Monday, January 14, 2008

I'm Always Up For the Challenge

I could explain my absence, but instead I give you Daryl Reaugh.

Here's a thought for your Monday morning:

Wouldn't it be a better game if every minor penalty was paid for with a penalty shot?


No. It wouldn't. But I'll still read on, because he might be going somewhere with this. (You already know he isn't, but it's fun to pretend!)

Instead of 5 guys standing around passing the puck and sporadically shooting it just put the pill at center and have the confrontation that thrills the paying faithful - shooter vs goalie.

The paying faithful is really only thrilled in this situation if they cheer for the shooter in the equation. So the idea looks to be that only the road team gets penalized so that paying fans are thrilled.

My epiphany would produce five to fifteen moments of signicance during a game. It would offer immediate gratification. It might be a stronger deterrent to the hooking and holding. And it would inevitably boost scoring.

NHL games do lack a lot of signicance.

His epiphany also would produce a lot more anger towards refs, because one or two penalties would decide the outcome of a lot of games. Wins and losses should really be decided by the players and not the refs. One could make the argument that refs already decide the outcome of games because of the power play, but that's not what I'm here to do.

So, tell me why its an idiotic idea.

You can't can you?

NHL adhere.

Razor be with you.


It's an idiotic idea.

6 comments:

larry b said...

Every penalty on the defense in an NFL game should automatically advance the ball to the defense's 1 yard line, first and goal.

Every penalty on the offense should result in a safety.

If his idea were actually implemented, how many games until the first ref gets killed by a crazy player, crazy mob of fans spilling onto the ice, or a combination of the two? Probably not very many.

cs said...

Why stop there? Every defensive foul in the NBA gives the offensive team posession of the ball, and a shot from the 3-pt line, for the next 24 seconds, is worth 30 points. In baseball, if the umpire determines the pitcher hit a batter intentionally, the next batter gets his first pitch delivered underhand, on a tee or he can toss it up to himself and hit it. His choice.

larry b said...

In the Olympics, if you false start in a race of any kind, your opponent(s) get(s) to mercilessly beat on you for thirty seconds before the restart. You are not allowed to defend yourself in any way.

In the World Cup, if you foul someone, you are ejected for the rest of the tournament. If you score an own goal, you get gunned down in a drive-by when you get back to your home country. (Too soon?)

pnoles said...

Wow, the rest of the game becomes so irrelevant if that's the case. Like think about it....spending 15 minutes trying to grind out a goal is erased by....tripping.

Curious....would icing be included in "minor penalty"?

Jarrett said...

Why stop at icing? Penalty shots for offside!

And bring on the multi-puck!

Tonus said...

The reason a penalty shot is so exciting is because it's so rare.

I'd be okay with it if the penalty for diving in the hopes of drawing a penalty is that the opposition would be allowed to beat you with their sticks for the next 30 seconds. And if you were knocked unconscious, they'd have to leave you on the ice until the period was over.