Penalty Shot/Penalty

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

I don't like it.

Mostly because of what you define is very vague. Rules need to be clean cut and easy. It's a problem in the NHL right now, and making rules that take paragraphs to explain just don't fly.

[CenterIce 83]

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

I think I may be mistaken. I thought that was an option, but as you state, it is not in the rule book. It might have been one of those rules they changed during the lockout, or I am just getting old.

[Hockey13Playa 240]

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.

Yeah I do, can I please have three?

Like I said, I have no problem with you stating your opinion on my topic, which you did. But it was your smart re-marks that was uncalled for. NHL10 is a SIMULATION, something that follows the rules of the real NHL. I've had this discussion with friends as well, and the video game is what triggered my memory. Who gives a rat's ass wether I seen it in a live game or playing a game. Penalty shots occur in both, correct me if I am wrong so my point still stands as a credible topic. Get real here, and stop trying to act like your tough on the internet.

My point still stands strong however to the other respectable posters in this topic. I look at like this: (This might be a bad analogy lol) If someone commits a lesser crime, they do lesser time. The more severe the crime is, the more sever the punishment. In hockey alluding to a penalty shot is obviously worse of the a penalty, as where the player "was in shooting motion" and/or could of scored. That being said the team should get a penalty shot and if they fail to convert I think they should get a powerplay to follow. (Unless scored on it the penatly shot of course).

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Yeah I do, can I please have three?

Like I said, I have no problem with you stating your opinion on my topic, which you did. But it was your smart re-marks that was uncalled for. NHL10 is a SIMULATION, something that follows the rules of the real NHL. I've had this discussion with friends as well, and the video game is what triggered my memory. Who gives a rat's ass wether I seen it in a live game or playing a game. Penalty shots occur in both, correct me if I am wrong so my point still stands as a credible topic. Get real here, and stop trying to act like your tough on the internet.

My point still stands strong however to the other respectable posters in this topic. I look at like this: (This might be a bad analogy lol) If someone commits a lesser crime, they do lesser time. The more severe the crime is, the more sever the punishment. In hockey alluding to a penalty shot is obviously worse of the a penalty, as where the player "was in shooting motion" and/or could of scored. That being said the team should get a penalty shot and if they fail to convert I think they should get a powerplay to follow. (Unless scored on it the penatly shot of course).

Really, get over yourself. I'm the one acting like a "tough guy" with my paragraph long rebuttals because someone said a smart remark. If we were basing things off of NHL 10, the NHL would be awarding penalty shots on average of once per game. Oh wait... And yes, it is a bad analogy.

Penalty shots have nothing to do with the severity of the penalty and everything to do with whether or not they took away a legitimate scoring chance. Rewarding failure is becoming popular.

[Hockey13Playa 240]

Really, get over yourself. I'm the one acting like a "tough guy" with my paragraph long rebuttals because someone said a smart remark. If we were basing things off of NHL 10, the NHL would be awarding penalty shots on average of once per game. Oh wait... And yes, it is a bad analogy.

Penalty shots have nothing to do with the severity of the penalty and everything to do with whether or not they took away a legitimate scoring chance. Rewarding failure is becoming popular.

Its not called paragraph long rebuttals, its called debate. Thats something that happens on forums if you haven't figured that out yet. Theres a difference between debate, stating your opinion and reasons and trying to insult someone for what the said.

Oh Really? It doesn't have to do with severity? Then why are there 2, 4, 5, and 10 minute penalties? Yeah... because depending on ones actions and severity of the penalty, he is given one of those amounts. Again NHL10 has nothing to do with this topic, it just reminded me of a debate me and a few others were talking over. Last time I checked anything can remind you of something else for whatever reason. NHL10 has no credibility in this topic to back up my statements, just was brought up as thats what reminded me. You're idiotic.

[toby91_ca 620]

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

Unfortunately, you aren't learning something new here, there is no such rule.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Its not called paragraph long rebuttals, its called debate. Thats something that happens on forums if you haven't figured that out yet. Theres a difference between debate, stating your opinion and reasons and trying to insult someone for what the said.

Oh Really? It doesn't have to do with severity? Then why are there 2, 4, 5, and 10 minute penalties? Yeah... because depending on ones actions and severity of the penalty, he is given one of those amounts. Again NHL10 has nothing to do with this topic, it just reminded me of a debate me and a few others were talking over. Last time I checked anything can remind you of something else for whatever reason. NHL10 has no credibility in this topic to back up my statements, just was brought up as thats what reminded me. You're idiotic.

First of all, in debating, the rebuttal is used to negate the affirmative. In contrary to your belief, a rebuttal is part of debating. That's something you might want to figure out if you are going to take part in debating.

Secondly, you are now arguing a completely different point. The point that you were arguing is centered around this rule:

A penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending team

NHL Rulebook

A penalty shot awarded in this manner, the manner that you were arguing, has nothing to do with the severity of the penalty, but everything to do with whether or not a scoring opportunity was lost. There are some cases in which a penalty shot is awarded along with penalty minutes, but those rarely occur and you are not arguing those.

Do you want to argue about minor, double minor, major and misconduct penalties now or do you just want to go back to playing NHL 10?

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

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.

Don't be an ass.

[cupforwings 138]

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.

I know in USA hockey, if a penalty shot is called for a player covering the puck in the crease, the coach has an option of a 2 minute penalty or a penalty shot...

However, if the teams had a choice, they would NEVER take a penalty over a penalty shot... the shooter always has the advantage and you are guaranteed at least one scoring chance... Think about it. You play the entire game to get quality scoring chances. The ultimate quality scoring chance is a one on goalie breakaway. If awarded a free breakaway, no team would turn it down... That would be idiotic IMO.

[Zetts 236]

There might be some merit in tweaking the rule, but I still say leave it. There's been way too much tweaking already. That god-awful trapezoid still makes me angry. It's so amateur.

I'm all for the occasional rule tweak to address problems that might evolve as a sport develops, but other than that leave it alone IMO.

[RedWingsFan4Life 0]

If the NHL changes one rule it'll just give Bettman an excuse to change 10 other things at the same time and screw up the game some more.

If it isn't broken why fix it? The option wouldn't be bad for 2 min or the penalty shot but, there really isn't any reason it needs to be changed.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Don't be an ass.

Care to comment on the actual topic or are you going to be an ass?

Edited February 19, 2010 by Howard He Do It?!

[stormboy 47]

hmmm...while i don't think it will happen in any case, i do think it's an interesting point.

i guess i don't see it as rewarding failure. penalty shots are (obviously) for when you prevented from taking a shot on a breakaway, so they simulate that by giving you a free breakaway. still, if the play that caused you to not take the shot was a trip or a hook that would normally be called a 2-minute minor, then i don't see why the team shouldn't still get a 2-minute powerplay.

obviously, if you get a PS and a PP, the odds of scoring from one infraction are very high. but i think that they should be: a hook on a breakaway is worse than a hook elsewhere, because not only did you cheat, you cheated while the other team had a clear opportunity to score. if a guy gets hooked in the corner, there's no PS because he wasn't in a position to score, but you still get a really good chance to score on the PP even though there was no immediate threat of the player that drew the penalty scoring. so i don't see why you shouldn't get that benefit from the other team cheating plus a recreation of your scoring chance if you're tripped or hooked on a breakaway.

plus, that would really incentivize people to not hook or hold or trip when an opposing player has a breakaway. as it is now, it almost makes sense to haul the guy down because at least on the PS, your goalie has a chance to get set (the skater has a better chance to plan, too, obviously, but to me the advantage goes to the goalie when the breakaway is no longer spontaneous). so there's about the same or a little better chance of a goalie making a save when the PS is called, and you might get lucky and not get called for anything. but if there's a risk of getting a PS and a 2-min minor (if the PS fails) then players would think even more about diving after a guy on a breakaway.

so, for me, i guess it makes sense. i can see why people might disagree, but i feel like a few posters in this thread are militantly against the idea, and i'm not totally sure why that is.