Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at email@example.com.
On Sunday, Detroit Red Wings forward Gustav Nyquist scored what could very well be the goal of the year. As he broke in on the net he was clearly held and the ref had his arm up to call a penalty, or penalty shot, but allowed Nyquist to continue on his breakaway first. If a second infraction was committed on Nyquist, a trip or a slash for example, before he scored the goal, would both calls be wiped out or would the Red Wings be awarded the goal and a power play.
Thanks for taking the time to read my question.
CLICK HERE to watch the play in question.
After being fouled by Matt Carle on a breakaway, Gustav Nyquist demonstrated amazing patience, persistence and the hands of a surgeon in order to regain puck possession with both skates well below the goal line and then slide the disk into the net past Ben Bishop from what appeared to be an impossible angle. Not many players, past or present, possess the skill and instinct required to spin and thread the needle at full speed to score a goal from that location on the ice.
Your question, Matt, has several variables for us to consider. The assessment of a penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending team. On the initial part of this play all parameters of the rule were satisfied for referee Wes McCauley to impose a penalty shot once Gustav Nyquist was clearly fouled from behind by Matt Carle and denied a reasonable scoring opportunity. I am certain that McCauley intended to award a penalty shot to Nyquist had he not scored or other criteria were to develop during the delayed call.
As Wes McCauley demonstrated, the referee must delay the call until the offending team gains possession of the puck. If during this delay, Gustav Nyquist or any other Red Wing player had regained a reasonable scoring opportunity (or opportunities) yet no goal resulted, the initial penalty shot call would revert to the assessment of a minor penalty. The 'next to impossible' shot by Nyquist would not have qualified as him regaining a "reasonable scoring opportunity." A penalty shot would have been awarded if the puck had not gone in the net as specified in rule 24.8 (iii)—The fact that he (Nyquist) got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a "more" reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded.
Allow me to answer your direct question, Matt, and also play out some other scenarios that could result, with the understanding that if the foul for which the penalty shot was awarded was such as to normally incur a minor penalty, then regardless of whether the penalty shot results in a goal or not, no further penalty shall be served. (Major, Match and Misconduct penalties would be assessed in addition to the penalty shot.) In addition, no penalty being served on the clock will expire when a goal is scored on a penalty shot.
• If the penalty shot infraction committed by Matt Carle was such to incur a double-minor penalty (i.e. high-stick resulting in injury), the first minor penalty would not be assessed since the penalty shot was awarded to restore the lost scoring opportunity. The second minor penalty would be assessed and served regardless of whether the penalty shot results in a goal. It would be announced as a double-minor penalty and the player would serve two minutes only. (This would also be the assessment in the case where Nyquist (or Wings) scored prior to play being stopped to award the penalty shot resulting from a double minor infraction.)
• If a Tampa player (or bench) was assessed an additional minor penalty on this play (separate from the hooking minor infraction to Carle that resulted in the penalty shot), the Tampa minor penalty would be served on the clock regardless of whether the penalty shot results in a goal.
• Although it is not currently in the Officials Situation Handbook, conventional wisdom states (until further advised), if both of the above situations were to be satisfied (double minor plus a second minor penalty) one minor of the double minor infraction is eliminated to restore the lost scoring opportunity and the stand alone minor infraction is also assessed and served. A 5 on 3 manpower situation would occur regardless of whether the penalty shot results in a goal. (Presently no "Captain's choice" extended in this scenario to allow for team option to play one man short for 4 minutes or two men short for 2 minutes).
• Should two penalty shots be awarded to the same team at the same stoppage of play (two separate fouls), only one goal can be scored or awarded at a single stoppage of play. Should the first penalty shot result in a goal, the second shot would not be taken but the appropriate penalty would be assessed and served for the infraction committed.
Thanks for the thought provoking question, Matt. I trust the answer pretty much covers all the bases for you.
C'mon Ref extends Happy Birthday Wishes to Gordie Howe, who is 86 years young today. My bet is that "Mr. Hockey" would have also been able to score from the angle that Gustav Nyquist did last night in Hockeytown, USA.