Penalty Shot/Penalty

[Hockey13Playa 240]

I apologize if this has brought up before but regardless I figured it'd be a good topic to discuss.

When awarded a penalty shot a player gets a one on one chance against the goalie to score a goal. Once the shot is taken play is to resume. I think this rule should be changed up a bit. A penalty shot is awarded when the referee can distinguish the player was in a shooting motion. Now the debate is this, if the player doesn't score they resume play. I think the rule should be changed; based on if a goal is scored on the penalty shot. If a goal is scored the play then resumes normally. If a penalty shot is not scored I think there should then be a normal standard two minute power play opportunity. A penalty shot should be a bonus to the team awarded it, for being mid-shot when a infraction was called. You could end up with someone who is very very low in shootout/penalty show percentage and this could have very little chance of making a goal. So after all my rambling the question is what does everyone think?

Should the team that was awarded a penalty shot receive a two minute power play if one doesn't score on the penalty shot chance? Or should they leave the rule as is?

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

They should leave the rule as-is.

[Hockey13Playa 240]

They should leave the rule as-is.

Can you provide any reason as to why you think that?

To justify my original post, I feel like a 2 minute power play has a higher chance of scoring a goal then a penalty shot does. So, if one is awarded with a penalty shot and fails to score, they should be given a standard power play to follow. A penalty shot would just be *added bonus* for "almost scoring" when the player was taken down. Its easier to blow a penalty shot then a whole power play.

[Finnish Wing 110]

I apologize if this has brought up before but regardless I figured it'd be a good topic to discuss.

When awarded a penalty shot a player gets a one on one chance against the goalie to score a goal. Once the shot is taken play is to resume. I think this rule should be changed up a bit. A penalty shot is awarded when the referee can distinguish the player was in a shooting motion. Now the debate is this, if the player doesn't score they resume play. I think the rule should be changed; based on if a goal is scored on the penalty shot. If a goal is scored the play then resumes normally. If a penalty shot is not scored I think there should then be a normal standard two minute power play opportunity. A penalty shot should be a bonus to the team awarded it, for being mid-shot when a infraction was called. You could end up with someone who is very very low in shootout/penalty show percentage and this could have very little chance of making a goal. So after all my rambling the question is what does everyone think?

Should the team that was awarded a penalty shot receive a two minute power play if one doesn't score on the penalty shot chance? Or should they leave the rule as is?

What do you mean by that? Not every players try to shoot in a breakaway and therefore may not be in a shooting motion.

I agree with the penalty thing though. Penalty shot should be a bonus.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

This year shooters are at 28% on penalty shots, which is slightly higher than any power play.

Anyways, you don't get a penalty shot if you fail to score on the power play, so I don't see why the reverse would be true. Either is a bonafide chance to score, but neither is a gimme. Perhaps there should be an option to take the power play instead of a penalty shot if one is awarded, in case one of the team's poorer shooters happens to be the one fouled, but even then I doubt that choice would be exercised often if at all.

[Finnish Wing 110]

This year shooters are at 28% on penalty shots, which is slightly higher than any power play.

Anyways, you don't get a penalty shot if you fail to score on the power play, so I don't see why the reverse would be true. Either is a bonafide chance to score, but neither is a gimme. Perhaps there should be an option to take the power play instead of a penalty shot if one is awarded, in case one of the team's poorer shooters happens to be the one fouled, but even then I doubt that choice would be exercised often if at all.

Because you can get PPs without being taken down on a BREAKAWAY. Edited February 19, 2010 by Finnish Wing

[dobbles 252]

i disagree entirely. why should a team get 2 rewards for 1 penalty?

i do however think the team should have the choice of a penalty shot or PP. that adds in more strategy to the call.

[henrik40 76]

I like the idea of a penalty shot being a bonus, but I'd also be all for giving the option between a pp or a penalty.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Because you can get PPs without being taken down on a BREAKAWAY.

Right, and the punishment fits the crime. You have a better chance of scoring on a penalty shot than a power play. A penalty shot plus power play if you don't score is just overkill.

[Finnish Wing 110]

i disagree entirely. why should a team get 2 rewards for 1 penalty?

i do however think the team should have the choice of a penalty shot or PP. that adds in more strategy to the call.

Good point. Why not? I mean that could work and probably wouldn't hurt either. If you're leading you would of course always take that powerplay and penalty shot when trailing. Maybe.

I like this idea.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

They should leave the rule as-is.

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with it. A penalty shot is just like a PP, you either convert or you fail to convert. Awarding a PP after a failed penalty shot because you missed would be like receiving another PP right after a failed PP simply because you failed to capitalize on the first PP.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Right, and the punishment fits the crime. You have a better chance of scoring on a penalty shot than a power play. A penalty shot plus power play if you don't score is just overkill.

It's rewarding failure.

[Redwingsfan18 1]

i disagree entirely. why should a team get 2 rewards for 1 penalty?

i do however think the team should have the choice of a penalty shot or PP. that adds in more strategy to the call.

This.

If Malts is taken down on a breakaway, you choose PP. If Dats is dragged down, you let him shoot. It should be a choice and it should be given on a clear breakaway.

On another note, NHL 10 gives penalty shots like no ones business and it's awesome. True it's just a video game but penalty shot's are very exciting.

[Finnish Wing 110]

This.

If Malts is taken down on a breakaway, you choose PP. If Dats is dragged down, you let him shoot. It should be a choice and it should be given on a clear breakaway.

On another note, NHL 10 gives penalty shots like no ones business and it's awesome. True it's just a video game but penalty shot's are very exciting.

The one who gets taken down has to be the shooter in the NHL? Didn't know about that.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

This.

If Malts is taken down on a breakaway, you choose PP. If Dats is dragged down, you let him shoot. It should be a choice and it should be given on a clear breakaway.

On another note, NHL 10 gives penalty shots like no ones business and it's awesome. True it's just a video game but penalty shot's are very exciting.

Why not just adopted the international rule where you can pick any player to take the penalty shot?

[CenterIce 83]

You can decline the penalty shot and take a power play, already.

[Finnish Wing 110]

You can decline the penalty shot and take a power play, already.

Didn't know about that either. Always learning something new, I guess.

[Hockey13Playa 240]

i disagree entirely. why should a team get 2 rewards for 1 penalty?

i do however think the team should have the choice of a penalty shot or PP. that adds in more strategy to the call.

See, this is where I disagree. When in the motion of shooting/on a breakaway you have a better chance to score. However, if that player is not of penalty shot caliber and fails, the team should be given a power play. Penalty shots do not occur often so its not like there would be over kill with this having "two rewards". Like stated, if a penalty shot is awarded and scored on there is no power play. Action would then resume. I just think the team awarded the penalty shot should have a little extra bonus if they fail to convert on a penalty shot.

[Hockey13Playa 240]

This.

If Malts is taken down on a breakaway, you choose PP. If Dats is dragged down, you let him shoot. It should be a choice and it should be given on a clear breakaway.

On another note, NHL 10 gives penalty shots like no ones business and it's awesome. True it's just a video game but penalty shot's are very exciting.

That is actually what sparked this thread. I was playing a game of NHL10 with the LA Kings in my dynasty and a lesser-skilled player was the one brought down. Which arose this topic.

[Finnish Wing 110]

See, this is where I disagree. When in the motion of shooting/on a breakaway you have a better chance to score. However, if that player is not of penalty shot caliber and fails, the team should be given a power play. Penalty shots do not occur often so its not like there would be over kill with this having "two rewards". Like stated, if a penalty shot is awarded and scored on there is no power play. Action would then resume. I just think the team awarded the penalty shot should have a little extra bonus if they fail to convert on a penalty shot.

Then they don't deserve the goal, as the player wouldn't scored on the breakaway either.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

That is actually what sparked this thread. I was playing a game of NHL10 with the LA Kings in my dynasty and a lesser-skilled player was the one brought down. Which arose this topic.

I traded 2 AHL players for Rick Nash in NHL 09, but that doesn't mean I am going to post a thread about it. You cannot reward a team for failing to convert on a penalty shot. It doesn't matter how little it may happen. You either score or you don't It's a simple as that.

[McAwesome 754]

You can decline the penalty shot and take a power play, already.

I didn't know that either. I guess it's not a decision that is made very often, I can't remember ever seeing a penalty shot declined in favor of a power play.

BTW, do you know where this is in the rules? Not doubting, just curious.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

I didn't know that either. I guess it's not a decision that is made very often, I can't remember ever seeing a penalty shot declined in favor of a power play.

BTW, do you know where this is in the rules? Not doubting, just curious.

I looked at the NHL Rulebook under the penalty shot section and I found no such rule. Maybe I missed it.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26308

[Hockey13Playa 240]

I traded 2 AHL players for Rick Nash in NHL 09, but that doesn't mean I am going to post a thread about it. You cannot reward a team for failing to convert on a penalty shot. It doesn't matter how little it may happen. You either score or you don't It's a simple as that.

I didn't ask for you ignorance either. My statement of playing a game that sparked a question about a rule in the NHL. Were are not talking how come I can get Iginla in NHL10 and the wings can't in real life. My thread was initially started to discuss what everyone thought about being awarded a penalty if failing to convert on a penalty shot attempt. So I please suggest leaving the bashing out in your future posts.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

I didn't ask for you ignorance either. My statement of playing a game that sparked a question about a rule in the NHL. Were are not talking how come I can get Iginla in NHL10 and the wings can't in real life. My thread was initially started to discuss what everyone thought about being awarded a penalty if failing to convert on a penalty shot attempt. So I please suggest leaving the bashing out in your future posts.

Need a tissue?

I've debated my opinion on the subject of your original post, as have many others, so this ignorance that you claim is non-existent. It wasn't until you brought up the fact that all of this was spurred on because of NHL 10 did I start to laugh my ass off. It seems you have more of an issue with not being able to score on a penalty shot and want to make up for that fact by being rewarded a PP.