Does anyone else think the 5 on 3 should go away?

Question

Look… I love getting them, but I think it provides too much of a official-generated advantage. And it drives me insane when you’re already shorthanded, and the officials make a questionable call giving the opponent a two-man advantage. With all the talk of changes in the NHL, this is one that I’ve not heard brought up. The 5-on-3 needs to go away… games are not supposed to be decided by officials, and since the NHL is really geared towards offense now, this is generally a guaranteed goal.

Just to clarify, new penalties can still be called, they would just extend the power play (as opposed to creating a two-man advantage). So it wouldn't be a free-for-all for the shorthanded team... unless they wanted to play the entire period shorthanded.

Yikes... this went over like a lead balloon. It's not the blatant penalties that drive me nuts when already shorthanded. It's the nitpicky calls and the bad calls from the refs that piss me off. And it's not that I believe that officials are biased (although during the game, I would swear by it). But they are only human, and will make mistakes. I've just always felt that 5-on-3's provide too much of an advantage, and are a damn shame when they result from a very bad call. And every purist lives by the belief that no game should be determined by the officials.

In any case, I am sensing that I'm in the minority here.

Answer 1

It needs to be looked at what is being called to cause a team to go to a 5 on 3 situation. I have seen some where the team on the PP has done the same thing as the team on the PK, but the team on the PK will get called for it, where the first team didn't (example is when both teams are full-strength). Then, they need to make the officiating consistent, making it always a penalty or never a penalty.

Answer 2

The point I'd add to this is say Calgary is leading New York by a 3-2 score with 2 minutes left in the 3rd period. New York takes a penalty and is slated to be shorthanded for the rest of the period (the game if they don't tie it up) So New York shouldn't be allowed to take another penalty because they're already playing 4 against 5 and do as they please for potentially the remainder of the game? You say just extend the powerplay, but in that case there may not be any time to extend into. That can't work.

As someone said above, the refs just need to be consistent. The teams also must act with discretion when they're already down a man.

Answer 3

the 5 on 3 shouldn't be taken away. Officials just need to be more consistent with calling penalties.

this is also not a guaranteed goal.

if they took away the 5 on 3, defenders would be tackling the opponents because they would get no other penalty.

i just find it ridiculous.

the best way to increase scoring is to make the ice the width and length of the olympic arenas. the entire world plays on that ice except the NHL.

Answer 4

Are you nuts? If you're that dumb to take two penalties, then you deserve what you get. You should be annoyed, but at your team, not at a century old game format.

Answer 5

hell no, and that is what the nhl is trying to do, more offense, plus as a player, you get the chance to work the puck and take the best oppurtunity to score

Answer 6

Do you work for Bettman? That man is great at killing the traditions of hockey, and that is a very good way of doing so.

Answer 7

If a team doesn't like it, they can always stop committing penalties.

Answer 8

No.

If you're dumb enough or so un-talented that you draw ANOTHER penalty while your team is already short-handed, you and your team deserve what you get.

Answer 9

no. if anything there should even be 5 on 2's and 5 on 1's...

Answer 10

You might get some err.... "negative" answers to this question.