Wednesday, April 14

Red Rover, Red Rover

Okay, I have a proposal to make hockey more interesting. I welcome explanations as to why this idea wouldn't work.

When a player on Team A gets a penatly, Team B gets to choose which player from Team A, who is on the ice at the time the whistle for the infraction blows, will serve the penalty. I say 'on the ice when the whistle blows' (rather than when the offense ocurred) so that the offending team could try to get their 'star' players off the ice on a delayed penalty (to save them from being chosen). This would be a calculated risk, however, because doing so would likely give the other team a better scoring chance before the delayed penalty whistle gets blown.

Any one player on a team could not serve two consecutive penalties, unless the second penalty was caused by that player (and the other team then chose to have him serve that penalty).

The only down side I can see is that so-called star players would probably be in the penalty box more often, more often taking away the excitement they add to the game.

Wouldn't that add an interesting element to the game?


Charlie said...

Interesting idea, the main problem I see being that if you have two guys mad at each other, they take a swing at each other and rather than sitting down for two minutes and cooling off you throw the star players in the box, drop the puck and they take another swing at each other.

Rob MacD said...

Perhaps, or the coaches decide that it's too expensive (in terms of the potential for more penalties) and they get benched. Also, I think players would be more reluctant to swing at each other, knowing that it costs the team more than just having their goonish asses sitting for 2 or 5 minutes.