| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bonfire420 |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 08:22:47
I saw something on the game last night which got me thinking. Ottawa was on a PP with around 20 seconds left when Buffalo got called for another penalty. Ottawa, who already had puck possession in the Buffalo zone, pulled their goalie on the delayed penalty call and had a brief 6 on 4 until they turned the puck over (by that time the first penalty was over). Now, Harry Neale on CBC was going on about how Ottawa should have turned the puck over earlier to get the 5 on 3, and this leads into my question: If you have a delayed call when you're already on the PP, what's the best course of action? |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| stastnysforever |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 14:01:43
I've always thought that you should hold on, that way you have a longer power play |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 01:47:21
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
I didnt vote since there was no option #3 (it depends).
I agree with other here that it totally depends on several factors. What the Sens did last night I thought showed great coaching as they did exactly the right thing. In their case there was only 15 seconds left in the 1st penalty, had a tired Saber's line out on the ice, and were on the attack. They actually had a good 30 seconds of 6-4 pressure and a few chances before Buffalo finally touched the puck.
Some factors that shouid be considered off the top of my head:
- What zone you are in
- How much time left in the 1st penalty
- What lineups are currently on the ice
- Current Score (if you are up a couple, you definately want to extend the pp time as much as possible.. Needing a 5-3 goal is much less important)
- Time left in the period/game
I was always coached to hand that puck over IMMEDIATELY. No matter what. But in this situation - so little time left - I don't think handing it over was necessarily the right thing to do. This one specific scenario is the exception to the rule. I quoted tctitans here because although that is a great set of criteria to base your decision on , there is no way a player has the time to think through this before making a decision. There is only time to do one thing - hand over the puck the second you realize you have a delayed penalty, or, Hey ! No time left...in the attacking zone...get it at the net...
This intentional giveaway play has always been an interesting aspect of the game to me. Great topic. |
| GOWINGS19 |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 21:23:04
depends on where your at on the ice...obviously you don't just cough it up when your on the offensive
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov |
| stastnysforever |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 15:25:29
Id say keep the puck, because that way you'd have a longer powerplay |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 13:41:48
My thought has always been to give up the puck. The goalie has to react to the penalty, skate to the bench, the extra player has to skate to the offensive zone, this could take 5-7 seconds before the extra player has a chance to get into the play...
To me 5 on 3 is a bigger advantage as there is more room on the ice for the skilled players to pass the puck around for that all mighty one timer...
You do stand the chance of loosing the face-off, but hockey is a game of chances...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| Saku Steen |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 11:43:06
Id give it away. You have a lot better chance of scoring on a 5 on 3 then a 6 on 4. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 11:26:10
I didnt vote since there was no option #3 (it depends).
I agree with other here that it totally depends on several factors. What the Sens did last night I thought showed great coaching as they did exactly the right thing. In their case there was only 15 seconds left in the 1st penalty, had a tired Saber's line out on the ice, and were on the attack. They actually had a good 30 seconds of 6-4 pressure and a few chances before Buffalo finally touched the puck.
Some factors that shouid be considered off the top of my head:
- What zone you are in
- How much time left in the 1st penalty
- What lineups are currently on the ice
- Current Score (if you are up a couple, you definately want to extend the pp time as much as possible.. Needing a 5-3 goal is much less important)
- Time left in the period/game
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 10:37:20
If the team is in the offensive zone, it makes total sense to turn the puck over. Not only will you have the two man advantage, the face off gives you the opportunity to have a set play. If you don't win the face off, you still have the chance to double team the defensive player in the corner, the most likely spot the defensive team will try to win the face off towards.
Not sure about you all, but in my hockey life I have seen many more goals scored 5-3 than 6-4. The majority of offensive plays are designed with 5 offensive player, not 6. I find that with 6 offensive players on the ice, it seems like the offensive team is out of sorts and one guys really doesn't have a place to be. You often see two guys in the same spot, both trying to do the same thing.
I would go 5-3 every single time.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| freddyboy |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 09:47:12
like bonfire said
if you go on 5-3 but you lose the faceoff(but yesterday Ottawa won around 80% of the offensive zone faceoff) and the other team clear the puck...you lost around 15 sec which is 3/4 of the time remainning for yesterday case.
depending of the situation...if theres more than 40 sec i think they can give it away
joe is a god, if u dont agree....i dont care |
| I´m also Cånädiön |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 08:42:46
6 on 4. Giving away pucks isn´t gonna win you any games atleast that´s my opinion (aplies to the poll question). |
| bonfire420 |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 08:26:01
To me, it depends on what part of the ice you're in. If your team is already in the attacking zone and you have full possession, why turn it over and risk the chance of losing the face off in the offensive zone? This is where I disagree with Harry Neale. I think Ottawa made the right decision by continuing their attack instead of risking another face-off for a brief 5 on 3. |
