Talk:Penalty shot (ice hockey)

Empty net

We've got an internal contradiction here:

If an infraction which would usually attract a penalty shot occurs while the defending team's goaltender is off the ice (i.e. an empty net scenario), the attacking team is awarded the goal automatically, without going to the penalty shot.

but

If a penalty shot is awarded and the penalized team had pulled their goaltender in favour of an extra attacker, the player fouled is automatically awarded a penalty shot goal, regardless of whether the puck went in.

Which is correct? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement is correct. The second is a mess and should probably be eliminated.

I recall one such case from circa 1970. Late in the game, Boston pulled goalie Gerry Cheevers in an attempt to salvage a tie. Bobby Hull of Chicago got the puck and skated towards the empty net, incidentally passing the Bruins' bench. Cheevers, from the bench reached over and poked the puck loose. Hull recovered it, and flipped it into the net, clinching the game, but then found out that the referee had already signalled the goal due to Cheevers' foul; i.e., had Hull missed the shot, the goal would have been awarded anyway. Cheevers later said that he had nothing to lose as Hull was going to score anyway, though I suspect he could have been fined. (Interference from the bench is a rather extraordinary foul, and a referee might well award a goal to the offended team no matter what the on-ice situation happens to be.)

This serves to illustate why the rule is necessary: a player attacking an empty net would be subject to unlimited mayhem if a penalty shot were the worst thing that could happen.

I believe that was Hull's 401st NHL goal (or some similar milestone. He had recorded #400 earlier in the same game by more conventional means. I may be able to find a reference, so watch this space. WHPratt (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The facts. Pretty much as I remembered.

"Hawks Beat Boston: Hull Scores No. 400", by Ted Damata, Chicago Tribune, Jan 8, 1968; page E1.

Bobby Hull had scored his 400th NHL goal midway through the second period (Jan. 7) against Gerry Cheevers. At 18:45 of the third, The Hawks led 3-2 and were killing a penalty; Boston pulled the goalie for a 6-on-4 attack. Eric Nesterenko intercepted a Boston pass and fed Hull near the Bruin bench. Eddie Shack and Gerry Cheevers combined to hook Hull from sidelines. Hull shrugged them off and scored on a 30-foot shot into the unguarded net. Referee Vern Buffey had already signalled a goal. The Hawks won 4-2.

It's not quite the perfect example of the application of the rule, because, as I noted earlier, this is flageant enough a transgression to warrant an automatic goal under any circumstances. But someone can add it to the article if they wish. WHPratt (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that there are two classes of foul in play here: (1) if a player with a clear crack at an empty net gets fouled, the ref will award a goal no matter what happens; and (2) there may be other fouls, late in the game but away from the net (like a player leaving the penalty box or other illegal substitution) that warrants a penalty shot but not an automatic goal. In the latter cases, the goalie may return to the ice if he's been pulled. I suspect that's why both rules are present. WHPratt (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Penalty shot (ice hockey). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]