HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Penalty Shots

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-18-2006, 10:04 PM
  #1
sarge88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 11,115
vCash: 500
Penalty Shots

For those who have been here for awhile - I know this is something I seem to bring up every time an in-game penalty shot happens but.........

I still think a team should be given the choice to take the penalty shot or powerplay.

Regarding Sturm tonight - I think I probably would have taken the powerplay. The first reason being;

without looking it up - I think Sturm isn't all that great on them

Secondly, given the time of the game - they may have been better off using the powerplay to kill some clock.

IMO - a penalty shot is designed to give the team an advantage - if Andrew Alberts or Nathan Dempsey were awarded a penalty shot - this point would be more clear cut. There is no way in the world that either of those guys on the penalty shot would be a better choice than a 2 minute powerplay.

Just a pet peeve of mine. Thanks for listening.

sarge88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 10:13 PM
  #2
BruinsCupNow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 745
vCash: 500
I'm sure somebody out there has done this already...but are there stats on the scoring % on in-game penalty shots, vs. scoring % on penalties???

--BCN

BruinsCupNow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 10:39 PM
  #3
ksp1957
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Shore
Posts: 16,959
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ksp1957
Question. Why was that a penalty shot ?? I always thought that if you managed to get a shot off, even when you're in alone, it was a hooking penalty, as opposed to the penalty shot. Besides, I agree, I would rather have had the penalty anyways.

ksp1957 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 11:01 PM
  #4
BBruin66
Registered User
 
BBruin66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Orono
Country: United States
Posts: 913
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BBruin66
I think if you miss the penalty shot, you should then get the 2 minute PP

BBruin66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 12:14 AM
  #5
Cheesy
Registered User
 
Cheesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Londonderry, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBruin66 View Post
I think if you miss the penalty shot, you should then get the 2 minute PP
That's good for the team you root for, but if it went against the Bruins I'd be rip****. So I'd have to say no to that idea.

Cheesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 12:25 AM
  #6
PlayMakers
Hockey's Future Staff
 
PlayMakers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellesley, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBruin66 View Post
I think if you miss the penalty shot, you should then get the 2 minute PP
Ooh, that'd be awesome. But I think we'd see even fewer penalty shots called if that was the case.

As far as having a choice, it's a nice idea, but I'd bet every coach in the league would choose the shot. And judging by Lewis' reaction to the call I'd say he'd have gone with the shot as well. After all, you can have a full 2 minute power play and not get a shot on goal, let alone a scoring chance as good as a guy one-on-one with the goalie, right down the middle.

PlayMakers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 08:52 AM
  #7
sarge88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 11,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayMaker View Post
Ooh, that'd be awesome. But I think we'd see even fewer penalty shots called if that was the case.

As far as having a choice, it's a nice idea, but I'd bet every coach in the league would choose the shot. And judging by Lewis' reaction to the call I'd say he'd have gone with the shot as well. After all, you can have a full 2 minute power play and not get a shot on goal, let alone a scoring chance as good as a guy one-on-one with the goalie, right down the middle.
I doubt that every coach would choose the shot - every time. Think about it - IMO the way the B's powerplay is going, I'd take the pp over the shot if any of the following players were the ones to take the shot;

Axelsson, Murray, any D-man except maybe B. Stuart, Donovan, Primeau, Mowers, Stastny

The only ones I'd absolutely let shoot would be;

Bergeron, Savard, Kessel, Chistov, Tenkrat, Boyes

Strum is iffy - last night I'd have taken the pp because of the time it happened and the fact that they could have used the pp to kill some clock.

sarge88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 09:53 AM
  #8
BostonPC
Bleed Black & Gold
 
BostonPC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBruin66 View Post
I think if you miss the penalty shot, you should then get the 2 minute PP
The Penalty shot has bothered me too.

How about if you miss the penalty shot you get a 1 minute PP.

That would give the attacking team a couple more shots at a goal but not penalize the defending team too much for having their goalie make a nice save.

BostonPC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 10:22 AM
  #9
Brewin
Registered User
 
Brewin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarge88 View Post
IMO - a penalty shot is designed to give the team an advantage - if Andrew Alberts or Nathan Dempsey were awarded a penalty shot - this point would be more clear cut. There is no way in the world that either of those guys on the penalty shot would be a better choice than a 2 minute powerplay.
I dunno....I think that if a player does the work to get in position to take an outlet pass to get sprung on a breakaway - or does all the work themselves to get the break - and then are hauled down/interfeared with, they deserve another shot at the goal. Alberts or not - if he somehow got a breakaway, why wouldn't he be deserving of the penalty shot? There's less that could go wrong, and he could pull off a Brian Rolston and just fire a bullet once he crosses the blueline.

As for opinions, I'm not one to say an opinion is ever wrong, but we're talking about rules here - opinions matter little. The rule is not 'to give the team an advantage' in the same sense as a PP, it's there to right a wrong. Once it's down to one on one (the breaking player and the goalie) and that player is obstructed, it's pretty easy to fix the problem - recreate the situaiton. A penalty shot. Other penalty situaitons aren't recreated so easily, the PP even's this out.

Leaving the choice to the coach opens up something I don't think we want to see. Once you can decide what kind of penalty you want there, why not decide if you want another team's 10min major reduced to say a 5min major similar to a fighting major where the team stays shorthanded for 5 minutes regarless of the goals scored? And that's just an example. I say leave the calls to the refs, all we need is 50 threads on weather Lewis should have let so-and-so shoot or not...or more threads ripping on all the new rule changes.

Brewin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 10:56 AM
  #10
dead_golem
Registered User
 
dead_golem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Salem, MA
Posts: 1,127
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dead_golem
What if the penalty shot was changed to a 2-on-1? Puck has to start inside defensive zone blueline defensive player has to start at his own blue line. If the d-man commits a penalty on the 2-on-1 it goes to a double-minor PP situation.

dead_golem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 04:56 PM
  #11
legardien91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Deerfield Beach, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 450
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to legardien91
Quote:
Originally Posted by dead_golem View Post
What if the penalty shot was changed to a 2-on-1? Puck has to start inside defensive zone blueline defensive player has to start at his own blue line. If the d-man commits a penalty on the 2-on-1 it goes to a double-minor PP situation.
That's a pretty radical idea... but very intriguing. How would the particulars work on that? Obviously the player who normally would be the penalty shot-taker would be involved.... would the attacking team choose from whomever was on the ice at the time of the infraction... or anyone from the bench... and how about the defensive selection?

While I like the idea of it, I'm afraid it might get a little too messy...

legardien91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 05:54 PM
  #12
Reckless Abandon*
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 2,601
vCash: 500
I think there should be a choice as well, even though Im pretty sure every coach would choose the penalty shot, unless it was like a one goal game with less than 2 mins or something.

Think about, a breakaway is probably one of the best oppurtunities to score, and with a shot, your guaranteed this, whereas in a PP, your not even guaranteed a shot at all. Regardless of whose taking the shot, I'd probably choose the shot anyways.

Reckless Abandon* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 06:20 PM
  #13
sarge88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 11,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cshutout33 View Post
I think there should be a choice as well, even though Im pretty sure every coach would choose the penalty shot, unless it was like a one goal game with less than 2 mins or something.

Think about, a breakaway is probably one of the best oppurtunities to score, and with a shot, your guaranteed this, whereas in a PP, your not even guaranteed a shot at all. Regardless of whose taking the shot, I'd probably choose the shot anyways.
I know it seems odd and if I were a Stars fan, I may feel differently -but being a B's fan - I have such a negative feeling about penalty shots - I never think the B's player is going to score - regardless of who it is.

sarge88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 09:24 PM
  #14
Mazzie
Registered User
 
Mazzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwest Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 840
vCash: 500
I look at a penalty shot as a second chance for a player who was cheated out of a fair play. It has nothing to do with his team, or his coach, or anyone but him. I think if you asked 1000 players, 999 of them would say they want the penalty shot. They want a fair chance to capitalize on their hard earned break away.

Anyways, I think a true penalty shot (not part of a shoot out) is the most exciting play in hockey, and they shouldn't mess with it. When your guy gets hauled down, and the ref points to center ice, you feel like you've hit the lottery. When he picks up that puck at center ice and heads toward the net, the anticipation is so thick, you could cut it with a knife. Hollywood couldn't spend enough money to manufacture such great drama (for a hockey fan anyways).

Mazzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2006, 10:05 PM
  #15
gobruins14
Registered User
 
gobruins14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BAL 302 Row 6 Seat 4
Country: United States
Posts: 2,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksp1957 View Post
Question. Why was that a penalty shot ?? I always thought that if you managed to get a shot off, even when you're in alone, it was a hooking penalty, as opposed to the penalty shot. Besides, I agree, I would rather have had the penalty anyways.

Nope, even if you get the shot off it's a penalty shot. If you're in on a clean break and get hooked/tripped up in any way (unless the defending player makes contact with the puck first), that's a penalty shot.

I wish it were called more often.

gobruins14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2006, 06:46 AM
  #16
Don Cherry*
 
Don Cherry*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vermont
Country: United States
Posts: 6,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksp1957 View Post
Question. Why was that a penalty shot ?? I always thought that if you managed to get a shot off, even when you're in alone, it was a hooking penalty, as opposed to the penalty shot. Besides, I agree, I would rather have had the penalty anyways.
It looked like a lame call to me. I also would rather have had the pp seeing as Sturm took a page from the PJ Axeltov book on breakaways before his attempt.

Speaking of lame calls. I think the bulk of the calls have been going our way overall of late which hasn't hurt.

Don Cherry* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2006, 09:14 AM
  #17
ksp1957
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Shore
Posts: 16,959
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ksp1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobruins14 View Post
Nope, even if you get the shot off it's a penalty shot. If you're in on a clean break and get hooked/tripped up in any way (unless the defending player makes contact with the puck first), that's a penalty shot.

I wish it were called more often.
Interesting. When I used to go in the 70s, it was almost never called. It looked like the rule of thumb was, if the player got the shot off, then it was a penalty as opposed to a penalty shot. Too bad they don't do it like a technical in basketball. Imagine choosing who gets the penalty shot. Who would you have chosen to take the penalty shot in that situation ? I definitely would have gone with Bergeron !!

ksp1957 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 03:17 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.