Toronto Maple Leafs: NHL Penalty Policies That Don’t Make Sense

Regardless if a call is against the Toronto Maple Leafs or any other team in the league, there are some policies surrounding penalties that just don’t make sense.

With all things being equal, the Toronto Maple Leafs are affected by penalties in the same ways as every other club. There are rules in place, which clearly outline what players should and shouldn’t be doing. Acting outside of those lines means a penalty could be called.

As an objective observer, the team that ends up on the wrong side of any respective punishment did something to deserve being in that situation. Their fans may not like it, but that doesn’t matter.

What should matter, though, is that there be sensical standards in place for what happens next when that roster is forced to pay their price. It goes beyond the basics of acting out the wrongdoing, getting called for it, and heading to the box.

There are some post-penalty observations that any astute observer would have likely noticed by now. Whether they agree with them or not, however, is a different story. Many just accept rules as they are, while I’m here to outline that some need their own review.

Even better, what is outlined would directly support the league’s efforts of promoting increased scoring. These are some foolproof ways to directly impact that potential.

Let’s take a closer look at some common scenarios that we’ve become so used to seeing, that we accept them as making sense. Yet, they don’t.

Play Out the Punishment

Minor penalties are worth two minutes at most. In that time, if the powerplay strikes and a goal is scored, that shorthanded stint is over and both teams are back to full strength. But, why?

For a five-minute major, a team is penalized for the full duration whether they are scored on or not. The severity of the infraction should apply to the call, but not dictate whether the extra advantage has a limit of how much it can be capitalized on.

Suggestion: Whatever duration is assessed, the penalized team should be down a player the whole way. That would generate more offensive opportunity, while helping curb some avoidable idiocy on the ice since stiffer punishments will be in place across the board.

Overlooking Every Icing

Why is it acceptable that certain rules simply don’t apply to a team while shorthanded? If anything, there should be further restrictions placed on that lineup, not an inherent benefit for doing what they did.

Icing plays a pivotal role in the game and that shouldn’t be able to be overlooked by teams that are down a player. The powerplay should not have to re-strategize around new rules to properly gain on their justifiable advantage.

Suggestion: Just as two-line passes and offsides still apply to a shorthanded squad, so should icing. Penalized teams have to stop being granted extra chances at a dump and chase line change, just because they were able to take advantage of a skewed loophole.

Fresh Lines After the Crime

Speaking of icing, it is completely backwards that a puck drop is quickly forced after such a non-violent offence, prohibiting the guilty party from freshening up their faceoff taker. Yet, a penalized team is given the chance to get a rested line out before play resets.

The opposite should be in effect. If a penalty is called, play should resume without the shorthanded team having a chance to even catch their breath. They are not to be given an advantage, at any point following the call.

https://twitter.com/NHL/status/1272696720082771968?s=20

Suggestion: Re-schedule the commercial break, keep those same players on the ice, and get that puck dropped. Things should be made as difficult as they can be for the team that’s now down a man, so the punishment really does feel like one.

Out for Blood

A penalty call should be based on how the play unfolded, not the impact on those affected. Similar to how a suspendable offence requires its punishment to matches the action as opposed to only aligning with a resulting injury.

The same should apply when it comes to things like high sticking. We keep hearing that the league wants this type of play out of the game, so they should be calling it accordingly. It shouldn’t take seeing blood to permit that it be a longer duration for the one who caused it.

Suggestion: Just because the tip of a stick caught a sweet spot and someone’s lip broke open, doesn’t make it any more dangerous than a blade slapping the side of their temple. Get rid of requiring blood to justify the time someone serves.

Although we’ve all watched games that seemed full of lopsided calls, it all evens out in the end. These simple tweaks would benefit those who more directly deserve the advantage. Ultimately, the best teams will do the most winning.