I was watching the OT of the Habs and Preds.The Preds took two penalties in the last 20 seconds or so.Well the Habs never went on the PP,because time ran out.So to prevent teams from being cheaters in OT I have a rule I want to see.
If you are called for the penalty and the other team doesnt get the PP,your team loses a shooter in the shootout.
If a team commits two penalties like in tonights game,you would lose two shooters.It would prevent blatant penalties inside 20-30 seconds.What do you think?
2007-12-01 16:21:48 · 11 answers · asked by Darren 4 in Sports ➔ Hockey
PUCK-I like your idea .If its inside 2 minutes and no PP can be given.
2007-12-02 10:38:54 · update #1
LITY-Thats exactly what I was wanting.
It would hopefully stop late OT penalties.Nashville ended up winning.It should of been 3 shooters to 1.If nobody wins then its 1 to 1 until its over.
2007-12-02 10:43:29 · update #2
Laying Low
I hope you want 5 on 5 until a winner is decided then.Because I hate driving home from a tie game.I feel cheated.Its pointless.I havnt had to do that since the shoot out.I love 3 point games
2007-12-02 10:46:28 · update #3
If you are talking about Montreal having 3 shooters and Nashville only having one................I'm all for it, I think that's a great idea!
2007-12-01 16:37:12 · answer #1 · answered by Like I'm Telling You Who I A 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hm, its an interesting point that the penalties don't mean a single thing but taking a shooter away from the team is too harsh, it pretty much gives them no chance to win. However, making the person who committed the penalty not eligible to shoot is a decent call. Still coach's could tell there enforcers to go out there and hack away at the stars of the opposing team assuming that they will never be in the shoot out anyway, but then again you could always look at Marek Malik winning the game for the rangers with the sweetest shootout goal ever and he cant score to save his life in a real game, so you never know.
2007-12-02 00:54:32 · answer #2 · answered by Bleed Blue and Red 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This came up a couple weeks ago. I think the penalties should be called and the players sent to the box so they aren't eligible for the shootout. There was a point that people brought up saying the game is over but, it's not. If the game hasn't been decided it isn't over. It would be over IF the game could end in a tie but, it can't and so the shootout is a continuation of the game. Do this and at least something is being done about these deliberate late fouls.
The only other choice is to award a penalty shot if the foul occurs inside the defending teams blueline.
2007-12-02 00:30:55 · answer #3 · answered by PuckDat 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not a bad idea when you really think about it. It seems harsh, but right now, the players know there is no reprocusion if he does something. If the period were two minutes longer, chances are they would not have committed the foul to begin with, especially two of them.
I also like the idea of the guy not being able to shoot. Chances are, and for most teams, your good hockey players are out in the overtime ... you take them out of the shootout because of a penalty that did not end before the period, the teams and players might re-think how they approach an overtime period.
Maybe we make the overtime 10 minutes long. I have not seen too many boring overtime periods ... it is usually end to end rushing.
2007-12-02 15:02:21 · answer #4 · answered by john F 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't like the idea. It is interesting, but we're over complicating things by doing that, and I think the punishment is too severe for the crime. I like the OT, and I like the shootout (though I never thought I would). My only suggestiong for the shootout would be to increase the shooters to 5 per team. I think it would be better all around, and more often the right team would get the extra point.
2007-12-02 03:58:50 · answer #5 · answered by Rich 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's an interesting thought, but I like Puck's idea better. A player with time left on his penalty at the end of OT is disqualified from the shootout.
2007-12-02 03:20:06 · answer #6 · answered by Lubers25 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The two should go to the penalty box so they wouldn't be able to participate in the shootout, however each team should still get their three shooters. Just the two in the box can't be in the shootout.
2007-12-02 01:26:40 · answer #7 · answered by James W 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Puck, not so sure about the penalty shot, because it could be a horrible call. I'd much rather just lose a shooter or have the person in the box not shoot. (unless its datsyuk/hank/hudler) but they dont get penatilized much.
2007-12-02 00:32:31 · answer #8 · answered by McMoose--RIPYAHS 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think, like soccer, the shootout, is a cheap way to win...Lose the shootout altogether and go back to 5-on-5 for five minutes
2007-12-02 00:33:02 · answer #9 · answered by mnw1989 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i like the rul in the ahl (i think anyway) in last 2 min all minors became penalty shots. then it truly will cost your team if u get caught messin up
2007-12-02 06:55:43 · answer #10 · answered by Jay Argentina 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋