Game Thread | New Jersey Devils Vs. Montreal Canadiens | 04/08/06

[Quebecois]

After the game last night, i came up with an idea to consider.

Ryder broke in to the Devils zone late in the third period, looking to tie the game. He was subsequently tripped by Colin White and the Habs were given a 5 second PP. There is really no advantage to being awarded a 5 second PP, we were lucky enough to get that one shot on Brodeur, in 99% of the cases that PP is killed off without any difficulty. Now one has to wonder, what is the con to taking a penalty in that situation for Colin White? There is really a very limited downside to tripping up Ryder at this point in the game.

My idea is that in the past 30 seconds of a game (unless its tied of course) when a scoring chance is taken away as Ryder's was, a penalty shot should be awarded rather than a penalty.

What do you think, does this make sense?

[olematelot]

I wouldn't mind the Devils, or anyone for that matter. Tonight shows nothing, except what we look like without any puck supoprt, lack of break out passes, and lack of physical game. Was there even a hit in the game? I don't remember any! We'll bounce back anyway, it had nothing to do with Brodeur.

Playoff excited!!! :hlogo:

How can you say it had nothing to do with Brodeur, the guy was outstanding, if not for him we win, end of story.

[habsfan88]

After the game last night, i came up with an idea to consider.

Ryder broke in to the Devils zone late in the third period, looking to tie the game. He was subsequently tripped by Colin White and the Habs were given a 5 second PP. There is really no advantage to being awarded a 5 second PP, we were lucky enough to get that one shot on Brodeur, in 99% of the cases that PP is killed off without any difficulty. Now one has to wonder, what is the con to taking a penalty in that situation for Colin White? There is really a very limited downside to tripping up Ryder at this point in the game.

My idea is that in the past 30 seconds of a game (unless its tied of course) when a scoring chance is taken away as Ryder's was, a penalty shot should be awarded rather than a penalty.

What do you think, does this make sense?

I like what you are thinking, although I doubt the NHL would ever do that. There would be many agruements about whether a play was a scoring chance or not, unless it was completely obvious but some people have different opinions on what a scoring chance is.

Edited April 9, 2006 by habsfan88

[olematelot]

I like what you are thinking, although I doubt the NHL would ever do that. There would be many agruements about whether a play was a scoring chance or not, unless it was completely obvious but some people have different opinions on what a scoring chance is.

Agree, too subjective.

[JMMR]

Ryder would just come in on the penalty shot and miss the net or shoot it directly into brodeurs chest anyway.

[gohabsgo252006]

After the game last night, i came up with an idea to consider.

Ryder broke in to the Devils zone late in the third period, looking to tie the game. He was subsequently tripped by Colin White and the Habs were given a 5 second PP. There is really no advantage to being awarded a 5 second PP, we were lucky enough to get that one shot on Brodeur, in 99% of the cases that PP is killed off without any difficulty. Now one has to wonder, what is the con to taking a penalty in that situation for Colin White? There is really a very limited downside to tripping up Ryder at this point in the game.

My idea is that in the past 30 seconds of a game (unless its tied of course) when a scoring chance is taken away as Ryder's was, a penalty shot should be awarded rather than a penalty.

What do you think, does this make sense?

I don't want that, cause how many times have we taken a penalty in a similar situations. That's a lot penalty shots. You take your chances the way the rules are now. You sometimes get the benefit and sometimes lose it.

[kaos]

After the game last night, i came up with an idea to consider.

Ryder broke in to the Devils zone late in the third period, looking to tie the game. He was subsequently tripped by Colin White and the Habs were given a 5 second PP. There is really no advantage to being awarded a 5 second PP, we were lucky enough to get that one shot on Brodeur, in 99% of the cases that PP is killed off without any difficulty. Now one has to wonder, what is the con to taking a penalty in that situation for Colin White? There is really a very limited downside to tripping up Ryder at this point in the game.

My idea is that in the past 30 seconds of a game (unless its tied of course) when a scoring chance is taken away as Ryder's was, a penalty shot should be awarded rather than a penalty.

What do you think, does this make sense?

No I don't like this at all. There is a clear rule about penalty shots and doesn't include this instance. Its too subjective, and rarely would the right call be made.

[lazy26]

No I don't like this at all. There is a clear rule about penalty shots and doesn't include this instance. Its too subjective, and rarely would the right call be made.

I agree... we blame refs too much as it is.. can you imagine how bad it would be if this rule was implemented? I agree that the 5 second powerplay was pointless... but there's nothing you can do about it... the Habs actually made a decent effort in the time constraint