. I prefer powerplays to penalty shots so I like what we have now.

Setting aside the question of framing, I agree that refs would 100% mess up an advantage system so it’s just as well not to add that level of nuance on top of an already challenging rulebook.

 

[geebster]

It exists in soccer, it doesn't mean it actually works. One of the largest issues in the rules of soccer is the imbalance between punishment for fouls between teams with the ball and without it.

I didn't want to get too into it but I hate the advantage rule. I totally agree with you.

 

[Jacob]

Copying my other response above:

“No rule is going to fit every situation, but that is the underlying principle in the system. Theoretically they could be justified in blowing the whistle immediately when there’s no offensive opportunity, but the rules aren’t that nuanced.”

If we think there’s something wrong with waving off the penalty after a goal is scored, then the solution would be to not have delayed penalties unless there’s an immediate scoring chance.

You won’t like my other idea of making players serve the full penalty no matter what.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You won’t like my other idea of making players serve the full penalty no matter what.

Eh, I’m good with it. I just don’t think refs would call as many penalties.

 

[Stringer Bell]

The purpose of the penalty is to restore the aggrieved team’s scoring opportunity. That’s the whole purpose of the delayed penalty, to allow them to follow through and not give the offending team the benefit of shutting down the scoring chance entirely.

If they immediately score a goal, there’s nothing to restore.

This is probably the best answer I could have hoped for. What prompted this question was a goal that was scored last night maybe two seconds after the hand went up. Essentially the goal scored had nothing to do with the penalty. My thought is that a player causing an infraction in the background that had nothing to do with the play should still go punished, as goal received no advantage related to the infraction. A player got away with something even though he was caught and essentially the goal would have happened regardless.

But your explanation makes sense if the spirit of the penalty is just that it could have prevented a goal, and has nothing to do with a rule violation requiring punishment.

 

[Bruce Granville]

Rules.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

Lets just get rid of offsides too. Play with a neon glowing puck. Add a 4th period. Americanize the game to bring in more fans.

Yeah and while your at it, allow goalies to strap pads to their legs, not to protect them from getting hurt, but to roll over the side of the leg preventing the puck froim going innthe net on the ice......

 

[Crosby2010]

And a goal shouldn’t end a PP.

The 1950s Habs might have something to say about that, they were the ones who caused that rule change to happen.

I am not sure what the OP means though, isn't the goal being scored more punishment than the potential power play and a potential goal instead? I'll take the goal every time.

 

[Rsswmu]

The only part that doesn’t make sense to me is when a team is on a pk and they draw a penalty then score on the delayed penalty it should go to 4 on 4. Doesn’t make sense that they remain on the pk when if they scored after they went to 4 on 4 they wouldn’t go back on the pk.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Rules.

In addition to rules, referees should establish boundaries and agreements.