HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

1 minute penaties?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-09-2009, 08:42 PM
  #1
NHLcrazy
Registered User
 
NHLcrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Qc city
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,872
vCash: 500
1 minute penaties?

IMO there are 3 stupid types of penalties in the league that I would like to disappear or at least change:

-Instigator penalty (just plain dumb)

-The extra 2mins because of bleeding after a high stick (make high sticking always 2mins or always 4mins but i can't understand the reasoning behind this...)

-Puck over the glass (never was a fan, maybe give a penalty every 3 times it happens during a game or if the refs determine it was clearly intentional)

All three should be made a 1 min penalty

Oh and last thing I'd like to see changed is that if a player at the end of overtime is in the penalty box he can't be part of the SO

NHLcrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 08:45 PM
  #2
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLcrazy View Post
IMO there are 3 stupid types of penalties in the league that I would like to disappear or at least change:

-Instigator penalty (just plain dumb)

-The extra 2mins because of bleeding after a high stick (make high sticking always 2mins or always 4mins but i can't understand the reasoning behind this...)

-Puck over the glass (never was a fan, maybe give a penalty every 3 times it happens during a game or if the refs determine it was clearly intentional)

All three should be made a 1 min penalty

Oh and last thing I'd like to see changed is that if a player at the end of overtime is in the penalty box he can't be part of the SO
1 min penalties seems silly. Either it should be a full penalty or not a penalty.

Specifically:

-Instigator: I generally agree.

-Bleeding: It was made that way to make the calls uniform and no longer subjective. It used to be a judgement call about intent and that injects human opinion and error. Generally when the rule is absolute, there is no debate. That's a good thing.

-Pucks Over Glass: Chicken and the egg. There used to be no rule and everytime there was pressure, people would aim for Row 12A. The rule eliminates it as a strategy. See above as to why it's absolute.

I am all for absolutes in rules where possible. If it's absolute, no one can ***** during the last two minutes of Game 7 of the Cup Finals when the call goes against you.

Now... A rule change I'd love to see is the introduction of penalty time. Essentially, if the game is tied or you're down by one with under two minutes left in OT or regulation and the opposition takes a penalty. The game should be extended until the end of the powerplay.

It sounds absurd, but take Kovalev's play against Dallas. He knew he could blatantly break the rules without repercussions due to the time on the clock. It makes the last 5 seconds of every game a free for all. If the team can tie/win on the resulting PP, the game should be extended for late penalties.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 08:48 PM
  #3
RE-HABS
Registered User
 
RE-HABS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,885
vCash: 500
It is a Burke idea so go figure.

RE-HABS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 08:50 PM
  #4
xduckiex
Registered User
 
xduckiex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,031
vCash: 500
The league is looking at ways to increase the number of goals scored. 1 minute penalties would do the opposite so I don't see that happening

xduckiex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 08:55 PM
  #5
NHLcrazy
Registered User
 
NHLcrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Qc city
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post

-Bleeding: It was made that way to make the calls uniform and no longer subjective. It used to be a judgement call about intent and that injects human opinion and error. Generally when the rule is absolute, there is no debate. That's a good thing.
But why would a non intentional high stick that results in bleeding would be penalized more severely than an intentional high stick without bleeding??


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post

-Pucks Over Glass: Chicken and the egg. There used to be no rule and everytime there was pressure, people would aim for Row 12A. The rule eliminates it as a strategy.
I don't remember this being that big of an issue before they put the rule in place...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RE-HABS View Post
It is a Burke idea so go figure.
Really? didn't know that...when did he propose it?

NHLcrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 08:58 PM
  #6
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLcrazy View Post
IMO there are 3 stupid types of penalties in the league that I would like to disappear or at least change:

-Instigator penalty (just plain dumb)
I am SO tired of reading this. Instigating a fight MUST carry a greater penalty than defending oneself, for Chrissakes.

The instigating rule was put in because players were taking liberties with valuable players of the opposing team.

If Stewart can jump Chara, for instance, and there is no instigating penalty, then both teams lose a player for 5 or 7 minutes. Who really loses in that case?

And who is to say the guy being jumped is always a tough guy? I bet if teams were constantly dropping gloves to punch Andrei Markov or Saku Koivu, we would have folks here screaming bloody murder!

Those who want the instigator rule dropped are usually thinking of a few specific cases where they feel that the goon on their side could "teach a good lesson" to an agitator from the other side who might have got away with something. But you have to balance out whatever good that would do for the league with the very, very bad things that would result from allowing aggression against good players to go unpunished.

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 08:59 PM
  #7
hogtownhabsfan*
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,727
vCash: 500
Puck over the glass should be treated same way as an icing. In essence, they are the same play...

No reason they shouldn't suffer the same result. A defensive zone faceoff without the right to change is suffice...

hogtownhabsfan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:03 PM
  #8
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
1Now... A rule change I'd love to see is the introduction of penalty time. Essentially, if the game is tied or you're down by one with under two minutes left in OT or regulation and the opposition takes a penalty. The game should be extended until the end of the powerplay.

It sounds absurd, but take Kovalev's play against Dallas. He knew he could blatantly break the rules without repercussions due to the time on the clock. It makes the last 5 seconds of every game a free for all. If the team can tie/win on the resulting PP, the game should be extended for late penalties.
This is something I have been saying for two years. Therefore, it is a FANTASTIC idea!!

Seriously.

Note, however, that Kovy's penalty last night wouldn't qualify since it was a two-goal lead. But with a ONE-goal differential, I totally agree.

The extra time would end if either team scored a goal or if the team with the man advantage took a penalty of its own.

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:09 PM
  #9
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLcrazy View Post
But why would a non intentional high stick that results in bleeding would be penalized more severely than an intentional high stick without bleeding??
It's all about subjectivity. You want to put the least amount of judgment into the call as possible.

Technically, if it's real bad, blood or no blood... they can call 5 minutes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLcrazy View Post
I don't remember this being that big of an issue before they put the rule in place...
It wasn't enormous, but it happened and it no longer happens. The point of the rule was not to call penalties, it was to prevent people from delaying the game.

Technically, it used to be a goalie trick. They'd fire the puck into the crowd if there was pressure. That's why the penalty was goalie only at first. Later they extended it to make it fair to everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
This is something I have been saying for two years. Therefore, it is a FANTASTIC idea!!

Seriously.

Note, however, that Kovy's penalty last night wouldn't qualify since it was a two-goal lead. But with a ONE-goal differential, I totally agree.

The extra time would end if either team scored a goal or if the team with the man advantage took a penalty of its own.
Komisarek was already in the box, thus it was a 5-on-3, which means Dallas could have tied it on the resulting PP and thus the game would have been extended until, at minimum, Komisarek's call expires.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:09 PM
  #10
Shred
Registered User
 
Shred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post

If Stewart can jump Chara, for instance, and there is no instigating penalty, then both teams lose a player for 5 or 7 minutes. Who really loses in that case?
For starters, Stewart loses a few teeth.

Shred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:11 PM
  #11
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shred View Post
For starters, Stewart loses a few teeth.
Great. NOT.

So turn it around, no instigator penalty means Chara can jump shoever he wants anytime and knock a few teeth out each time? Without even any extra penalty compared to the guy defending himself???

Shameful idea.

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:12 PM
  #12
NHLcrazy
Registered User
 
NHLcrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Qc city
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post

The instigating rule was put in because players were taking liberties with valuable players of the opposing team.

If Stewart can jump Chara, for instance, and there is no instigating penalty, then both teams lose a player for 5 or 7 minutes. Who really loses in that case?
Not necessarily... Ott was jumped by Stewart yesterday and ended up getting 0 minute of penalty. If someone jumps Koivu and he doesn't fight the player will either get 2mins for roughing of a 5 minutes for fighting. Plus when he'll be back he's going to get the visit from one of our tougher guys to remind him not to jump our star players and this tough guy (Laraque, Kosto, Stewart) will NOT get a 2mins for instigating...all ends well


Last edited by NHLcrazy: 03-09-2009 at 09:17 PM.
NHLcrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:15 PM
  #13
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLcrazy View Post
Not necessarily... Ott was jumped by Stewart yesterday but ended up getting 0 minute of penalty. If someone jumps Koivu and he doesn't fight the player will either get 2mins for roughing of a 5 minutes for fighting. Plus when he'll be back he's going to get the visit from one of our tougher guys to remind him not to jump our stars player and this tough guy (Laraque, Kosto, Stewart) will NOT get a 2mins for instigating...all ends well
Ridiculous. Koivu should be forbidden from even TRYING to defend himself? He should sit there and HOPE that the guy stops punching soon? Like Bobby Nadeau maybe?

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:15 PM
  #14
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
Great. NOT.

So turn it around, no instigator penalty means Chara can jump shoever he wants anytime and knock a few teeth out each time? Without even any extra penalty compared to the guy defending himself???

Shameful idea.
The instigator should be tweaked.

Right now, it's basically a third man in rule, isn't it? If two players are jostling and one guy comes in to defend a teammate, he gets the penalty.

I think that shouldn't matter. What should matter is if it's an attack vs. a challenge.

Also, if Player A is Attacking Player B and Player C pulls him off and beats him up. I think Player A should get the extra penalty, not Player C (as it is now).

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:18 PM
  #15
Peter Puck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
The extra 2 for drawing blood has a huge flaw. Players with visors on are much less likely to be cut. I see this as an incentive for players to go without visors. In my view, if a player doesn't wear a visor and gets cut in a place where his visor would have protected him, the cut is his own fault and the penalty should only be for 2 minutes not 4.

Peter Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:18 PM
  #16
NHLcrazy
Registered User
 
NHLcrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Qc city
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
Ridiculous. Koivu should be forbidden from even TRYING to defend himself? He should sit there and HOPE that the guy stops punching soon? Like Bobby Nadeau maybe?
no like Ott yesterday...he defended himself and had 0 minute of penalty!

NHLcrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:19 PM
  #17
camnly
Registered User
 
camnly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 252
vCash: 500
How bout a goal scored by a highsitck counts if the players stick is below his own shoulder not the crossbar. It is impossible to tell on tv replays definatively if the goalscorers stick is over the crossbar or not. Make it the players own shoulder. Yes taller players in theory would have the advantage, but is not being bigger in Hockey an advantage anyway. If you use the players own shoulder as the gauge the calls will be black and white.

camnly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:20 PM
  #18
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post

If Koivu is shoving with Shawn Thornton and Komisarek tackles Thornton and they fight. Technically, Komi gets the instigator.

I think so long as both guys drop the gloves, it should never be called.
Again, a nice convenient example. What if Koivu and Patrice Bergeron are jawing/sparring and Chara comes in and starts punching the crap out of Koivu? Or tackles him first and THEN starts punching the crap out of him?

Once again, the assumption of those who want to get rid of the rule is that the guy instigating is a "good" vigilante. In reality, if we got rid of rules that punish instigating, the majority of the instigators would be bad guys.

You cannot expect JUSTICE from letting loose biased combattants. At least not more than on the rare occasion.

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:21 PM
  #19
Peter Puck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by camnly View Post
How bout a goal scored by a highsitck counts if the players stick is below his own shoulder not the crossbar. It is impossible to tell on tv replays definatively if the goalscorers stick is over the crossbar or not. Make it the players own shoulder. Yes taller players in theory would have the advantage, but is not being bigger in Hockey an advantage anyway. If you use the players own shoulder as the gauge the calls will be black and white.
This was the way the rule used to be. It was very hard to tell whether the stick was above the shoulders or not. The rule was changed to make this call easier.

Peter Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:23 PM
  #20
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
Again, a nice convenient example. What if Koivu and Patrice Bergeron are jawing/sparring and Chara comes in and starts punching the crap out of Koivu? Or tackles him first and THEN starts punching the crap out of him?

Once again, the assumption of those who want to get rid of the rule is that the guy instigating is a "good" vigilante. In reality, if we got rid of rules that punish instigating, the majority of the instigators would be bad guys.

You cannot expect JUSTICE from letting loose biased combattants. At least not more than on the rare occasion.
Well there's a key thing here.

Fights should have a challenge/dropping of gloves.

If Thornton throws down and Koivu turtles... Komisarek should be able to step in. If Koivu drops too, then he shouldn't be able to.

If Thornton is jostling Koivu, but no gloves down and Komisarek comes over and challenges him. No instigator. If Komisarek throws down and attacks him while Thornton's gloves are on. Then an instigator.

It's convoluted, but it makes some sense

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Puck View Post
This was the way the rule used to be. It was very hard to tell whether the stick was above the shoulders or not. The rule was changed to make this call easier.
That and the only reason they don't want them to count is so guys are not waving their sticks up around each other's faces.

If you make it shoulders, Chara can still decapitate anyone in the NHL trying to tip pucks.

Everyone other than Wellwood is safe if it's the crossbar


Last edited by Habs10Habs: 03-10-2009 at 08:57 AM.
Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:25 PM
  #21
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
The instigator should be tweaked.

Right now, it's basically a third man in rule, isn't it? If two players are jostling and one guy comes in to defend a teammate, he gets the penalty.

I think that shouldn't matter. What should matter is if it's an attack vs. a challenge.

Also, if Player A is Attacking Player B and Player C pulls him off and beats him up. I think Player A should get the extra penalty, not Player C (as it is now).
I agree with tweaking the rule to apply to attacks and not challenges.

In the second case, Player A should get an extra penalty for attacking, Player C should get NO penalty for simply pulling the guy off, but he SHOULD get a penalty for then attacking him himself.

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:26 PM
  #22
camnly
Registered User
 
camnly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Puck View Post
This was the way the rule used to be. It was very hard to tell whether the stick was above the shoulders or not. The rule was changed to make this call easier.
I think that with todays camera angles it is a much easier call with the shoulder than the present crossbar system.
Oh, ya! They have to get rid of allowing intentional deflections with a players skate. What kind of nutsack rule is that.

camnly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:28 PM
  #23
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
I agree with tweaking the rule to apply to attacks and not challenges.

In the second case, Player A should get an extra penalty for attacking, Player C should get NO penalty for simply pulling the guy off, but he SHOULD get a penalty for then attacking him himself.
Exactly.

It's all fair game in my books until gloves are dropped.

You can pretty much tell when it's mutual. Players should be allowed to wrestle guys off each other and defend teammates.

The key component of a fight is once the gloves come off.

This solves both problems. You eliminate brawls still. By definition, only two guys have the gloves off without an instigator still. But you also allow people to defend each other.

So a fighter can step in and break up a wrestling match and then issue his own challenge, without issue. Then, if say Komi dragged Thornton off and they started to really fight. Koivu would get the extra if he then threw down and jumped in

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLcrazy View Post
I agree with what you say but BaseballCoach has valid points also that's why I think the NHL will not take it away but they should make it a 1 min penalty and not 2mins which is IMO to severe.
I disagree with 1 minute penalties in general.

Also, the 2 minutes isn't why no one instigates. It's the suspensions.


Last edited by Habs10Habs: 03-10-2009 at 08:58 AM.
Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:32 PM
  #24
NHLcrazy
Registered User
 
NHLcrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Qc city
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
Exactly.

It's all fair game in my books until gloves are dropped.

You can pretty much tell when it's mutual. Players should be allowed to wrestle guys off each other and defend teammates.

The key component of a fight is once the gloves come off.

This solves both problems. You eliminate brawls still. By definition, only two guys have the gloves off without an instigator still. But you also allow people to defend each other.

So a fighter can step in and break up a wrestling match and then issue his own challenge, without issue. Then, if say Komi dragged Thornton off and they started to really fight. Koivu would get the extra if he then threw down and jumped in
I agree with what you say but BaseballCoach has valid points also that's why I think the NHL will not take it away but they should make it a 1 min penalty and not 2mins which is IMO to severe.

NHLcrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 09:38 PM
  #25
Peter Puck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by camnly View Post
I think that with todays camera angles it is a much easier call with the shoulder than the present crossbar system.
Oh, ya! They have to get rid of allowing intentional deflections with a players skate. What kind of nutsack rule is that.
The problem is that today's camera angles are not really much better than they used to be. What the league needs is a camera viewing straight out at a height of 4 feet (height of the net). With such a view it would be clear whether a puck was above or below the crossbar.

Instead we have views looking down on the players. When a player has his the butt of his stick at his waist and is reaching up for the puck it is very hard to tell, looking downward, whether he hits the puck above or below his shoulder (or above or below the crossbar).

Peter Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.