(Note: Comprehensive means long, but I've quoted several relevant passages
from the NCAA rule book.)
To address David's points:
>I am pretty sure that a previous post that mentioned scoring on a delayed
>penalty shot was incorrect. The assumption was that if a man was in the
>box the goal counts and then you take the penalty shot. The goal would
>count, but the penalty shot would be wiped out. The mistake here is
>assuming that a penalty shot is just like a minor penalty. It is not. The
>point of the penalty shot is to restore the lost scoring chance. If the
>guy scored on it, he doesn't get a chance for a bonus goal.
I have found nothing in the rule book that indicates that a penalty shot is
different than any other penalty in this context. Rule 4-2d states:
"If the referee signals an additional minor penalty(s) against a team
that already is short-handed because of one or more minor or bench
minor penalties, and a goal is scored by the nonoffending team before
the whistle is blown, the goal shall be allowed, the delayed
penalty(s)
shall be assessed, and the minor penalty already being served that
caused the team to be short-handed shall terminate automatically."
There is no difference between a timed penalty and a penalty shot in this
context.
There are some situations which call for a penalty shot even though the
infraction may not have directly interfered with a scoring chance. Rule
2-6h states:
"If, in the last two minutes of regulation time or any time during
overtime, there is a deliberate illegal substitution (too many men on
the ice), a penalty shot/optional minor shall be assessed against the
offending team. No additional penalty shall be assessed."
Hence, if a shorthanded team makes an illegal substitution in the last two
minutes while the other team has the puck, it is quite conceivable that the
team on the power play will score before the penalty is whistled. The
minor penalty being served is terminated, and the team then has the penalty
shot (unless they opt for the minor penalty).
>If a team is on the power play and gets awarded a penalty shot and they
>score, the player in the box comes out and the teams return to even
>strength (unless the shorthanded team had 2 people in the box, or 1 serving
>a major).
This is not so. Rule 4-2c states:
"If the opposing team scores a goal while a team is short-handed by one
or more minor or bench minor penalties, the short-handed team shall be
permitted to replace immediately on the ice the player whose minor or
bench minor penalty caused the team to be short-handed, except when a
goal is scored on a penalty shot."
>The other issue is that if you don't score on the shot, you don't get a
>power play after that. I think I saw someone post that if they miss the
>shot, a man goes in the box, that isn't true (unless the player has been
>assessed multiple penalties).
Rule 4-6a states:
"When any infraction of the rules calls for a penalty shot not involving
a major, disqualification or misconduct penalty, the nonoffending team
shall be given the option of accepting the penalty shot or having a
minor penalty assessed to the offending player. If, however, a major,
disqualification or misconduct penalty is incurred with the penalty
shot, the shot shall be awarded and the penalty for the prescribed
infraction shall be assessed."
Several points to note in light of this discussion:
1) Presumably this applies to game misconduct penalties in addition to
misconduct penalties.
2) This rule says nothing about multiple minor penalties. What makes sense
to me is that if a player is assessed two minor penalties, one of which is
a penalty shot, that the second penalty will be served regardless, but the
rule says nothing on the subject.
3) The choice between the penalty shot and the timed penalty rests with the
nonoffending team, not the officials.
>I think what must have happened in the game that led to all this is that
>the ref
>was calling a delayed penalty for something else, then the infraction that led
>to the penalty shot happened. That is the only reason I know of that someone
>could be sent to the box after a goal on a penalty shot.
Based on the earlier published descriptions of the situation, I believe
that this analysis is correct.
And to follow up on Greg's questions:
>BTW, what happens if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty shot infraction
>while scoring team is shorthanded? The analogy would be:
>
>the goal counts
>the penalty shot is taken
>the original powerplay then continues
This is exactly what would happen. The rules discussed above are based on
a situation where the team on the power play scores on a delayed penalty.
>Bonus question: I see no reason in principle why both teams could not be
>assessed penalty shots on the same play (including a delay). I assume
>nobody has ever seen this happen.
In principle this could happen. Note, of course, that only one of the
penalties could be delayed, and therefore neither team could have scored
before the penalties were assessed. For example, in the last two minutes
of the game, the team without the puck could make an illegal substitution
as documented above. As the goalie heads for the bench because of the
delayed penalty, a misfired pass heads towards the now-empty goal (note:
the goal would count if it went in). A player on that team then throws his
stick to prevent the puck from entering the net, thus earning a penalty
shot according to rule 6-29a.
In considering this, it seems unlikely that both teams will receive penalty
shots on the same play unless two unrelated events occur simultaneously
(e.g. an illegal substitution at the same time as the other team is
knocking their goal off the moorings).
I hope this helps (if you've managed to read this far).
Howie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Stein Go Big Red!
Cornell '91 Kill, Schafer, Kill!
"Hooligans with horns" alumni
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
-- Will Rogers
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
