Killing Two-Man Disadvantages

[KeithK]

They changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/06/report-ahl-changes-rule-following-leggio-incident/

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.

[ftyuv]

They changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/06/report-ahl-changes-rule-following-leggio-incident/

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.

[KeithK]

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.