Penalty shots

[Stoner]

Not sure where this is coming from this morning, but all of a sudden I feel it's high time for the NHL to address penalty shots. It should have gone hand in hand with the rules changes and emphasis on increased scoring after the lockout. But somehow it seemed to slip through the cracks.

 

An admission. I've been watching hockey for 31 years, and I have no idea how they call penalty shots.

 

The rules say if you are on the opponents' side of center, have no opponent between you and the goal and are fouled from behind, denying you a "reasonable" chance to score, it's a penalty shot. It seems clear-cut, but we know it isn't. There should be many more penalty shots, and that would be fine with me. It's an exciting play, and a stricter calling of it would increase scoring even more -- players would start to think twice about fouling from behind to prevent a scoring chance.

 

Actually, the interesting thing in the rule book is that even if a scoring chance results on a given play, a penalty shot can still be awarded, if a BETTER scoring chance would have resulted without the foul.

 

A final reason to clean up enforcement of this rule: it would make the game much more understandable to new fans. I swear, the penalty shot in hockey and the balk in baseball are on about the same level.

 

Thoughts?

[Mr.Christopher]

I agree. I enjoy penalty shots, they are very exciting. I'm not really sure why they don't call many of them. Some calls are questionable but others should be a penalty shot and are called a penalty.

[hopeleslyobvious]

Not sure where this is coming from this morning, but all of a sudden I feel it's high time for the NHL to address penalty shots. It should have gone hand in hand with the rules changes and emphasis on increased scoring after the lockout. But somehow it seemed to slip through the cracks.

 

An admission. I've been watching hockey for 31 years, and I have no idea how they call penalty shots.

 

The rules say if you are on the opponents' side of center, have no opponent between you and the goal and are fouled from behind, denying you a "reasonable" chance to score, it's a penalty shot. It seems clear-cut, but we know it isn't. There should be many more penalty shots, and that would be fine with me. It's an exciting play, and a stricter calling of it would increase scoring even more -- players would start to think twice about fouling from behind to prevent a scoring chance.

 

Actually, the interesting thing in the rule book is that even if a scoring chance results on a given play, a penalty shot can still be awarded, if a BETTER scoring chance would have resulted without the foul.

 

A final reason to clean up enforcement of this rule: it would make the game much more understandable to new fans. I swear, the penalty shot in hockey and the balk in baseball are on about the same level.

 

Thoughts?

 

Generally the rule of thumb is that it has to be a clear breakaway, and you have to really be hauled down. I'm with you on this one. I think there should be more penalty shots.

[Corp000085]

I agree that the call should be defined better and called consistently. It's painfully obvious to a hard core fan like myself that the call is made situationally and subjectively. To a novice fan, the waffled calls would be horribly confusing, just as the balk rule/infield fly rule/etc. rules are to me in baseball. I have no clue what's going on when a pitcher rubs the ball, then goes for his hat, adjusts his cup, etc. and its sometimes called/sometimes not called. I truly have no clue, and because of that i don't watch baseball andi can sympathize with novice hockey fans over silly subjective calls like the penalty shot.

 

 

It's a two fold process...

 

1) the rule should be clearly defined

 

2) the rule should be strictly enforced based upon the written rule, not the subjectivity of the individual referee

[inkman]

Does your team have a better chance of scoring on the penalty shot or does your team have a better chance of scoring on the PP? I know the best PP's in the league are usually between 20-25%. So what are the % of penalty shots scored on?

[Taro T]

Not sure where this is coming from this morning, but all of a sudden I feel it's high time for the NHL to address penalty shots. It should have gone hand in hand with the rules changes and emphasis on increased scoring after the lockout. But somehow it seemed to slip through the cracks.

 

An admission. I've been watching hockey for 31 years, and I have no idea how they call penalty shots.

 

The rules say if you are on the opponents' side of center, have no opponent between you and the goal and are fouled from behind, denying you a "reasonable" chance to score, it's a penalty shot. It seems clear-cut, but we know it isn't. There should be many more penalty shots, and that would be fine with me. It's an exciting play, and a stricter calling of it would increase scoring even more -- players would start to think twice about fouling from behind to prevent a scoring chance.

 

Actually, the interesting thing in the rule book is that even if a scoring chance results on a given play, a penalty shot can still be awarded, if a BETTER scoring chance would have resulted without the foul.

 

A final reason to clean up enforcement of this rule: it would make the game much more understandable to new fans. I swear, the penalty shot in hockey and the balk in baseball are on about the same level.

 

Thoughts?

I've had the pleasure :huh: of explaining to a French guy who was at his 1st baseball game why a balk was called and what exactly it is. :wallbash:

 

I would never attempt to do that in writing as it would take more words than the typical CBA post. Ditto with the penalty shot.

 

But, yeah, I'd have no problem seeing the criteria for awarding them loosened slightly.

 

I agree that the call should be defined better and called consistently. It's painfully obvious to a hard core fan like myself that the call is made situationally and subjectively. To a novice fan, the waffled calls would be horribly confusing, just as the balk rule/infield fly rule/etc. rules are to me in baseball. I have no clue what's going on when a pitcher rubs the ball, then goes for his hat, adjusts his cup, etc. and its sometimes called/sometimes not called. I truly have no clue, and because of that i don't watch baseball andi can sympathize with novice hockey fans over silly subjective calls like the penalty shot.

It's a two fold process...

 

1) the rule should be clearly defined

 

2) the rule should be strictly enforced based upon the written rule, not the subjectivity of the individual referee

I'd say the rule is defined pretty clearly. The issue is, to get it to the level of clarity you seem to want, the rule book would pretty much double in size.

 

And, considering that no two refs in the league call ANY penalty the same way, I don't see where more clearly defining it would help the novice to understand it any better as Koharski will STILL get it wrong.

[Stoner]

 

Generally the rule of thumb is that it has to be a clear breakaway, and you have to really be hauled down. I'm with you on this one. I think there should be more penalty shots.

 

That's conventional wisdom, which appears to be how the refs call it. But the pesky old rule book doesn't say anything about a breakaway, just that there is no one between you and the goalie. Someone could be right on your tail, or even beside you. People seem to think a player has to be "in the clear" then caught up to and fouled. And, about that foul. It doesn't have to be a flagrant, over the top foul. It just has to be a foul that prevents a reasonable scoring chance -- or a better chance, as explained. A little trip or hook can do just that.

[Stoner]

I'd say the rule is defined pretty clearly. The issue is, to get it to the level of clarity you seem to want, the rule book would pretty much double in size.

 

Since most people read the rulebook online these days, I don't think brevity needs to be an issue. Clarity would help. Take the rulebook's explanation of charging: a penalty for charging to any player "who skates or jumps into... an opponent." Now, it goes on to clarify things by explaining about skating a distance to deliver a hit, but the first part would be very confusing to new fans. You can't skate into an opponent?

 

And a passage regarding disallowed goals is poorly written and missing an important nuance. "When the puck has been directed into the net by a stick of an attacking player that is above the height of the crossbar" the goal is disallowed. Part of your stick can be above the bar -- if the puck contacts the stick below the crossbar, it would count.

 

Still, it's good to read the rule book once in a while. There's a lot to learn for everyone.

[hopeleslyobvious]

Still, it's good to read the rule book once in a while. There's a lot to learn for everyone.

 

I agree, I usually try to keep one close by when I am watching a game...even if it's last year's rulebook.

[matter2003]

Does your team have a better chance of scoring on the penalty shot or does your team have a better chance of scoring on the PP? I know the best PP's in the league are usually between 20-25%. So what are the % of penalty shots scored on?

 

Probably depends on who the player taking the shot is. Obviously if you have someone like Afinigenov or Briere taking the shot you will have a much better chance of scoring than if you have someone like Mair...

 

I would say they would probably balance out on average, but players who are good in one-on-one situations would score a higher percentage of the time than a power play

[SDS]

That's conventional wisdom, which appears to be how the refs call it. But the pesky old rule book doesn't say anything about a breakaway, just that there is no one between you and the goalie. Someone could be right on your tail, or even beside you. People seem to think a player has to be "in the clear" then caught up to and fouled. And, about that foul. It doesn't have to be a flagrant, over the top foul. It just has to be a foul that prevents a reasonable scoring chance -- or a better chance, as explained. A little trip or hook can do just that.

 

That happened tonight. You could easily say that the guy Max hooked (after that dreadful cross ice pass) had a clear path to Ryan and a reasonable scoring chance... Max only gets 2 minutes, but you could easily interpret the rule book in a way that allows a penalty shot in that situation.

[phSabres84]

That happened tonight. You could easily say that the guy Max hooked (after that dreadful cross ice pass) had a clear path to Ryan and a reasonable scoring chance... Max only gets 2 minutes, but you could easily interpret the rule book in a way that allows a penalty shot in that situation.

 

I agree, in a different game with different officials, the Habs could have very well got the P.S. on that...

Getting rid of the freakin' shootout would make the penalty shot that much more exciting.

God I hate :wallbash: the shootout!!!

[X. Benedict]

That happened tonight. You could easily say that the guy Max hooked (after that dreadful cross ice pass) had a clear path to Ryan and a reasonable scoring chance... Max only gets 2 minutes, but you could easily interpret the rule book in a way that allows a penalty shot in that situation.

 

I would call that a good penalty - Max made the smart move there.

 

But at the same time the shooter had somebody to pass to and there was another defender between him and the goal-line. (but not between him and the net.)

[hopeleslyobvious]

I agree, in a different game with different officials, the Habs could have very well got the P.S. on that...

Getting rid of the freakin' shootout would make the penalty shot that much more exciting.

God I hate :wallbash: the shootout!!!

 

You liked ties better?