Saint Nik said:
cw said:
Busta Reims said:
Keeping a player in the box for the full two is something the league did in its infancy and decided to move away from it. Not sure I like the idea of going back to that (not that I saw any of it originally). While I'm all for protecting players and trying to keep things more by the book and all that, I think there are better ways to do that. For instance, I like keeping icing in effect on the PK (maybe modify it to the team killing the penalty having to get out of their own zone instead of across centre ice). I feel like that's something that will keep players more accountable to their teammates and, hopefully, keep them more in-line, without taking things to an extreme. Keeping the player in the box for the full two minutes strikes me as something that could easily have the opposite effect - it will lead to players being more fatigued and more frustrated and, therefore, more likely to do something stupid. It also leaves them more vulnerable and susceptible to getting injured as well, what with fatigue leading to losses of concentration and such. Of all the ideas being tested, this is probably the one I like the least.
Me too.
The Habs dominated in the 50s with their PP which is why they went away from it.
Dale Tallon felt there would also be a drop off in penalties if it were implemented which would offset the effect on scoring some. One might argue that's a good thing but I think it flirts with affecting the game quite a bit. Maybe players significantly reduce being physical for example and it becomes a game of no-hit shinny.
It's funny because what you're describing here is the reason I think it's interesting. Contrary to Busta's suggestion the reason the NHL went away from it isn't because it led to player fatigue or mental breakdowns, it's because the habs of the time were so stacked and it led to such an advantage for them. That's simply not the case these days. Even the best of teams scores on a quarter of their powerplays.
The effect it would have on penalty killers would also be minimal. The average team already kills probably 82 or 83 percent of their penalties. We're probably talking about another minute or so of PK time per game.
Like Dale Tallon, I think the only real tangible effect this would have would be fewer penalties being committed. I don't know that this is the best way to get there but I think it's a worthwhile goal.
What I'm about to say might make some fans heads explode but here goes ...
I'm not keen on it as there are other ways that are more attractive to me. For example:
- must clear the zone before the 2 min penalty begins
- no icing allowed on the PP - maybe with no touch icing on the PP
- slightly bigger net
etc
I'm concerned with too much emphasis getting placed on a teams PP ability such that great PP teams win disproportionately. Some of the Habs teams since the lockout had a great PP but I never regarded any of them as great teams yet changing the rule like this could turn them into a more serious contender or Cup winner.
Now for the head exploding thought:
The league is locked into a system of 2 or 5 min penalty time increments (sometimes a double minor). If the penalty time served more closely approximated the 'crime', I might be enticed to get a little more interested in serving the entire penalty.
If a guy tackles Crosby on a near breakaway (not a penalty shot call situation) that seems like a more significant transgression maybe than if a guy accidentally flips the pick over the glass. Maybe the first one is a 3 minute penalty vs a 1 minute penalty for a loose example. In one case, the offensive, unpenalized team had puck possession and a good scoring chance taken away while in the other case, the defensive , penalized team had puck possession and a good scoring chance was not nearly as guaranteed to the offensive team. The offensive team didn't earn as good a scoring chance if you will when the infraction took place.
I don't want to heavily debate that example or any other. It could get circular. A simple premise might be to ask if one can look at all the 2 min penalties and regard them as equally deserving of a 2 minute penalty to determine who the best hockey team is in a game. And if one can't, then there's a legit question for the person.
Generally, if the punishment fit the crime better, I might be open to the entire penalty being served if it was a better way of determining which team is the best club playing the game.
Now that would require such a debate of the rule book, they'd probably never get there. And it would be more difficult for a casual fan to watch ie "why is our player getting 3 mins vs the opponent's player getting a 1 minute penalty".
And on the other side of that, there's the argument that a player who takes "good" penalties should be "rewarded" for being selective/smart defensively - that stopping a breakaway that would have a roughly 33% chance of scoring to settle for a PP that has a 15-25% chance of scoring is a "good" play.
I think that allowing a power play to run for the full penalty time regardless if a team scores does bring up that sort of discussion more than it does today because the PP becomes "more important" - it will result in higher scoring on the PP.
Having said that, my bigger problem with the rules changes in 2006 was the number of iffy calls and the basis for them in terms of determining the best hockey team. I'm not as against a slightly more potent power play with rules adjustments. I definitely don't want to return to 40% of the game on the PP like we dabbled with in 2006.
