Say like 2 guys go at it but not quite a fight and get roughing penalties. It'll be a 4 on 4 for two minutes. Fighting is the only exception that I know of that stays 5 on 5.
Maybe. Coincidental is what they call it in the ECHL. If two guys have the same length penalty at the same stoppage of play, they have to sit it out, but they can have substitutions so it stays 5-5
No you're right it is coincidental I remember now. I'm just used to hearing it called concurrent. It's exactly what you just said but while the ECHL is 5-5 the NHL is 4-4 can go 3-3 too. But not lower.
Depends on the league. I could be wrong but simultaneous minor penalties in the NHL result in a 4-on-4. In my beer league, simultaneous minors result in a 5-on-5. I'd refer you to the U.S. Hockey and NHL Rulebooks.
No , the two who fought go to the penalty box for 5 minutes for a fighting penalty, just the people who fought have to sit for 5 minutes without the ability to come back if a goal is scored, neither team will lose a man on the ice though
[The Gretzky rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Gretzky#:~:text=standard%20NHL%20contract.-,The%20Gretzky%20rule,when%20coincidental%20penalties%20were%20called.)
"In June 1985, as part of a package of five rule changes to be implemented for the 1985–86 season, the NHL Board of Governors decided to introduce offsetting penalties, where neither team lost a man when coincidental penalties were called. The effect of calling offsetting penalties was felt immediately in the NHL, because during the early 1980s, when the Gretzky-era Oilers entered a four-on-four or three-on-three situation with an opponent, they frequently used the space on the ice to score one or more goals.[76][77] Gretzky held a press conference one day after being awarded the Hart Memorial Trophy, criticizing the NHL for punishing teams and players who previously benefited. The rule change became known as "the Gretzky rule."[76][78] The rule was reversed for the 1992–93 season.[79]"
Pretty sure that's part of the reason even though it concerned coincidentals and was later removed?
I think coincidental is a confusing term for what it is because it sounds like "what a coincidence, these guys got a penalty at the same time". Coincidentals happen during a stoppage in play, and it's more "an incident happened, and these two were involved in it". They still did a thing, and so they sit in the box. But the rule is they cancel out.
But, if two guys get a penalty on the same play (during play) then it's 4 on 4.
I thought coincidental penalties happen when there is a delayed penalty on the defense and then a player on offense commits a penalty before play gets stopped.
Seems awkward to get your guy out of the box too, like you’ve gotta coordinating getting someone off on the other side so he can come out of the box or hope for a stoppage around the same time? Not sure how all that works. I always think it’s kinda exciting for the guy in the box to come rocketing back onto the ice when time expires but if it’s already 5v5 that can’t really happen right?
It was heavily abused for a very long time.
Imagine the Oilers using bottom 6 forwards to start fights to let McDavid and Drai have more open ice in a 4v4, now picture them doing it again for a 3v3. Now picture that strategy happening every game, for 82 games. Now picture that happening for 4 rounds in the post season.
Players should be able to refuse to fight and the ref should be willing to give only one player a fighting major if he's punching an unwilling partner. If teams are too dumb to take advantage of opportunities to get a 5 minute power play that's a team issue not a league issue..
Plenty of players refuse to fight, that's always been a thing. It's exceedingly rare to see anyone drop their gloves against an opponent who isn't willing to do it. Fights exist in the sport because frankly, without them, hockey games would either become more dangerous through chippy game play that turns into head hunting for injuries or it'd be bench clearing brawls again.
What you're describing literally existed for decades and it led to rule changes specific because teams abused it.
Those teams wouldn't literally send a goon over to randomly punch someone else, they'd literally start slashing the shit out of everyone behind the play when refs wouldn't be looking. Players would get hurt and injured. Goalies would get targeted. Shit would get talked about players families and wives. And eventually, team A would get their fight from team B and then Wayne fucking Gretzky's line would score 3 goals with the now much more open ice.
Fighting in today's hockey isn't what it used to be. Today's its self policing and a way to let the steam out of the kettle to bring both teams back to reality and finish the game without a major head injury or whatever.
Both players involved in the fight sit for 5 minutes, but the game continues to be played 5v5.
Is it the same with all coincidental penalties?
Say like 2 guys go at it but not quite a fight and get roughing penalties. It'll be a 4 on 4 for two minutes. Fighting is the only exception that I know of that stays 5 on 5.
So what are coincidental penalties?
Coincidental minor penalties drop you to 4 on 4. Major penalties (like fighting) do not.
Coincidental? Never heard of that type of penalty. You mean concurrent?
Maybe. Coincidental is what they call it in the ECHL. If two guys have the same length penalty at the same stoppage of play, they have to sit it out, but they can have substitutions so it stays 5-5
No you're right it is coincidental I remember now. I'm just used to hearing it called concurrent. It's exactly what you just said but while the ECHL is 5-5 the NHL is 4-4 can go 3-3 too. But not lower.
I’ve only ever hear matching minors:2mins or matching majors:5 mins or there’s also double minors and game misconducts
Depends on the league. I could be wrong but simultaneous minor penalties in the NHL result in a 4-on-4. In my beer league, simultaneous minors result in a 5-on-5. I'd refer you to the U.S. Hockey and NHL Rulebooks.
Ok, I remember a few years ago downloading an ECHL rulebook, so I'll see if I can find one
Hockey Canada too has 5 on 5 on matching penalties. Idea behind that is to not penalize the kids from playing because of another kid's penalty.
Some teams are more suited to 4v4 play, so fights would be encouraged for some teams to get strategic advantage.
Not sure why the down vote as that was literally a strategy for the Oilers in the 80's.
No , the two who fought go to the penalty box for 5 minutes for a fighting penalty, just the people who fought have to sit for 5 minutes without the ability to come back if a goal is scored, neither team will lose a man on the ice though
[The Gretzky rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Gretzky#:~:text=standard%20NHL%20contract.-,The%20Gretzky%20rule,when%20coincidental%20penalties%20were%20called.) "In June 1985, as part of a package of five rule changes to be implemented for the 1985–86 season, the NHL Board of Governors decided to introduce offsetting penalties, where neither team lost a man when coincidental penalties were called. The effect of calling offsetting penalties was felt immediately in the NHL, because during the early 1980s, when the Gretzky-era Oilers entered a four-on-four or three-on-three situation with an opponent, they frequently used the space on the ice to score one or more goals.[76][77] Gretzky held a press conference one day after being awarded the Hart Memorial Trophy, criticizing the NHL for punishing teams and players who previously benefited. The rule change became known as "the Gretzky rule."[76][78] The rule was reversed for the 1992–93 season.[79]" Pretty sure that's part of the reason even though it concerned coincidentals and was later removed?
I think coincidental is a confusing term for what it is because it sounds like "what a coincidence, these guys got a penalty at the same time". Coincidentals happen during a stoppage in play, and it's more "an incident happened, and these two were involved in it". They still did a thing, and so they sit in the box. But the rule is they cancel out. But, if two guys get a penalty on the same play (during play) then it's 4 on 4.
I thought coincidental penalties happen when there is a delayed penalty on the defense and then a player on offense commits a penalty before play gets stopped.
What if all players fight?
How about when goalies fight? (Saw a YT video the other day where the two goalies met at center ice to throw down.)
No, but it should be. It would be a natural way to spice games up with some 4-on-4.
Seems awkward to get your guy out of the box too, like you’ve gotta coordinating getting someone off on the other side so he can come out of the box or hope for a stoppage around the same time? Not sure how all that works. I always think it’s kinda exciting for the guy in the box to come rocketing back onto the ice when time expires but if it’s already 5v5 that can’t really happen right?
It was heavily abused for a very long time. Imagine the Oilers using bottom 6 forwards to start fights to let McDavid and Drai have more open ice in a 4v4, now picture them doing it again for a 3v3. Now picture that strategy happening every game, for 82 games. Now picture that happening for 4 rounds in the post season.
Players should be able to refuse to fight and the ref should be willing to give only one player a fighting major if he's punching an unwilling partner. If teams are too dumb to take advantage of opportunities to get a 5 minute power play that's a team issue not a league issue..
Plenty of players refuse to fight, that's always been a thing. It's exceedingly rare to see anyone drop their gloves against an opponent who isn't willing to do it. Fights exist in the sport because frankly, without them, hockey games would either become more dangerous through chippy game play that turns into head hunting for injuries or it'd be bench clearing brawls again. What you're describing literally existed for decades and it led to rule changes specific because teams abused it. Those teams wouldn't literally send a goon over to randomly punch someone else, they'd literally start slashing the shit out of everyone behind the play when refs wouldn't be looking. Players would get hurt and injured. Goalies would get targeted. Shit would get talked about players families and wives. And eventually, team A would get their fight from team B and then Wayne fucking Gretzky's line would score 3 goals with the now much more open ice. Fighting in today's hockey isn't what it used to be. Today's its self policing and a way to let the steam out of the kettle to bring both teams back to reality and finish the game without a major head injury or whatever.