Would this add some strategy to the game?

Question

YOU are Bettman again (and again, the answer is not "resign" or "commit suicide").

A letter from a hockey fan named "clueless_nerd", has reached your desk. It contains the usual stuff you have long since decided to ignore about how suspensions for stick-swinging are not long enough and the 3rd point for reaching overtime is absurd. But it does have an intriguing idea.

The proposal is that when a team is penalized for 2 minutes, it should have the OPTION (the penalized team) of having a penalty shot taken against it instead. The writer points out that while usually a team would not want to do this, when they are behind by a goal with a minute to play, or several goals, they would be forced to. Now what about the case where they are behind by a goal with FOUR minutes to play? This fan, named "clueless_nerd" claims it will add a badly needed element of strategy and second guessing to the game.

Thumbs up or down, and why?

Remember that I am proposing that the penalized team have the OPTION. I am proposing the coach has to make a DECISION which could be subject to second-guessing.

Bob exactly what IS it with you anyway????? Why do you feel the overwhelming need to resort to name calling and viscious attacks just because someone has a different opinion as you??????

I will keep this question open for a while because while the arguments against my proposal have been well articulated I am not certain, based on the answers that people have understood that I am proposing an OPTION.

Answer 1

I agree with those that say we don't need to change the game. Other than to say, we changed it too much already and we need to change it BACK. Shoot outs have made the game more defensive, and this reminds me of that.

The change would have several effects that are contrary to what you are looking for.

It trivializes a penalty. And given your other comments I don't think you want to do that. I believe penalties are already trivialized; when a team that accidentally flips a puck over the boards, or a goalie who touches a puck a little outside the trapezoid, or a guy that touches someone Else's stick gets the same two minutes as someone who breaks a guys wrist with a quick slash or comes very close to blinding an eye with a stick to the face and all of these are the same 2 minute penalty. Further trivialized by you are more likely to get caught in the former examples and more likely to get away with the latter examples. So what you are saying is you did wrong, but we want to give you some bonus options. The cheap shot on their star was uncalled for, but no time needs to be served.

You slow down the game. It reminds me too much of basketball. Maybe not all NHL games, but you will get some where you are down, and your only hope is to take a penalty every time the other team gets the puck and stop for a penalty shot, and face off at center ice, and take a penalty if you lose that. As long as you have a hot goalie that makes those saves, you stay in. The last minute or two can take forever.

It makes the game more defensive. You will find more teams with a hot goalie will be defensive. Keep the scoring down, and try to win in a shootout. Why? Because you wont even need good defense anymore. If you have a hot goalie at the end just have your defense goons take a penalty and the goalie is one on one and saving time instead of have a puck bounce in off a clueless defensemen.

You will get decisions to take a penalty that are more stupid. Like, we have a hot goalie, I need to take a penalty. This guy is their top play-maker but not a good goal scorer, I need to take a penalty. Their is 30 seconds left in the game I need to take a penalty.

Answer 2

I do not like this concept for a couple of simple reasons. Enough rule changes since the lockout have been made to make the game speed faster and based more on skill as an individual and skill as a team.

A penalty shot may be exciting, and shootouts may be exciting but it takes away the team aspect of the game. 1 on 1 is great entertainment but I like seeing the strategy of a team that has a man advantage and they're trying to take the best of the situation and I like seeing a team with a man disadvantage dog it out for 2 minutes trying to keep the other team at bay.

A penalty shot in a situation like that would cause a change in momentum, and ultimately could totally screw over whatever approach of you trying to make a comeback. If the team scores on 1 shot by one player matched up with a goalie, the odds are in favor of the one player, but if you get 5 on 4 the team on the power play doesn't always have an immediate chance at the net. When you have 4 defenders to get through before the goalie, you can have 6 player (your own goalie pulled) and still may never find the net.

If you save the penalty shot, only small momentum is gained for your team, and it only seems to help the goalie's confidence. When you have 4 (or even 3) defenders stop an offensive assault your momentum is much greater and confidence is boosted more than one simple save could make.

So in the concept of it helping the game, I don't see it being possible. It would be as wrong as having a team game decided on 1 on 1 penalty shots, oh wait, it is the NHL we're talking about. They'll try anything to alienate their history of the sport.

Answer 3

Thumbs down. Teams would not appreciate the idea of putting the game in the hands of the goalie in that way. It would be an option, yes, but a situation as that would not be very attractive. Say a team decides to take this option 5 times in a game. Instead of a well played, strategy filled game, you end up with a boring, shootout fest. The purpose of the power play, and the purpose of the penalty shot are entirely different. The penalty shot is designed for a player who has had a legitimate scoring chance taken away from them by an obvious foul(tripping on a breakaway, intentionally moving the net, a player other than the goaltender covering the puck in the crease). It is special, and rare. If a team is able to arbitrarily decide when one can be taken, it will take away from the game.

Answer 4

I would say down. First of all, I think the power play has (and is) always been a great element in the game and I don't know of any critics who have asked it to be changed or altered. If there isn't any real controversy then why change tradition?
The other reason is that this could slow down play; the decision has to be made... the skater and the goalie has to be be "set-up"... maybe not a lot of time but maybe enough to drag and stall a game. Another thing to think about is that this might make the sport a completely different game... Some games have up to 20 minutes of penalties... do we want the possibility of game scores being that high? Do we want a great game-playing goalie (but terrible in a shoot-out or a penalty shot) put intothose situations so many times? Of course, goalies and teams would adjust but I don't see a need for a change.

But it's an interesting idea. Thanks for the question.

Answer 5

Down I say due to the fact that no one would take the option to have a penalty shot against them unless the player taking the shot was not a scoring type forward. In this case it would be unfair to the other team.

Secondly, I could see goalies not liking their team leaving them out to dry after they have worked so hard to get their team where they are in a game.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Power Play system. When done right its the most exciting part of the game wether you are cheering for the people a man up or a man down.

Answer 6

The game dont need to change anymore than it has. Thumbs down. There already is plenty of strategy. Unfortunately, ESPN did such a bad job of showing people that in the nineties. Instead they focused only on the individuals instead of the team. Then Fox came along with a stupid glow puck and robots on the tv scoreboard. Only Canadian broadcasts and a few homer analysts break down the game well enough for people to actually get it. Please dont enlarge the net Bettman. You'll be throwing away history.

Answer 7

Stupid idea but that doesn't surprise me coming from you. BTW- IT WAS HOLLWEG'S DECISION NOT TO CHARGE SIMON so what his opinion is DOES HOLD SOME RELEVANCY.
Bettman's looks at the name first and tosses the letter. Should he decide to read the crap, he looks at the popular opinions on the severity of the suspensions and realizes that he should not side with the SMALL PERCENTAGE of fans/media/players who think it is not good enough. Yeah, he should change it for 2 out of every 100 that have no idea from their A hole to a hole in the ground.
As for the penalty shot rule, that is just plain DUMB. Yeah, an errant shot out of his own by a Dman should be a penalty shot. Use your head.
Yeah, just what the game needs...more tinkering and additions of STUPID RULES.

Answer 8

thumbs down but wouldn't it be cool if say after a team got penalized about 20 penalty minutes that the team with the fewer penalty minutes got to take a penalty shot?

Answer 9

While I can see how that would work and I think it would, I can promise you that the NHL would never do it. It makes to much sense to be used in the NHL.

Answer 10

y do people want to change the game so bad? its the greatest game in the world it doesn't need to be changed.