2020-2021 NHL Thread

[L K]

I would still like to see penalties called in the last two minutes count for the full two minutes if the game is still on the line.

So if you are down a goal with 30 seconds left and a team takes a penalty, you get 21:30 of 3rd period to try and tie the game.

There is a pretty good incentive to cheat the rule book in the defensive zone in a 1-goal game late.

 

[bustaheims]

I think it's a great idea to have different levels of calls(1 minute for offenses such as over the boards, or faceoff violation) but I don't like the 2 minute that doesn't expire. I don't like the idea of a team giving up 2 goals while shorthanded for a trip or something of that nature. I'd prefer they started enforcing/using the double minors to try to penalize the team for the stupid plays.

That's how the league used to do it, until Montreal's powerplay distorted things. Granted, that was almost 70 years ago, but, nevertheless, it would really just be the league going retro...

 

[Bullfrog]

I've always advocated on this site for more tiers in the penalty schedules. 1 minute for technical penalties (face-off violation, delay-of-game, hand-on-puck, too many players, failed coaching challenge, etc.), 2 minutes for contact penalties (boarding, charging, tripping, roughing, etc. + unsportsmanlike), 5 minutes for majors.

I don't like non-expiring penalties, except for major penalties, I suppose.

Competitive sports with subjective penalties judged by humans will always have inconsistencies. I think we all accept that. My first concern is just consistency within a game as a start.


Also. ban fighting. ya.

 

[Kin]

I think it's a great idea to have different levels of calls(1 minute for offenses such as over the boards, or faceoff violation) but I don't like the 2 minute that doesn't expire. I don't like the idea of a team giving up 2 goals while shorthanded for a trip or something of that nature. I'd prefer they started enforcing/using the double minors to try to penalize the team for the stupid plays.

My thing there is that I think we've got a pretty substantial body of evidence at this point that the whole "well, the worst that will happen is my team will give up a goal on a short PP" really doesn't act as any kind of deterrent for obstruction fouls(that are barely called to begin with). You can try to address that like the league did in 05-06 by calling them all, which people didn't like, or you can increase the potential liability.

Given the rate PP's are successful I don't think 2 goal PPs would be that common but even then, I still think the league should be doing something to make penalties more like, you know, penalties.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I think it's a great idea to have different levels of calls(1 minute for offenses such as over the boards, or faceoff violation) but I don't like the 2 minute that doesn't expire. I don't like the idea of a team giving up 2 goals while shorthanded for a trip or something of that nature. I'd prefer they started enforcing/using the double minors to try to penalize the team for the stupid plays.

My thing there is that I think we've got a pretty substantial body of evidence at this point that the whole "well, the worst that will happen is my team will give up a goal on a short PP" really doesn't act as any kind of deterrent for obstruction fouls(that are barely called to begin with). You can try to address that like the league did in 05-06 by calling them all, which people didn't like, or you can increase the potential liability.

Given the rate PP's are successful I don't think 2 goal PPs would be that common but even then, I still think the league should be doing something to make penalties more like, you know, penalties.

Agree. 2 mins is 2 mins regardless if the PP team scores. I also agree with Gord Miller on delayed penalties. If the about to be penalized team gets scored on, they still get a penalty. Add in call it the same regardless of time of game or type of game. Call it by the book. Penalties are penalties and these guys will adapt quickly.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I think it's a great idea to have different levels of calls(1 minute for offenses such as over the boards, or faceoff violation) but I don't like the 2 minute that doesn't expire. I don't like the idea of a team giving up 2 goals while shorthanded for a trip or something of that nature. I'd prefer they started enforcing/using the double minors to try to penalize the team for the stupid plays.

My thing there is that I think we've got a pretty substantial body of evidence at this point that the whole "well, the worst that will happen is my team will give up a goal on a short PP" really doesn't act as any kind of deterrent for obstruction fouls(that are barely called to begin with). You can try to address that like the league did in 05-06 by calling them all, which people didn't like, or you can increase the potential liability.

Given the rate PP's are successful I don't think 2 goal PPs would be that common but even then, I still think the league should be doing something to make penalties more like, you know, penalties.

I don't disagree with that. Penalties, should be penalties.

The 2 goals per pp may not happen often. What I don't want to see is a cheap call in the last 2 minutes of the game cause a game that my team is leading by one turn into a game that we lose by one

 

[Kin]

The 2 goals per pp may not happen often. What I don't want to see is a cheap call in the last 2 minutes of the game cause a game that my team is leading by one turn into a game that we lose by one

I think, to some extent, that's a bit of this whole thing in a nutshell though. Like, none of us want to see bad calls. And none of us want to see inconsistent calls. And if that's what you mean by "cheap" then I think everyone can agree and that's true regardless of it resulting in one or multiple goals against. 

But it seems clear to me that most people don't really want the game situation determining the call. If it's a penalty it should just be a penalty. If your team is up by one and they get called for a penalty...then they shouldn't commit penalties. And I think too often "cheap" has been used to describe any penalty that isn't a two handed swing looking to decapitate someone so long as it takes place in an important context.

 

[Bill_Berg]

More specifically, I hate that's it's two min, just like interference, high sticking, tripping, boarding much of the time etc....

Well now that's an interesting point. I hadn't really considered that but, much like I was saying about the blood for 2 extra rule on high sticking, I think you're right.

I wonder if maybe there should be a 3rd category of penalty. Either 1 minute minors, which would be just enough time for a team's #1 PP to have a shift, or maybe have 2 minute minors that expire after a goal and those that don't.

Yeah that sort of thinking would be great.  I like the 2 min that doesn't expire.  That's such a huge change, I feel like over glass being treated as an icing is more likely. If we can rethink it all, have 4 tiers of penalties.  Or use the tiers. They have three now, but double minors and majors are basically never called.  Outside of other dumb concepts like the blood on a high stick.

I don't like the idea of a team giving up 2 goals while shorthanded for a trip or something of that nature.

To be clear, I would like the full 2 min on serious penalties. A trip might be a regular 2 min. Boarding a full 2 min.  But maybe a double minor is the same thing. More important in any case is having various punishments.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

To be clear, I would like the full 2 min on serious penalties. A trip might be a regular 2 min. Boarding a full 2 min.  But maybe a double minor is the same thing. More important in any case is having various punishments.

If the league ever decides to make changes to the penalties system (which I doubt they will anytime soon) I'd prefer something like this over making the less serious penalties 1 minute. 1 minute powerplays just seem like such a trivial punishment. One 50/50 face-off draw and there's a decent chance most of it has already been killed off (unless we also make icing's a thing while shorthanded, which I would also be in favour of).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Random idea: if the shorthanded team isn't subject to icing calls then team on the powerplay shouldn't be subject to offside calls.

Did I just fix the NHL?

 

[bustaheims]

Random idea: if the shorthanded team isn't subject to icing calls then team on the powerplay shouldn't be subject to offside calls.

Did I just fix the NHL?

I'd like to see them basically flip the red line and the blueline when there are penalties. Once the team on the PP gains the zone, the puck has to cross the red line to be offside. For the team on the PK, they need to get the puck outside the blueline to not be called for icing.

Though, considering the standards of officiating in the league currently, this might be too complicated.

 

[Deebo]

(unless we also make icing's a thing while shorthanded, which I would also be in favour of).

Gaining zone entry is an important part of a good PP, and denying entry is a part of a good PK. PPs already start in the o-zone already, add in face offs in the zone when they clear the puck down the ice and PPs will have to gain the zone and get set up significantly fewer times. Add in the PK team not being able to change and you end up with a tired PK group with fresh PP players.

A good PP should be able to get into the zone, set up, keep the puck in and generate scoring chances. I'm all for increasing scoring, but I think this change just makes scoring goals too easy on the PP by lowering the amount of times a PP would have to gain entry. I would prefer to leave that part the way it is but as a compromise, maybe allow a change after PK icing calls?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'd like to see them basically flip the red line and the blueline when there are penalties. Once the team on the PP gains the zone, the puck has to cross the red line to be offside. For the team on the PK, they need to get the puck outside the blueline to not be called for icing.

I'd be ok with something like that too, or at the very least just your 2nd point about making icings at the blue line for the shorthanded team. I know this isn't an original complaint, but the idea that the league gives the PK team an advantage like that is just plain strange.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Gaining zone entry is an important part of a good PP, and denying entry is a part of a good PK. PPs already start in the o-zone already, add in face offs in the zone when they clear the puck down the ice and PPs will have to gain the zone and get set up significantly fewer times. Add in the PK team not being able to change and you end up with a tired PK group with fresh PP players.

A good PP should be able to get into the zone, set up, keep the puck in and generate scoring chances. I'm all for increasing scoring, but I think this change just makes scoring goals too easy on the PP by lowering the amount of times a PP would have to gain entry. I would prefer to leave that part the way it is but as a compromise, maybe allow a change after PK icing calls?

It makes powerplays easier to score on, but I mean that's my goal. The very best, most elite powerplays in the league still only score at a rate of 30%. The league average is 20%. I don't really think the current threat of a powerplay and the ensuing penalty really deters many players from committing infractions. And I think even with a change like the one I suggested I doubt we'd see powerplay success skyrocket to above 50% or something like that.

 

[bustaheims]

I'd be ok with something like that too, or at the very least just your 2nd point about making icings at the blue line for the shorthanded team. I know this isn't an original complaint, but the idea that the league gives the PK team an advantage like that is just plain strange.

Yeah, the blue line icing would probably have the biggest impact, and be the less confusing transition.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Now you guys are just talking "make the nets bigger" silly

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Now you guys are just talking "make the nets bigger" silly

Are we? The league's already had success with playing around with how certain lines work in the game (changing two line pass rules, tag up offsides, no touch-ish icings). None of that has been set in stone (or ice, get it?).

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Now you guys are just talking "make the nets bigger" silly

Are we? The league's already had success with playing around with how certain lines work in the game (changing two line pass rules, tag up offsides, no touch-ish icings). None of that has been set in stone (or ice, get it?).

I don't think it's been posted here yet, despite being published a month ago, but this seems like a good opportunity to bring up the really thoughtful article that Ken Dryden wrote for The Atlantic about the state of goaltending:

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hockey-goalies-are-too-big-now/618021/

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/1375149985768017930

This is significant...

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Now you guys are just talking "make the nets bigger" silly

Are we? The league's already had success with playing around with how certain lines work in the game (changing two line pass rules, tag up offsides, no touch-ish icings). None of that has been set in stone (or ice, get it?).

Lol yes, I get it.

I always cringe at rule changes that alter the flow of the game from "traditional".