We need a new rule for penalties before a shootout

[yave1964]

  In the game last night between the Rangers and Penguins as time expired Malkin tripped a hapless Ranger drawing a two minute penalty and skated off with a smirk as he was assessed a meaningless two minute penalty. He was the third shooter for the Pens and scored their only shootout goal.

  Today in a game between the Jets and Blues the Blues were pressuring as time was running down and Jacob Trouba of Winnipeg slew footed Alex Pietrangelo to the ice essentially as time expired to prevent a 2-1 for the Blues. Same thing, two minute penalty killing the clock and saving the day for his Jets (Who lost the shootout anyway).

  Something needs done about players knowing they can play with reckless abandoned in the final seconds of overtime knowing there is really no penalty for playing jailhouse justice hockey out there.

  One solution is to take the offender and not allow him to shoot in the first three for his club. Kind of the equivalent of a two minute penalty. Make it past the first three shooters and he can come back in, just as he would from a two minute penalty.

  But this does nothing to prevent a Trouba or a Jakub Kindl or Abdelkader who never appear in shootouts from having their way, so is it strong enough?

  My other suggestion would be to make the offending team who takes a penalty in the dying seconds of overtime lose a shooter. Start with one big red X where the first shooter would have been.

  Either of these options or a combination thereof would curtail the thuggery at the end of overtime. Anyone agree or disagree or have ideas of their own?

[jammer2]

@yave1964   Yeah, I agree, something has to be done here. I like the idea of taking one of the 3 shots away from the offending team, that would stop this type of nonsense real quick!

[Polaris922]

@yave1964

 

Here's the issue with your post...  first and foremost, Malkin was himself tripped going to the net for a scoring opportunity in the closing seconds of the third, which resulted in the puck going the other way and his subsequently returning the favor.  He had a legitimate scoring opportunity voided by the officials "letting them play", and returned the favor.  So I think his example is a poor one, as in your mind he should be punished for doing exactly what the officials let the Rangers get away with a mere moment before.  

 

Secondly, a trip is far from a slew foot.  Our announcers also mentioned the idea of the rule at the time of the incident with Malkin, and I have mixed feelings on it.  Why?  because it was coming out of the Rangers end with 2 seconds to go, didn't risk anyone's health recklessly, and had zero impact on the result of the game as the Rangers couldn't get a shot on net from that far away in that short of time.   If the officials are calling the game right in the first place, you usually don't see stupid penalties like that anyway.  The slew foot is a different story.  The rule is supposed to remove Trouba from the game anyway as a slew foot is intent to injure and a match penalty.   

[yave1964]

@yave1964

 

Here's the issue with your post...  first and foremost, Malkin was himself tripped going to the net for a scoring opportunity in the closing seconds of the third, which resulted in the puck going the other way and his subsequently returning the favor.  He had a legitimate scoring opportunity voided by the officials "letting them play", and returned the favor.  So I think his example is a poor one, as in your mind he should be punished for doing exactly what the officials let the Rangers get away with a mere moment before.  

 

Secondly, a trip is far from a slew foot.  Our announcers also mentioned the idea of the rule at the time of the incident with Malkin, and I have mixed feelings on it.  Why?  because it was coming out of the Rangers end with 2 seconds to go, didn't risk anyone's health recklessly, and had zero impact on the result of the game as the Rangers couldn't get a shot on net from that far away in that short of time.   If the officials are calling the game right in the first place, you usually don't see stupid penalties like that anyway.  The slew foot is a different story.  The rule is supposed to remove Trouba from the game anyway as a slew foot is intent to injure and a match penalty.   

 Relax Pol, my issue was not with Malkin per se, it was with a system that allows him to take a blatant penalty at the end of the game with zero retribution. I had posted earlier about him taking this penalty so I could not have started this thread without mentioning it. Or maybe I could but just wanted to use it as the example.

  To me a player who takes such a penalty be it a Pen or a Wing or a Flame for that matter should have a true retribution. Some type of penalty to the team should occur. That was the point of this one bud, that is all.

[B21]

 Relax Pol, my issue was not with Malkin per se, it was with a system that allows him to take a blatant penalty at the end of the game with zero retribution. I had posted earlier about him taking this penalty so I could not have started this thread without mentioning it. Or maybe I could but just wanted to use it as the example.

  To me a player who takes such a penalty be it a Pen or a Wing or a Flame for that matter should have a true retribution. Some type of penalty to the team should occur. That was the point of this one bud, that is all.

 

Really?

 

Malkin tripped a hapless Ranger drawing a two minute penalty and skated off with a smirk...

 

Me thinks your true colors are starting to show...

[Evilmonkey]

i think the only thing they could really do is not allow the player that would have been penalized to shoot in the shoot out. doesn't stop the players that would typically never take part in the shootout but in the case of a Malkin that could effect the shootout results

[pilldoc]

i think the only thing they could really do is not allow the player that would have been penalized to shoot in the shoot out. doesn't stop the players that would typically never take part in the shootout but in the case of a Malkin that could effect the shootout results

 

I did not see the play in question (so I will not comment on the situatuon with Malkin) nor do I know if this is a reoccuring problem at the end of OT.  However, I think it is something the league should probably look into.  IF it truy is a problem, then I agree with @Evilmonkey, the offending player is not allow to shoot in the SO.  Since penalties carry over in the next period and even OT, then why not into the SO and since there is no clock in the SO then the offending player is inelligble to participate. Since the OT is only 5 min long this is what I propose:

 

2 min minor: If it occurs between 5:00 and 2:00 the player may shoot in the SO

2 min minor: If it occurs under 2:00 to go in OT, then the player may NOT shoot in the SO

4 min minor: If it occurs between 5:00 and 4:00 the player may shoot in the SO

4 min minor: If it occurs under 4:00 to go in OT, then the player may NOT shoot in the SO

 

5 min major penalties / 10 min misconducts / Game misconucts / Gross misconducts - If it happens anytime during OT then the player may NOT shoot in the SO.

 

This seems to be the only fair thing to do if these types of shannigans are truly happening in OT.  This probably won't hurt the marginal players who do not shoot in the SO anyway, BUT, it might make a better player, who might shoot in the SO, to think twice before they try something stupid.

 

Thoughts? 

 

Obviously these standards are only during the regular season since there are no SO during the Playoffs.

Edited February 9, 2014 by pilldoc

[Evilmonkey]

i dont really think its a huge problem at this time. i really dont think players are intentionally tripping etc cause they know a shootout is coming and it wont hurt there team. I think its more of tge point that something should be in place in case it happens.

[pilldoc]

i dont really think its a huge problem at this time. i really dont think players are intentionally tripping etc cause they know a shootout is coming and it wont hurt there team. I think its more of tge point that something should be in place in case it happens.

Yeah I don't think there is a problem either...but like the motto of the Boy Scouts ----> Be Prepared!

[yave1964]

@B21

 Hey get over yourself, you are starting to act like Cindy, lol.

  Seriously, what do you have to add to the conversation? Do you think some type of penalty should be given to the team who has a player who gets stupid at the end of overtime knowing that it is not hurting his team? My personal opinion is no matter who the player and what the team when a player takes a deliberate penalty at the end of overtime either he should not be allowed to be in  the first three shooters or the team should lose a shooter. Do you have an opinion of the subject at hand?

[yave1964]

  It was two or three years ago Bertuzzi slammed a player for I believe it was the Kings against the boards as overtime ended and went on to score a goal in the shootout. I have felt since that time that it was wrong and needed to be addressed. Agreed, it is not a major issue but a rule that could easily be tweaked.

 

  Of course the simplist way to deal with it is to eliminate the shootout in the first place......

[pilldoc]

  Of course the simplist way to deal with it is to eliminate the shootout in the first place......

 

Amen brother!!!!

 

Hate the shootout.....always will

[nossagog]

Sorry, I do not see the need to add new rules that are not going to be enforced, or enforced badly.  Really, its hard to get consistent officiating now, imagine adding these suggestions to the rulebook.  The officials are already reluctant to call penalties late in games or in overtime, what do you think is going to happen now?  Hey, let's let the 20 hooking or holding penalties that may have resulted in great scoring change that could have ended the game, and let's call a meaningless tripping penalty that has no effect on anything but will now directly affect the outcome of the game.  Or how about an embellishment to draw a penalty with no time left that now affect the game. 

 

Sorry, count me out of making rules for this.

 

On a side note, my kids as they've gotten older have started to watch more hockey with me, and I've had this conversation several times with them in regards to the fact that I don't think I'd have the mental fortitude to play professional hockey at times.  You see all the hooks, holds and slashes that go uncalled during games, and I couldn't take it. I'd end up hacking someone in the back of the legs in retaliation.  Some of these penalties that you are commenting on are a result of all the rest of the crap during the game that went uncalled, that have frustrated players, usually the star players.   If the game had been called by the rules the rest of the game, for the most part these things would not happen. 

 

So there's your solution,  just have the officials call the game by the book in the first place from the drop of the puck, and you'd probably have less frustrated players at the end of games.

[yave1964]

@nossagog

  My hockey playing days are over sadly (I was a stay at home d-man in a semi organized pickup league, my team always wished I had stayed at home, lol) and we policed ourselves. Sometimes it got way, way out of hand. There were even times when I knew I was the one making it worse and escalating it but could not stop myself. I am by no means comparing a NHL caliber game to a pickup league of a bunch of 30 and 40 somethings who smoked while we were lacing them up, but the ref does have the toughest job on the ice by far. Trying to keep two teams happy and officiate a game properly has to be the toughest job in the world in the fastest pace of the big four sports.

  I personally do not see anything wrong with putting this rule on the books and enforcing it. Look at the head shots. Shanny, for better or worse started out the season suspending players left and right and now it is a trickle compared to what it was. It is not that he is more lenient it is that players get the message. If the players know they may cost their team a point with stupidity at the end of overtime and a few are called early in the season it will curtail it real quick. The players know the rules and try every which way to bend them to gain an advantage, if a player knows he could cost his team a game and the officials are watching for it you can bet it will curtail it in a hurry.

[B21]

@B21

 Hey get over yourself, you are starting to act like Cindy, lol.

  Seriously, what do you have to add to the conversation? Do you think some type of penalty should be given to the team who has a player who gets stupid at the end of overtime knowing that it is not hurting his team? My personal opinion is no matter who the player and what the team when a player takes a deliberate penalty at the end of overtime either he should not be allowed to be in  the first three shooters or the team should lose a shooter. Do you have an opinion of the subject at hand?

 

I'll add something to the conversation when you cool it with the obvious pot shots on my team while hiding behind a legitimate topic of conversation.  If I started a thread about what a d-bag Kronwall is or what a whiner Babcock is you'd be 1st in line to disagree.

 

Or did you think your "Malkin tripped a hapless Ranger drawing a two minute penalty and skated off with a smirk..." wasn't transparent?

 

As for your (cough cough) subject - I think it opens a can of worms.  What's to keep a player from trying to engage Crosby to keep him from being one of the first three shootouts options?    All it takes is offsetting roughing minors...nothing horrible.  Just some pushing and shoving after the whistle and both guys go.

 

Now feel free to address all of your biases and inaccuracies regarding your (cough cough) assessment of the Pens/Rangers game (other thread).

[yave1964]

I'll add something to the conversation when you cool it with the obvious pot shots on my team while hiding behind a legitimate topic of conversation.  If I started a thread about what a d-bag Kronwall is or what a whiner Babcock is you'd be 1st in line to disagree.

 

Or did you think your "Malkin tripped a hapless Ranger drawing a two minute penalty and skated off with a smirk..." wasn't transparent?

 

As for your (cough cough) subject - I think it opens a can of worms.  What's to keep a player from trying to engage Crosby to keep him from being one of the first three shootouts options?    All it takes is offsetting roughing minors...nothing horrible.  Just some pushing and shoving after the whistle and both guys go.

 

Now feel free to address all of your biases and inaccuracies regarding your (cough cough) assessment of the Pens/Rangers game (other thread).

Okay. Cough cough. I apologize for the bias and innacuracies as you see them. Looks like I am not the same one who feels the same way about your club tho.

  And I did point out that the first time that I felt that it was a problem is when I saw BERTUZZI get away with a penalty at the buzzer and still score in the shootout three years ago. The only reason in this thread that I used Malkin as one of the examples is because it just happened two days previously and then the next day with one of the Winnipeg Jets. It seems to be more common, I guess cough cough I am picking on the Jets now. Or Betuzzi.

  I see your point with someone going after Crosby but the ref's are quite capable of discerning and seeing through that for the first 64 and a half minutes they would see through it then.

[nossagog]

@nossagog

  My hockey playing days are over sadly (I was a stay at home d-man in a semi organized pickup league, my team always wished I had stayed at home, lol) and we policed ourselves. Sometimes it got way, way out of hand. There were even times when I knew I was the one making it worse and escalating it but could not stop myself. I am by no means comparing a NHL caliber game to a pickup league of a bunch of 30 and 40 somethings who smoked while we were lacing them up, but the ref does have the toughest job on the ice by far. Trying to keep two teams happy and officiate a game properly has to be the toughest job in the world in the fastest pace of the big four sports.

  I personally do not see anything wrong with putting this rule on the books and enforcing it. Look at the head shots. Shanny, for better or worse started out the season suspending players left and right and now it is a trickle compared to what it was. It is not that he is more lenient it is that players get the message. If the players know they may cost their team a point with stupidity at the end of overtime and a few are called early in the season it will curtail it real quick. The players know the rules and try every which way to bend them to gain an advantage, if a player knows he could cost his team a game and the officials are watching for it you can bet it will curtail it in a hurry.

 

There's the key in bold. There are so many things now that are being overlooked that it is making the game less exciting.  Think of the unintended consequences of this.  As I said prior, today's refs seem to NOT want to call penalties late in games and in over time, do you really think that they would be more inclined to call them with this rule in that could cost a team in the talent contest?  Oh how the whining go up when the call something like this against your team(not meaning you in general, but every fans fav) but let go what you(again not you personally) think should have been called against the other team. Imagine the thread count increase when this happens about the leagues favorite teams, and how they hate my(again a generalization) team.

[pilldoc]

 I think it opens a can of worms.  What's to keep a player from trying to engage Crosby to keep him from being one of the first three shootouts options?    All it takes is offsetting roughing minors...nothing horrible.  Just some pushing and shoving after the whistle and both guys go.

 

Not saying I totally support it one way or another.  Matter fact in my response, I posted the words "not sure if there is a problem", NHL should look into this. I was not thinking about your scenario.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of say Mike Richards or Wayne Simmonds type player who (or another legitamate goal scorer), with under 2 minutes, slams Crosby into the boards for an obvious boarding call which he is whistled for 5 min major.  Crosby leaves the game, does not shoot in the shoot out.  The offending player is allowed to shoot in shoot out (since there is no rule of a penalty carrying over into the SO) and has the winning goal. 

 

I don't know about you, but I think Pen's fans would be in an absolute uproar over this, especially if it would cost them a point in the standings which affects playoff seeding. Just a hypothetical situation I know, but still one that could happen. 

 

I have no idea how a rule like this would work in actual reality, but I think there is a legitamate point on both sides.  And yes...I believe it would "open a can of worms".

Edited February 9, 2014 by pilldoc

[nossagog]

Okay, after some sincere soul searching, I did find one benefit to something like this.    Imagine the press conference of someone like John Torterella or Claud Julien if this would get called against their team and it cost them a game.    PRICELESS.

[yave1964]

@nossagog

I get it.

 

  The problem as I see it is you cannot carry a penalty over into a shootout, essentially if bad blood has been building al game long you can get it out at the buzzer without fear of any type of retribution. IMHO I feel this goes against the basic premise of the game.

  Refs blow calls.

  Refs miss calls

  Last night in the game between the Isles and the Avalanche the score was 3-0 Avalanche mid way through the third (I was watching the game because the Wings/Lightning was boring as dirt) when four straight penalties were called on the Lanche resulting in two separate 5-3 situations and two quick goals by the Isles to make it 3-2. With four minutes to go Vanek was called for a penalty when all he did was more or less look at a guy to 'even it out' one of the unwritten rules of the game as well, a terrible terrible call on Vanek that more or less ended the game in the Avalanche favor. That is another thing that I think needs to go, the 'evening things out' penalty.

 Sorry I digress. All over the board today. I think where I was going with that is I agree with you that ref's at times screw up a game (All of the penalties against the Avalanche appeared legit BTW including a possible broken finger on Nielsson from a slash) so I get what you are saying about just getting the refs to call the game right in the first place and it will be a better game. And I get what you are saying with team A and team B, not neccesarilly the Wings or Pens.

  I still feel this is an issue overlooked with the birth of the shootout and players are more and more often abusing this area.

[pilldoc]

@nossagog

 

that would be PRICELESS!

[yave1964]

Okay, after some sincere soul searching, I did find one benefit to something like this.    Imagine the press conference of someone like John Torterella or Claud Julien if this would get called against their team and it cost them a game.    PRICELESS.

Now see? Common ground, lol

[nossagog]

Now see? Common ground, lol

 

The entertainment value of John Torterella rants cannot be under estimated. Maybe we'd see video of him trying to get to the officials locker room, and being held back by the popcorn guy from getting into a confrontation. "Lemme attem, I'll murderize em, whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa".

[B21]

Okay. Cough cough. I apologize for the bias and innacuracies as you see them. Looks like I am not the same one who feels the same way about your club tho.

  And I did point out that the first time that I felt that it was a problem is when I saw BERTUZZI get away with a penalty at the buzzer and still score in the shootout three years ago. The only reason in this thread that I used Malkin as one of the examples is because it just happened two days previously and then the next day with one of the Winnipeg Jets. It seems to be more common, I guess cough cough I am picking on the Jets now. Or Betuzzi.

  I see your point with someone going after Crosby but the ref's are quite capable of discerning and seeing through that for the first 64 and a half minutes they would see through it then.

 

You have more faith in NHL officiating that I do then.  Aside from a guy who has been tossed, I say let the teams use whoever they chose in a shootout.

[B21]

Not saying I totally support it one way or another.  Matter fact in my response, I posted the words "not sure if there is a problem", NHL should look into this. I was not thinking about your scenario.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of say Mike Richards or Wayne Simmonds type player who (or another legitamate goal scorer), with under 2 minutes, slams Crosby into the boards for an obvious boarding call which he is whistled for 5 min major.  Crosby leaves the game, does not shoot in the shoot out.  The offending player is allowed to shoot in shoot out (since there is no rule of a penalty carrying over into the SO) and has the winning goal. 

 

I don't know about you, but I think Pen's fans would be in an absolute uproar over this, especially if it would cost them a point in the standings which affects playoff seeding. Just a hypothetical situation I know, but still one that could happen. 

 

I have no idea how a rule like this would work in actual reality, but I think there is a legitamate point on both sides.  And yes...I believe it would "open a can of worms".

 

Good point. You're scenario is another can of worms.  I can see the rationale the other way, too (if you are in the box, no SO) but I just think that overcomplicates things. 

 

Caveat - if you have been tossed, no SO (for all I know there is a rule in place for this already).