Let's Go Blues

…breakaway. Because there's always that chance that the player would have missed the net. Backes could have shot wide. It awards players a goal when there's no way of knowing for sure said player would have scored. It's an assumption. The least the NHL should do to be fair is to call it a penalty shot on an empty net - granted, this may seem pointless, as the player will make the goal 99.99999% of the time, but there's always that chance. Remember Stefan's incident in Dallas, anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDbEX666G3Y

Even if that wasn't pointless (but you're right, it is), the NHL has far more important things to worry about than this. How often does this come up? Once a year? Let's make an aggressive estimate that it happens once per month (I doubt that it happens anywhere close to that often though). Let's say the season is 8 months long (including playoffs). We're talking 8 times per year. If somebody misses it once every 100 tries (which is actually a lot more often than the estimate you gave), we're not even talking a once in a decade occurrence. This is just really really unimportant IMO.

xbleed83bluex wrote:…breakaway. Because there's always that chance that the player would have missed the net. Backes could have shot wide. It awards players a goal when there's no way of knowing for sure said player would have scored. It's an assumption. The least the NHL should do to be fair is to call it a penalty shot on an empty net - granted, this may seem pointless, as the player will make the goal 99.99999% of the time, but there's always that chance. Remember Stefan's incident in Dallas, anyone?

I have to agree with this. I think the general consensus is that if you've pulled your goaltender for an extra man, then you're already behind and losing anyway. But say it's the playoffs, game seven and we're tied and on the power play and we pull Miller for the man advantage to crash the net and we get scored on in this manner.

Granted this is an insane example, and I hope if you're reading this that you understand my angle on this matter. If it's a penalty, take a man away or award a penalty shot, don't give a goal away like that. Make a team earn the goal on the ice, not from a call like that.

xbleed83bluex wrote:…breakaway. Because there's always that chance that the player would have missed the net. Backes could have shot wide. It awards players a goal when there's no way of knowing for sure said player would have scored. It's an assumption. The least the NHL should do to be fair is to call it a penalty shot on an empty net - granted, this may seem pointless, as the player will make the goal 99.99999% of the time, but there's always that chance. Remember Stefan's incident in Dallas, anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDbEX666G3Y

I agree, but not because there's a chance of missing the open net. I disagree because it's often a questionable call by the ref to award a "penalty shot." It's a complete judgement call on the part of the ref whether the forward has cleanly beaten the defender, and whether the forward has an unobstructed path to the goal. If the goalie happens to be pulled at the time of the call, that means an automatic goal. What happens if it's unclear if the forward has cleanly beaten the defender and would have a breakaway? Is it fair to award an automatic goal in that case? The judgement of the ref has been shown to be faulty once or twice in the history of the league.

What's the better option? I'm afraid I don't know. And since I don't have a better solution, I'll refrain from speaking out on the current rule, except to explain why I disagree with it.

Ok, who cares? But they have to award the penalty shit against an empty net then.

People whining led to the sissy game we have now, visors, tie downs, tampons, helmets, goalie masks.

Rules are rules. Let's focus on the stupid delay of game for the puck going out and the bullshit instigator penalties first.

I've never really thought about it, I guess. It just doesn't seem like it's a big deal to me. And actually having someone take a penalty shot at an empty net is about as big a waste of time that I can think of. If someone hauls down a player on a breakaway toward an open net, the game is most likely over at that point anyway.

Yes, you cite Stefan's misfortune, but that's so memorable because nothing like it has really happened before or since.

I think it's fine as is; you should get a goal awarded if you take down a player on a breakaway to an empty net.

The rule is there to stop players from committing egregious, intentional, or dangerous fouls on players at the end of the game. If the result is the same, there's no incentive to foul a guy going in on the empty net.

If you get a benefit (e.g. - some chance the player won't score) then you go ahead and intentionally foul, just like they do in basketball.

I see this as a player safety issue, tbh.

Well, I can see both sides.

Let's say that the goalie was still in the net when Backes was tripped. Would that have been called a penalty shot? Hell no. He was at the blue line and wasn't completely in the clear.

Because of this, maybe it should have been just a penalty. Maybe the free goal should only be called in place of an actual penalty shot worthy take down.

That said, I think everyone on the planet would agree that without being taken down, Backes had at least a 75% chance of scoring there. Probably higher, but I'm being generous. The rules are different in this case. I can see why they should be. He clearly took away a very good chance.

I have no problem with the rule as it is. I also wouldn't have a problem if they just changed it into a regular old penalty unless it was worthy of a goalie-in penalty shot being called.

Actually having the player skate down on an empty net in a penalty shot would be a farce and would make the league look dumb.

Also, I don't think this is that rare. It probably happens 5 or so times a year league wide.

Ultimately I think they just have bigger things to worry about.

I think awarding the goal in those circumstances is reasonable. A team shouldn't benefit from taking a penalty.

I also have an issue with penalties that are taken with less than 2 minutes left in the game especially intentional ones. Again its a rare set of circumstances that a team derives a benefit from this( for instance up by 2 with less than a minute left other team has pulled its goalie), but that two-handed chop that breaks the forwards stick or the non-stop crosscheck to the back of the player in front of the net or even an intentional delay of game penalty seems like a bargain for the team that takes it since the other team will only get a brief power play benefit. Beyond covering the puck in the crease, I don't think any of these calls result in penalty shots, but maybe they should.

How about this then... in a situation like the one which transpired, a penalty shot is awarded. It has to be taken by the goalie and he has to take it from his crease. I mean honestly, these guys are pros. It's a foregone conclusion that, unless your name is Brad Boyes, you can probably score on a wide open net when otherwise unobstructed. If the guy being hauled down can't score on an empty net penalty shot, he shouldn't be in the league. So if you're not going to just award the automatic goal that would have been scored anyway, at least make it a somewhat less likely gimme. Or just whistle the play dead and have an offensive zone faceoff and/or a 10 second run off.

kodos wrote:Actually having the player skate down on an empty net in a penalty shot would be a farce and would make the league look dumb.

This.
And what would make the league look even worse, is the first time a player overskates a puck or the puck bounces as he shovels it towards the net...and they miss the empty net penalty shot.

I have no problem with the way it is. The only reason a player pulls another player down on an empty net goal situation is to avoid a sure goal against and to hopefully get away with a penalty. Sure, maybe the player who was pulled down doesn't have a 100% chance of scoring, but so what? The penalty for the team who pulled him down is a goal against...that's what they get for committing a penalty in that situation.

I think awarding a penalty shot on an empty net would just be a lose-lose situation for the NHL. It would look stupid when the shot is made and it would look really stupid if the shot is missed.

Who exactly is suggesting an EMPTY NET penalty shot, because I sure as hell didn't. I didn't even know such a thing existed. Now watch, someone's going to say 'Oh yeah, here in Rule whatever have you' and I'm just going to do this

Oaklandblue wrote:Who exactly is suggesting an EMPTY NET penalty shot, because I sure as hell didn't. I didn't even know such a thing existed. Now watch, someone's going to say 'Oh yeah, here in Rule whatever have you' and I'm just going to do this

It's in the original post.

cardsfan04 wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote:Who exactly is suggesting an EMPTY NET penalty shot, because I sure as hell didn't. I didn't even know such a thing existed. Now watch, someone's going to say 'Oh yeah, here in Rule whatever have you' and I'm just going to do this

It's in the original post.

Dear God, That's just..... O.O.....

On that note, I'm getting glasses, THICK ones at that. Thanks for the save, Cards.