Penalty Shot vs 2-Minute Power Play
Jonathan Farzalo | National Hockey League
Mar 19, 10:42 AM | Hype this story!
Most people would agree that the penalty shot is one of the most exciting moments in a hockey game…which is perhaps why the shootout (while not reared as a great part of the game by many players) is so popular with casual fans.
However I’d like to question the penalty shot and how the rules apply for one.
The penalty shot given and taken by Evgeni Malkin against the Atlanta Thrashers got me thinking about this subject, and that it has puzzled me for a while; this idea of a penalty “shot” vs a penalty.
If a team is guilty of an infraction it’s a penalty, typically 2 minutes. If it’s on a breakaway and it is deemed a penalty, the referee may or may not award a penalty shot as opposed to a normal 2 minute penalty. But I’ve often wondered why not give the team the opportunity to take the 2 min power play instead, not IF the shooter doesn’t score, that doesn’t make sense you would essentially be rewarding the team twice, but instead as an option, as “opposed to the penalty shot”.
“Hey coach, you can either take the penalty shot or a 2 minute power play, your call.”
It WAS a penalty just like any other trip, hold, slash, etc, why should a team be FORCED to take a single penalty shot instead of spending 2 minutes on a power play? Give the coach the choice.
Why would a team or coach want to do this you might ask?
1. Maybe his team has not excelled in previous penalty shots or in the shootout.
2. Perhaps your team has a great conversation rate on the power play.
3. Maybe the time of the game and the situation would dictate the choice made….For example: Imagine it’s a 5-4 game and you are up by 1, with just under 2 minutes to go. The other team has YET to pull the goalie and here your team is on a breakaway, and are tripped up. Now, you are awarded a penalty shot and miss. The other team comes out, pulls their goalie and ties it all up. However, if given the choice of the power play or the penalty shot, the team could have taken the 2 minute power play, kept it in the zone for the remainder of the time, or even scored a PP goal to go up by 2, either way game over.
With the implementation of the shootout this one-on-one part of the game isn’t as special as it once was, and by changing the rule mentioned above you wouldn’t not be denying fans that excitment (they see it almost weekly). I can’t understand why this has not been done, it IS a penalty, sure it was a breakaway chance, but the point is it was an infraction, let the coaching staff “decline” the penalty shot if they choose.
Now I agree, in the game against Atlanta the Penguins would have given Malkin the chance for the hat-trick and taken the penalty shot, but it would just allow more coaching options, and in my humble opinion….make more sense…..
....but that’s just one guys opinion.
Comments
Shlim
Mar 19, 11:12 AM
Always wondered this myself, and I agree with you.
If Mark Eaton came out of the box after a penalty and Gonch fired a pass to him, setting him up for a breakaway, and he were tripped up/hooked… I think a 2 minute powerplay would be much more effective than giving the goal-scoring machine Eaton a penalty shot… heh.
Tim Kurnocik
Mar 19, 11:17 AM
I couldn’t agree more. If Godard is tripped on a breakaway, I’d rather see the top PP unit out there trying to score than him 1-on-1 against a goaltender like Lundqvist or Backstrom. Sometimes it can be a penalty to the victim.
Matt Bodenschatz
Mar 19, 11:20 AM
I completely agree. If a player is awarded a penalty shot due to an infraction — trip, hook, hold, etc — the team shouldn’t be forced to take a penalty shot. They should have a choice of a penalty shot or power play.
I don’t see any logic in the current set up, especially considering how subjective the penalty shot call is and how different it is from official to official.
Nice piece, Jon.
will
Mar 19, 11:34 AM
Have you seen how many short handed goals the Pens have given up… I say take the penalty shot every time ;)
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 11:55 AM
John, I would have to agree I like the option. What if the player is dead tired after playing an extended shift? He can barely skate and you want him to beat an athlete that isn’t winded at all. Thats just not fair. Now what if that penalty makes it a 5 on 3. You now have a two man advantage. I would love to hear the argument the other way. Aside from Will’s SH idea.
Jmont
Mar 19, 11:59 AM
Nice article. I have the itch to challenge this thinking a little bit.
My Coach once told us (paraphrased) “It’s the ref’s game, and we have to play it.” Giving the coach the choice means that the coach is handed some measure of control over the game, which is traditionally reserved for the officials. Being a bit of a traditionalist, that doesn’t feel right to me. I do agree that the awarding of a penalty shot is way too subjective and I feel that the rules surrounding it need to be clarified or changed.
But, I don’t feel that giving coaches the choice will improve the game, nor fix problems with penalties on a breakaway. The penalty shot call is mainly subjective to the referees opinion of whether or not the puck carrier has a clear and unchallenged lane to the net, a breakaway, and that judgement is where it all rests.
Assuming the suggestion you made is implemented, the issue surrounding the penalty shifts from whether or not the shot is awarded, to whether or not the coach is given the option between PP and PS. However, the basis of the problem remains the same: the Ref’s judgement of a breakaway or not.
My own solution to this problem would involve a major change in the way calls are made, reflecting better training that Officials should recieve in making these judgement calls. Whether or not that happens, I say keep the penalty shot. It’s something that fits hockey, and it fits the way the game is played/coached, the identity of this sport.
Still, I like the way you’re thinking. Keep up the good work.
Jonathan Farzalo
Mar 19, 12:00 PM
But there again, I’m not saying (as in Will’s Case) that you HAVE to take the 2 min powerplay and risk giving up the shorty, it’s a choice…as a coach you can decide.
jazzscreamer
Mar 19, 03:01 PM
I would suggest having the PS act as a delayed penalty opportunity. So, if the goal scoring machine Mark Eaton happens to not convert on his PS chance the PP still occurs; but if he manages to finish his shot then the PP does not occur. Nice piece and good thoughts.
Pens1967
Mar 19, 04:39 PM
Why should it be either or? Why not award the penalty shot and start the 2 minutes when the player touches the puck at center ice, if the player scores, then the penalty is over, just the same as if there was a score on the PP. If the player doesn’t score, then the team gets the balance of the 2 minutes for a traditional PP.
DaBich
Mar 20, 05:51 AM
Oh I like Pens1967’s idea. But isn’t that a little like double penalty?
Jon, great idea…now, let’s write to the league and get them to consider it!
Pens1967
Mar 20, 06:19 AM
Well, what would happen if, on the PP, one of the PP team’s players got a breakaway and was hauled down by a defender? Wouldn’t that player get a penalty shot and then the PP would resume if he didn’t score?
Matt Bodenschatz
Mar 20, 08:40 AM
@Pens, yes, but it would continue as a result of the previous penalty.
I like your idea, though. I would make a slight change. instead of starting the clock when the shooter touches the puck, why not just give an abbreviated (1 minute) power play if the shooter misses the penalty shot? If he makes it, the penalty is killed. If he misses, the team has one minute of power play time.
Gabe McCall
Mar 20, 09:05 AM
if there are any changes to the rule i would think the league would consider the option of allowing ANY player on the team awarded the PS to shoot
if someone like scuds or godard are somehow awarded a penalty shot, im sure bettman would rather see crosby or malkin take it (even though theyre atrocious in shootouts)....especially if its a nationally televised game
Tim
Mar 20, 11:00 AM
JMONT, just to play devil’s advocate to your devil’s advocate, if a defending player throws his stick at a player on a breakaway, it is an automatic PS, thus not subjective, so long as the stick throwing is not questionable. Hartnell did that to Malone this year with under 1 minute to play in a tie game. Bugsy missed the PS then TB lost in OT.
So while the majority of PS’s are subjective, it is not absolute.
I tend to disagree with your coach’s opinion that it is the Ref’s game. That may be the case with a lot of refs, but it shouldn’t be. The best refs should not be noticed, one way or the other in a game.
I agree with the theme of the article. It should be at the discretion of the team being fouled as to whether to take the PS or PK. Usually, a saved PS is a huge momentum swing. A killed PP is as well, but at least the team fouled has more than a split second to determine the result.
Jmont
Mar 20, 12:34 PM
TIM, it’s true that it’s not subjective every time. What I’m getting at is making it subjective much closer to never, to better deal with the issues caused by it.
I understand that his opinion isn’t popular, even expect it. While refs can be pointed at a lot in the blame game, I agree that they should be more invisible than most are.
But I feel that coaches have to play the game as much as the players. Their jobs are much different, but the idea is the same. Handing them the type of control that this choice would bring with it feels wrong. It doesn’t fit with the game of hockey, nor it’s spirit.
No doubt every fan would be in favor of this. Why not? Each wants their team given the best opportunity to win. As a fan, I feel that way too. But the player in me overrules, and I feel it would challenge the sanctity of the game. Things don’t always go the way you want, but predictability was never a part of this game. No one has control in the game unless they take it with a will, and seeing it handed to one would just not fit.
And, just a separate thought to add: If the player does the work and has the foresight to get themselves a breakaway, and the offense takes that away, why remove their hard-won right to that shot? No doubt they were pretty tired from working to get it to begin with, so if anything they are more rested for the PS than they were on the initial breakaway.
But, that’s just my view. Been a while since I’ve been in a good discussion like this.
Moq
Mar 20, 01:19 PM
Personally, I prefer the analogy to the delayed penalty as mentioned by others despite the severity of the punishment. A reduced power play period as suggested by MB could be sensible compromise.
A predetermined officiating response to a game situation seems better than multiple choice.
teri
Mar 21, 02:03 PM
I’m all for giving the coach the choice. Personally, i would rather take the 2 minutes and have multiple opportunities than a one-shot deal. Just my NSHO.
Commenting is closed for this article.