Takes and trash talk from both ALL sides of the NHL's most obscure PATHETIC* rivalry

* Thanks, Kevin Lowe!

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Would you rather?

So here's what happened, best as I can piece together.

Brian Boyle smashes Rob Niedermayer into the sideboards. Travis Moen skates in to hit Boyle, but is quickly pulled aside by Tom Preissing. Niedermayer comes up swinging, but is wrestled down to the ice by Boyle. Your typical BoC get-together.

Here's the announcer: "Anaheim penalties to #32 Travis Moen, two minutes for roughing. #44 Rob Niedermayer a double minor, four minutes for roughing. Los Angeles penalty to #22 Brian Boyle, two minutes for roughing. Anaheim has the option of playing two men short for two minutes, or one man short for four minutes."

First question: Has anyone ever heard of a coach given an option of how they'd prefer to serve their team's penalties before? Is that even textbook legal, or just something that sort of got slipped in the heat of game action?

But now that it's happened, here's question two: if you were a coach in that situation which option would you choose? Both seem likely to yield a goal, so I guess the question might be which is more liable to yield two goals? Randy Carlyle opted for the 4-minute 1-man-down option (which I think is the correct call the referee should have made), but what would you take as an overpenalized choose-your-own-adventure coach -- two minutes of 5-on-3 or four minutes of 5-on-4? Theoretical answers are welcome in the comments.

24 comments:

Joe said...

5 on 3 is ALWAYS a bad idea. 2 on 4 for an extended time sucks, but, especially against a team like the Kings, is a lot better to take than a 5 on 3. How often do you see a 5 on 3 not at least get some serious chances? Not often at all. But how often do you see a 2 minute 5 on 4 be completely anti-climactic, as a team has trouble even getting possession in the zone, much less establishing some offensive presence?

"Anaheim penalties to #32 Travis Moen, two minutes for roughing. #44 Rob Niedermayer a double minor, four minutes for roughing. Los Angeles penalty to #22 Brian Boyle, two minutes for roughing"

To my way of thinking, that should go as such:
ANA Moen 2:00
ANA Niedermayer 4:00
LA Boyle 2:00

I don't care if the Moen/Boyle thing is coincidental minors, allowing subs for those players on the ice. Make it a 4 on 3 for 2 minutes, then make it a 5 on 4 for another 2. I think this is a lot better way to try to increase scoring, while not adding more power plays, more random rules changes, or whatever else. More situations with fewer players on the ice = more goals, and more room for the team's stars to work with. I've always liked 4 on 4 situations as a Wings fan, because they've always been such good skating teams, that a 4 on 4 really is an advantage to them, and never turns to be an advantage for a trapping defense-first kind of team.

And the matter of choice in how the penalty is served sounds pretty fucked up to me.

Earl Sleek said...

5 on 3 is ALWAYS a bad idea.

Yeah, you're probably right, though I guess when you're a Ducks fan, you get kind of used to 3-on-5s. Seems I used to dread them more when they didn't happen every game.

I guess the only real benefit of doing the 3-on-5 is to get the whole thing over with quickly. Plus if they score, there's less than two minutes left.

But yeah, the 4-minute 4-on-5 probably has the better chance of yielding zero goals (which it did).

And the matter of choice in how the penalty is served sounds pretty fucked up to me.

Yeah, and the weirdest part was that it was the public announcer who was asking Carlyle what he wanted to do.

Mike said...

Rule 19.1, paragraph 4:

When multiple penalties are assessed to both teams, equal
numbers of minor and major penalties shall be eliminated using the coincident penalty rule and any differential in time penalties shall be served in the normal manner and displayed on the penalty time clock accordingly (see 19.5). If there is no differential in time penalties, all players will serve their allotted penalty time, but will not be released until the first stoppage of play following the expiration of their respective penalties.


Moen and Boyle should cancel each other out, thus "eliminated using the coincident penalty rule", and Niedermayer serves 4 minutes. Because other penalties are on the clock, it's not a 4-on-3, but a 5-on-4 for 4 minutes, with Moen and Boyle release from the box at a stoppage after 2 minutes. I don't see how this could possibly result in a 5-on-3.

GMCN Innovations said...

I have never heard of a coach being offered that either. That is really surprising. I think you're right Mike, that the ref should have made it a 5-on-4 for 4 minutes.

5-on-3 is only the best choice in certain situations. Such as late in the third and down a goal.

Ksy92003 said...

My dad said this had always been a rule.. I don't know, I've never heard it before.

But not only should it have been a 5-on-4 for 4 minutes anyway, but any coach would likely take that option.

But then again, when you take a very stupid penalty to cancel out two of those four minutes, does it really matter?

RudyKelly said...

I'd just like to add that Brian Boyle fucking destroyed Rob Niedermayer. He is a giant dude, that Boyle.

Earl Sleek said...

I don't see how this could possibly result in a 5-on-3.

I knew it seemed way too fishy. Really the most shocking thing wasn't the fact that the referees goofed on the man-advantage result, but that they gave the coach an option. "How would you like your penalties served, sir?"

I'd just like to add that Brian Boyle fucking destroyed Rob Niedermayer. He is a giant dude, that Boyle.

Yeah, no kidding. I got worried about Rob's last-spring concussion, but I guess he's OK.

Julian said...

Moen and Boyle should cancel each other out, thus "eliminated using the coincident penalty rule", and Niedermayer serves 4 minutes.

I guess since all the infractions happened at the same time they gave Carlyle the choice of cancelling 2 of neidermeyer's 4 minutes or just cancelling Moen's penalty.

Very strange. You'd think the team going on the PP would get to choose. Or there'd be a rule. Or something.

Mike in OC said...

I have never heard of a coach being offered that either. That is really surprising. I think you're right Mike, that the ref should have made it a 5-on-4 for 4 minutes.

With out doing any research at all, and just going by the fact that the Ref's could not count how many men were supposed to be on the ice during the game, I say the Ref's screwed that call up.

I would take the 4 min though, just by virtue of the fact that the PP % on 5-3 vs. 5-4 is way better, and Kings do not have a real deep DEF, so the ducks will face weaker players 3 minutes into the PP.

But then again, when you take a very stupid penalty to cancel out two of those four minutes, does it really matter?

No kidding, but that might also be because of the depth thing.

BTW. I hate ice view. FUCK I hate it! the camera gets lost at times, and spends the better part of 2 seconds trying to find the play.

Players look like they are leaving the ice for a line change, and then they switch cameras and the guy is still up on the point.

The Getzlaf suck and drap move in the third period was so hard to see with the behind the goal ice view I nearly missed it.

Can we start a petition to get it removed?


Oh, yeah, Doubty (sp?) looks awesome for a player, let alone a rookie. You got a real good player there guys.

Earl Sleek said...

Can we start a petition to get it removed?

Per Rich Hammond of Inside the Kings, direct all angry e-mails to tom.feuer@foxsports.com.

At this point, I don't even know what forces are behind the insistence of Rinkside View, except for pre-scheduling.

RudyKelly said...

I'm pretty sure it's still there purely because they spent a lot of money setting up all these HD cameras and they don't want to scuttle it because that means someone's getting fired.

Connie said...

Does anyone think that it was odd that Randy Carlyle got the choice and not Terry Murray?

Earl Sleek said...

Does anyone think that it was odd that Randy Carlyle got the choice and not Terry Murray?

Yeah, that's the real question of this post. Frankly, I don't think it should be Carlyle's call OR Murray's call.

The referees should know how penalties get assigned, and pretty much tell the coaches the way it goes, not politely ask for anybody's input.

Connie said...

I agree with you there. When it was announced, my brother and I looked at each other and were just too confused. It was nuts to hear that conclusion after the short melee.

P.S. Peter Harrold skating as a forward makes me sick.

Earl Sleek said...

P.S. Peter Harrold skating as a forward makes me sick.

I thought his line looked pretty good last night, actually, though it may have been the Rinkside View playing tricks in my mind. Harrold definitely did better up front than Montador and his friends did.

My least favorite thing about Rinkside last night, though, was when the Kings snuck five men on the penalty kill for some 20+ seconds, and I had no idea because the stupid camera wouldn't let me see them all. Normally that would be something I think I would spot, but I really had to rely on the announcers there (who gradually clued into it as well).

Connie said...

I thought his line looked pretty good last night, actually

He's unreliable. Couple that with the softness of Boyle and you have Sully being relied on as the only one to take the body and try to create something offensively.

Earl Sleek said...

I think "unreliable" is pretty typical for most of the league's fourth-liners; that's hardly a knock.

As for O'Sullivan, he really has no business down there, especially with a new contract. Give him some linemates already.

Joe said...

Why is no one paying attention to my comment that the elimination of "coincidental penalties" would be a good change to the game?

I've thought that for probably about 10 years now. More chances for open skating = good.

Earl Sleek said...

Why is no one paying attention to my comment that the elimination of "coincidental penalties" would be a good change to the game?

To tell the truth, I'd probably need to see it in practice before I could really endorse this.

More 4-on-4 is definitely OK by me, but if it starts bringing a lot of 3-on-3 into the game somehow, I'm probably not as in favor of that. 3-on-3 is just sort of weird to watch; not enough passing options, really.

But I'm probably thinking of the odd scenarios that the Ducks would find themselves in more than anything; probably 3-on-3 isn't even the thing to think about here.

Sure, let's try it.

cristobal said...

The quality of the officiating league wide is piss-poor. There seems to be zero oversight and little being done to make it better. How Simmonds got a hooking penalty at the end of the 3rd is beyond me.
The NHL is just letting everything go: crap tv coverage, crap teams, crap ice, crap boards and glass, crap owners (yeah you, AEG), crap management (edmonton blog-haters), crap maintenence men (the 3 guys that come out to fix the staples glass every 15 minutes must be a combined 1,000#'s), crap Zamboni drivers (ducks vs. van. shootout - my dvr ran out of time because the fucking fool cleaned the entire ice surface except for the landing strip right down the middle of the ice. how long was that delay? 15 minutes?). This battle for california is starting to make the cambodian midget fighting league look first rate.
And I forgot to even include the crap production of the games. That epileptic seizure it enduced is making me forgetful.

Earl Sleek said...

How Simmonds got a hooking penalty at the end of the 3rd is beyond me.

That's on the top of your list? Meh, I thought phantom hooks were pretty accepted by now.

my dvr ran out of time because the fucking fool cleaned the entire ice surface except for the landing strip right down the middle of the ice.

Well, maybe it was also the delay of twelve goals scored plus thirteen rounds of shootout? :)

And I forgot to even include the crap production of the games. That epileptic seizure it enduced is making me forgetful.

I'm with you, though. Things do seem to feel even more neglected than usual. Certainly more should be done for and by these California teams to capture a generally indifferent audience.

Patty (in Dallas) said...

I have seen that happen before, but I have no idea what the rule is.

It happened in a Stars game, either last season or the season before that. When Razor explained it, it seemed plausible, so I never thought another thing about it.

cristobal said...

earl - I realize the hooking calls come easy, but that one was horrible, especially with so little time on the clock and where it happened on the ice. my opinion, anyway.

the merits of the shootout are debatable, yes, but if they must have shootouts they should at least not take another half hour just to get started. as shootouts go (and personallly i don't like them) that one was good because of all the saves, but because of the delay starting it, I missed the last 2 or 3 attempts. I don't think an incompetent zamboni drive should be in the spotlight in a struggling nhl. i'm sure the building's vendors don't mind, though.

cheers

Anonymous said...

I was at this game and I have heard of this penalty being called once before. This scenario usually happens about once every two years.