Killing Two-Man Disadvantages

In Coach Schafer's weekly summary email, he mentioned something I found interesting (among his generally optimistic narrative about some of the things the team had done so early against such good and practiced competition).

"On Friday night, we got off to a sluggish start, and had to kill off three power plays in the first 7 minutes, including a stretch of 1 minute, 38 seconds when we were down two skaters. We have now killed off 16 consecutive two-man disadvantages, spanning 14:50 and dating back to 2012."

That's actually kind of impressive. Of course there's the caveat that these two-man disadvantages (presumably most of them 5-on-3, though probably an occasional 6-on-4 with an empty net) averaged less than a minute each, and there's no additional information about whether any of the two-man disadvantages that converted to one-man-disadvantage penalty kills resulted in giving up a PPG. But still.

The two-man advantage is the most dangerous man-advantage in hockey.

And here I thought this would be about former Clarkson goalie David Leggio purposefully dislodging the net when facing a 2-on-0 th.e other day

Jordan 04
The two-man advantage is the most dangerous man-advantage in hockey.

First, ha.

Dafatone
And here I thought this would be about former Clarkson goalie David Leggio purposefully dislodging the net when facing a 2-on-0 th.e other day

Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]

Bahnstorm

Jordan 04
The two-man advantage is the most dangerous man-advantage in hockey.

First, ha.

Dafatone
And here I thought this would be about former Clarkson goalie David Leggio purposefully dislodging the net when facing a 2-on-0 th.e other day

Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]

Re Leggio: thought that was such a trashy thing to do. "Awarded Goals" exist in the NHL rulebook; that situation warrants one.

Re 5 on 3 defense: Every time I've ever seen a football team "fourth and inches" someone comments that if you can't make "Fourth and Inches" you probably don't deserve to win the game. More than 60 seconds of 5-3 hockey is a similar thing. The fact that Cornell even pays attention to that stat puts this team's focus on defense into perspective. Assuming Schafer hasn't just jynxed it.

Bahnstorm
Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]

He stopped the penalty shot too. Puck don't lie.

LaJollaRed

Bahnstorm

Jordan 04
The two-man advantage is the most dangerous man-advantage in hockey.

First, ha.

Dafatone
And here I thought this would be about former Clarkson goalie David Leggio purposefully dislodging the net when facing a 2-on-0 th.e other day

Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]

Re Leggio: thought that was such a trashy thing to do. "Awarded Goals" exist in the NHL rulebook; that situation warrants one.

Re 5 on 3 defense: Every time I've ever seen a football team "fourth and inches" someone comments that if you can't make "Fourth and Inches" you probably don't deserve to win the game. More than 60 seconds of 5-3 hockey is a similar thing. The fact that Cornell even pays attention to that stat puts this team's focus on defense into perspective. Assuming Schafer hasn't just jynxed it.

Except that the attackers never even got a shot, saying nothing of on goal. So it's hard to award a goal, without there even being a shot.

Jim Hyla
Except that the attackers never even got a shot, saying nothing of on goal. So it's hard to award a goal, without there even being a shot.

They probably never attempted a shot because the net was off its moorings so early.

I think you almost have to award a goal in this situation. Otherwise it becomes the obvious thing to do anytime a goalie sees a 2-0 developing since the odds of stopping a penalty shot are greater than stopping a 2-0. Not that this happens all that often but it's not as rare as a Cornell player scoring on a penalty shot.

ugarte

Bahnstorm
Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]

He stopped the penalty shot too. Puck don't lie.

Probably figured his coach would beat him if he didn't.

Too soon?

KeithK

Jim Hyla
Except that the attackers never even got a shot, saying nothing of on goal. So it's hard to award a goal, without there even being a shot.

They probably never attempted a shot because the net was off its moorings so early.

I think you almost have to award a goal in this situation. Otherwise it becomes the obvious thing to do anytime a goalie sees a 2-0 developing since the odds of stopping a penalty shot are greater than stopping a 2-0. Not that this happens all that often but it's not as rare as a Cornell player scoring on a penalty shot.

Did you watch it? The man on right wing missed the pass and had no chance of a shot.

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
Except that the attackers never even got a shot, saying nothing of on goal. So it's hard to award a goal, without there even being a shot.

They probably never attempted a shot because the net was off its moorings so early.

I think you almost have to award a goal in this situation. Otherwise it becomes the obvious thing to do anytime a goalie sees a 2-0 developing since the odds of stopping a penalty shot are greater than stopping a 2-0. Not that this happens all that often but it's not as rare as a Cornell player scoring on a penalty shot.

Did you watch it? The man on right wing missed the pass and had no chance of a shot.

OK, I missed that point. Was so focused on the net. The question then is whether the net was kicked off before the pass was missed. If after then you're right that a goal shouldn't be awarded.

They changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

[prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com]

BMac
They changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

[prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com]

Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.

Kyle Rose

BMac
They changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

[prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com]

Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.

I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net. This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BMac
They changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

[prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com]

Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.

I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net. This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.

I think there should be repercussions outside of just the game -- a fine or something -- for doing something that is so blatantly against the spirit of the sport. This move was bush league to the extreme. While I agree that it's hard to justify awarding a goal where a shot wasn't ever taken, this is something I'd be embarrassed to see at a Wednesday night pickup game, let alone a professional game.

I don't know if there are rules that allow this sort of "it's not cricket" fining, and if there aren't, then Leggio shouldn't be fined for this incident. But that rule should be introduced.

I had the same thought when Avery pulled his crap against Brodeur, too.

ftyuv

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BMac
They changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

[prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com]

Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.

I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net. This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.

I think there should be repercussions outside of just the game -- a fine or something -- for doing something that is so blatantly against the spirit of the sport. This move was bush league to the extreme. While I agree that it's hard to justify awarding a goal where a shot wasn't ever taken, this is something I'd be embarrassed to see at a Wednesday night pickup game, let alone a professional game.

I don't know if there are rules that allow this sort of "it's not cricket" fining, and if there aren't, then Leggio shouldn't be fined for this incident. But that rule should be introduced.

I had the same thought when Avery pulled his crap against Brodeur, too.

It's absolutely a bush league move. But it's within the rules as much as a defenseman diving, stick extended, to trip the puck carrier in that situation. In both cases you commit an infraction and pay the penalty on the ice (penalty shot). I find it hard to justify a fine or suspension for poor sportsmanship when no one is getting hurt. Better to adjusthe rules as they half to reduce or eliminate the incentive for this kind of move.

KeithK

ftyuv

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BMac
They changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

[prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com]

Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.

I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net. This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.

I think there should be repercussions outside of just the game -- a fine or something -- for doing something that is so blatantly against the spirit of the sport. This move was bush league to the extreme. While I agree that it's hard to justify awarding a goal where a shot wasn't ever taken, this is something I'd be embarrassed to see at a Wednesday night pickup game, let alone a professional game.

I don't know if there are rules that allow this sort of "it's not cricket" fining, and if there aren't, then Leggio shouldn't be fined for this incident. But that rule should be introduced.

I had the same thought when Avery pulled his crap against Brodeur, too.

It's absolutely a bush league move. But it's within the rules as much as a defenseman diving, stick extended, to trip the puck carrier in that situation. In both cases you commit an infraction and pay the penalty on the ice (penalty shot). I find it hard to justify a fine or suspension for poor sportsmanship when no one is getting hurt. Better to adjusthe rules as they half to reduce or eliminate the incentive for this kind of move.

Many organizations have policies, explicit or implicit, of "if you act in an unbecoming way that embarrasses the organization, you'll get punished." What I'm suggesting would fall in lines with that. In other words, the punishment wouldn't be for an infraction against the other team -- that's been dealt with already by the penalty shot, as you say -- but against the league as a whole.

Just because something isn't explicitly disallowed, it doesn't mean you can do it with impunity. I only mention that so that I can link to the obligatory Seinfeld moment.

ftyuv
Many organizations have policies, explicit or implicit, of "if you act in an unbecoming way that embarrasses the organization, you'll get punished." What I'm suggesting would fall in lines with that. In other words, the punishment wouldn't be for an infraction against the other team -- that's been dealt with already by the penalty shot, as you say -- but against the league as a whole.

Sure and that's not an unreasonable position.

Taking action against an athlete beyond what is explicitly called for in the rules is both harder to justify (IMO) and harder to make stick. Or at least would be harder to make stick at the highest level. Organizations can usually do whatever they want to players in the minors.