pilldoc Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) 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. I think that was the point yave was trying to make. If you are penalized for any reason and you arein the box at the end of the OT, then you should not be allowed to be in the SO. Again, I can see both sides of this argument, but I DO think it is a legitamate point to be at least discussion and debated not only here and other forums, but with the NHL Rules Committee. Edited February 9, 2014 by pilldoc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yave1964 Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 I think that was the point yave was trying to make. If you are penalized for any reason and you arein the box at the end of the OT, then you should not be allowed to be in the SO. Again, I can see both sides of this argument, but I DO think it is a legitamate point to be at least discussion and debated not only here and other forums, but with the NHL Rules Committee. That was exactly my point. I truly feel bad for making it sound like a rip on the Penguins (I did that in another post, mostly to get Polaris going, lol) that was not my intention. To me, if you are in the penalty box at the end of OT you at the very least should not be allowed to be among the first three shooters, essentially serving your penalty. No matter who the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 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? And I think @nossagog, makes a VERY VALID point in regards to the refs already not wanting to blow the whistle. It is a very fine line, that before being implemented, needs to be thoroughly evaluated by all parties involved. Quite honestly, before @yave1964 started this topic, I never even gave it a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yave1964 Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 And I think @nossagog, makes a VERY VALID point in regards to the refs already not wanting to blow the whistle. It is a very fine line, that before being implemented, needs to be thoroughly evaluated by all parties involved. Quite honestly, before @yave1964 started this topic, I never even gave it a thought. Well I will take that as a compliment, coming up with something new to talk about is difficult. I just happened to see a penalty in the final second or two of overtime two nights in a row and thought this is a minor area that needs tweaked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Well I will take that as a compliment, coming up with something new to talk about is difficult. I just happened to see a penalty in the final second or two of overtime two nights in a row and thought this is a minor area that needs tweaked.By all means please take it as a compliment. Truthfully I think it would make some great discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I think this rule would be a mistake. Coupje reasons:Inconsistent refs. Already a tendency to "let me play" too much in OT.Rise in allowed interference in the game.Coaches could use goons in the final minute to remove skill players from the equation. I.e.Carcillo starts a fray with Crosby just to hope for matching minors knowing Crosby HAS to defend himself. The last second penalty is an uber-rare occurrence before a shoot out. I don't think we need a rule to cover something so uncommon. And if the infraction is that grievous then a match penalty already eliminates them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 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).Seriously think you blew that way out of the way it was meant. At the very worst it was a friendly jab at Polaris. But on the surface the "smirk" thing was just a colorful way of explaining the situation where A player can take a penalty and still participate in the bastardized skills competition. On the subject matter, I agree that yet another rule is not needed. I didn't even think of the offsetting penalty thing but that's a terrific point. How about this: if there is a penalty of any kind in the last two minutes of overtime, we cancel the shootout and go home happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Seriously think you blew that way out of the way it was meant. At the very worst it was a friendly jab at Polaris.But on the surface the "smirk" thing was just a colorful way of explaining the situation where A player can take a penalty and still participate in the bastardized skills competition.On the subject matter, I agree that yet another rule is not needed. I didn't even think of the offsetting penalty thing but that's a terrific point.How about this: if there is a penalty of any kind in the last two minutes of overtime, we cancel the shootout and go home happy. Not really, Rux. The "smirk" thing was from the first post in this thread so it wasn't just a jab at Polaris. More of a "brilliant" follow up to the "Why I hate the Pens..." thread in which the guy literally rants about things that did not even happen...case in point, Kunitz barking at the officials after his double minor. On top of that, the "look" on Malkin's face after the trip in OT was apparently "complaining" to the officials (that's a new one). I get it - people hate the Pens. All well and good. But making up things to hate them for gets old after a while and from time to time the Pens fans here (myself included) will respond. I imaging the same would happen over on the Flyers side of things if I started a thread calling Rinaldo a dirty player because he has that I'm-so-tough look after every questionable hit. Over/Under 50 replies in 24 hours. Topic at hand....yes - the last thing we need is another rule...and one that will probably cause more problems than solve them. How about this: if there is a penalty of any kind in the last two minutes of overtime, we cancel the shootout and go home happy. Works for me. Nothing wrong with ties. Just not lots of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think this rule would be a mistake. Coupje reasons:Already a tendency to "let me play" too much in OT. This! All of a sudden the "let them play" complainers will become "that should have been called!" complainers if it means keeping a skilled player out of the SO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Not really, Rux. The "smirk" thing was from the first post in this thread so it wasn't just a jab at Polaris. More of a "brilliant" follow up to the "Why I hate the Pens..." thread in which the guy literally rants about things that did not even happen...case in point, Kunitz barking at the officials after his double minor. On top of that, the "look" on Malkin's face after the trip in OT was apparently "complaining" to the officials (that's a new one). I get it - people hate the Pens. All well and good. But making up things to hate them for gets old after a while and from time to time the Pens fans here (myself included) will respond. I imaging the same would happen over on the Flyers side of things if I started a thread calling Rinaldo a dirty player because he has that I'm-so-tough look after every questionable hit. Over/Under 50 replies in 24 hours Fair enough. I haven't read the other thread so I'll just go back to minding my own damn business. (For whatever it's worth, as a mod I probably should read such threads but a thread entitled "Why I hate the Pens" has no particular intrinsic interest to me so I don't. I completely understand why a Pens fan would go look at such a thread, but fans of other teams probably should think about something better to do.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Fair enough. I haven't read the other thread so I'll just go back to minding my own damn business. (For whatever it's worth, as a mod I probably should read such threads but a thread entitled "Why I hate the Pens" has no particular intrinsic interest to me so I don't. I completely understand why a Pens fan would go look at such a thread, but fans of other teams probably should think about something better to do.) No problemo. Us Pens fans here don't go bonkers all the time. Example - anything posted by pEnSuCk - we ignore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I hate the Pens because they kill harmless giraffes and beat small children. With a smirk. Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think this rule would be a mistake. Coupje reasons:Inconsistent refs.Already a tendency to "let me play" too much in OT.Rise in allowed interference in the game.Coaches could use goons in the final minute to remove skill players from the equation. I.e.Carcillo starts a fray with Crosby just to hope for matching minors knowing Crosby HAS to defend himself.The last second penalty is an uber-rare occurrence before a shoot out. I don't think we need a rule to cover something so uncommon. And if the infraction is that grievous then a match penalty already eliminates them. That about covers it, I think. Nicely done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) I hate the Pens because they kill harmless giraffes and beat small children. With a smirk. Discuss. First of all, Matt Cooke only INJURED the Giraffe, which by the way was trying to use that club it held in its mouth to beat him silly, so I'd hardly call it harmless. And the beating of children? Really, that story was totally inaccurate. Those "Children" were drunken Munchkins on Fifth Avenue from the cast of the traveling "Wicked" show. I just hate these threads where these kinds of stories are blown out of proportion. Heck, next you'll be saying our fans boo Santa Claus or something. Edited February 10, 2014 by nossagog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I just hate these threads where these kinds of stories are blown out of proportion. Heck, next you'll be saying our fans boo Santa Claus or something Yeah, or spitting on 12 year old girls or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Yeah, or spitting on 12 year old girls or something. Actually - she was 11. And he vomited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.