Scott Burnside is a Moron.

[The Crimson King]

I mean on porpoise

 

[Dacks]

Guys, it's not like the advantage of being able to ice the puck when shorthanded somehow outweighs the disadvantage of being down a man for two minutes. If you disallowed icing on the PK and subsequently disallowed line changes, it would be too much of an advantage for the attacking team, on what are frequently borderline penalties anyway. Leave the man-advantage alone. "If it ain't broke..."

 

[SLY]

Your penalized for a reason... You shouldn't be granted a special privelege. Yes being down a man is bad enough, but it offsets the point of the penalty.

 

[Dacks]

Your penalized for a reason... You shouldn't be granted a special privelege. Yes being down a man is bad enough, but it offsets the point of the penalty.

Yes, but it's gotta be a balance. Ten minutes for an accidental high stick would be overkill. Thirty seconds for elbowing would be too little. As it stands, two minutes with icing allowed is the current standard, with teams scoring between 15% and 25% of the time. That seems to me to be a good balance. So I have two questions for you.

1) Let's say you took out icing on the pk, and didn't allow changes. This would obviously lead to a lot of tired defenders in many cases. Suppose powerplay percentages jumped to 40 or 50%. Would you like this?

2) If not, let's say you take out icing on the pk, but reduce penatlies to one minute, such that conversion rates return to the same rates. Would you prefer this?

Hockey's not a court of law. Rules aren't there to be 100% fair and logical, they are there to make it a good and interesting game.

 

[Comeds]

Shallower nets is an interesting idea.

 

[loki604]

Guys, it's not like the advantage of being able to ice the puck when shorthanded somehow outweighs the disadvantage of being down a man for two minutes. If you disallowed icing on the PK and subsequently disallowed line changes, it would be too much of an advantage for the attacking team, on what are frequently borderline penalties anyway. Leave the man-advantage alone. "If it ain't broke..."

Don't forget, he also wants the PP to be the full two minutes, regardless of how many goals scored.

It could be a tight tied game in the third...an iffy penalty gets called...no line changes, no icing, and the full two minutes...there's like a 50%-75% chance the team would score a goal, and a pretty high chance of them getting two.

 

[Dacks]

One rule I'd like to see: Teams can opt for a two-minute powerplay instead of a penalty shot.

 

[Destroydacre]

One rule I'd like to see: Teams can opt for a two-minute powerplay instead of a penalty shot.

I'm not really a fan of that myself, however I would like to see a team get a power play if there is a delayed call and then the team gets a penalty shot. They're two different infractions and I've never understood why a penalty shot wipes out a delayed penalty call. And just to be clear, I think the team should get a power play regardless of the result of the penalty shot. Similarly, I also think a team should still go on the power play if they score on a delayed call. I think I'm in the minority on that one though.