Signficant Power Play rules changes

[Conigliaro's Potential]

As some of you may know, I commentate on the Champions Hockey League, which is hockey's equivalent of the UEFA Champions League here in Europe. The new CHL season begins today, and this year's competition is using some rather different rules regarding how penalties and power plays are enforced. The full changes and the rationale for them are show below; Tl;dr version = minor penalties don't end after a power play goal is scored, and they are still enforced if a goal is scored before the penalty is enforced (e.g., after pulling the goalie to go 6-on-5), but they do end if a team scores a shorthanded goal.

If these rules changes are a success, I think there's every chance we might see them in other domestic European leagues in the near future, and very possibly in the NHL down the line. Thoughts?

For the 2023/24 CHL season, there are a total of 3 rule changes concerning penalties and powerplays that differ from IIHF rules:

RULE#1 - TWO MINUTES MEANS TWO MINUTES
All Minor, Bench Minor or Double-minor Penalties are treated in the same manner as a Major Penalty – no relief. If while a Team is “short-handed” by one (1) or more Minor, Bench Minor, Double-minor or Major Penalties and the opposing Team (playing powerplay) scores a goal (in regular manner, awarded or through a Penalty Shot), no penalty(ies) shall terminate.

Aim of the rule change: The thoughts behind this innovation/change were to streamline rules by following the same approach as during Major Penalties. Moreover, this rule should increase the advantage for the team playing powerplay. Leaving a player in the box for the whole duration of a typical 2-minute penalty should enhance scoring opportunities and ultimately lead to a higher number of goals being scored.

RULE#2 - SERVING DELAYED PENALTIES
Minor, Bench Minor, Double-minor or Major Penalties shall be imposed regardless of whether or not a goal is scored (in regular manner, awarded or through a Penalty Shot) during the delay of the penalties.

Aim of the rule change: This rule adaption follows the same train of thought as for the rule change mentioned first – the infringement of an official rule needs to be served. Meaning that, if a team scores on a delayed penalty situation, the Minor Penalty still needs to be served. With this rule change we are aiming to enhance the scoring willingness during delayed penalties situations, since the team will get additional scoring chances in the two-minute powerplay anyway. All in all, the increase of the advantage for the non-offending team either during the delay or during the penalty is given.

RULE#3 - SHORTHANDER ERASES CURRENT MINOR PENALTY
All Minor, Bench Minor or Double-minor Penalties will have relief when the “short-handed” Team scores (in regular manner, awarded or through a Penalty Shot).

Aim of the rule change: With this rule we obviously try to enhance risk-taking of the short-handed team, which leads to more excitement. (more back and forth) Additionally, we want to incentivize a “short-hander” with an additional benefit. Scoring a “short-hander” does not only bring you on the board but also reliefs you from being one man down. In best case, teams strive for a different PK-playing approach. For example, from a defensive box / zone coverage to a more aggressive approach with an overload or attacking if the opponent is not in secure puck possession.

 

[TSC]

I like the first two.

It never made sense to me that when given a penalty, you get to exit the box early just because the other team scored. The penalty and the result of those actions shouldn't really be tied together.

I don't love a SHG ending a penalty, because it again ties an outcome to a punishment, but I can at least understand the intent here.

Only thing I would add (in the spirit of these rules) - a period/game cannot end during a currently being served penalty. If you take a penalty with 30 seconds left in a 1-0 game, the entire penalty should be served and the game extended until the penalty is over.

 

[wiffleballhero]

I don't like rule 1. It is just too punitive.
Rule 3 is funny.
Rule 2 is good. More for your money.

I thought you were going to write that the NHL had reduced the accidental over the glass penalty to 30 seconds (fair) and got rid of the ridiculous rule where you don't get a power play after you get a penalty shot penalty. A penalty on a break away should be a double-whammy, not a low percentage single opportunity.

 

[trs]

I thought you were going to write that the NHL had reduced the accidental over the glass penalty to 30 seconds (fair) and got rid of the ridiculous rule where you don't get a power play after you get a penalty shot penalty. A penalty on a break away should be a double-whammy, not a low percentage single opportunity.

Agreed on this -- or make it a choice?

 

[lexrageorge]

I am not sure what rule #1 accomplishes. As noted, it seems excessively punitive to the team being penalized.

I like rule #2.

I always thought the team that scores a short-handed goal be awarded with the penalty being erased. SHG's are infrequent enough that it probably doesn't have much impact on the game, but it at least gives penalty killing teams incentive to go on offense a bit more under certain circumstances.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I don't like rule 1. It is just too punitive.
Rule 3 is funny.
Rule 2 is good. More for your money.

I thought you were going to write that the NHL had reduced the accidental over the glass penalty to 30 seconds (fair) and got rid of the ridiculous rule where you don't get a power play after you get a penalty shot penalty. A penalty on a break away should be a double-whammy, not a low percentage single opportunity.

I could support all of the above.

 

[j44thor]

I don't like rule 1. It is just too punitive.
Rule 3 is funny.
Rule 2 is good. More for your money.

I thought you were going to write that the NHL had reduced the accidental over the glass penalty to 30 seconds (fair) and got rid of the ridiculous rule where you don't get a power play after you get a penalty shot penalty. A penalty on a break away should be a double-whammy, not a low percentage single opportunity.

Just make it icing which is what it most closely equates to. I like the penalty shot idea but I'd tweak is so that if you don't score on the PS you still get the PP, don't think you should be rewarded with 2 potential scoring chances for 1 infraction.
Only actual rule change I like is the penalty is still rewarded if you score before it is called, that makes complete sense to me.

 

[cshea]

Is the objective to increase scoring? In a vacuum I guess they are fine but I don't think they make significant impact.

In the NHL, the average PP success rate was around 21% last season. I don't have the data of when the average goal was scored on a PP, but I guess adding another 2-3 minutes to each team's PP per game will lead to a few more goals but I don't think it's significant.

Scoring during a delayed penalty is pretty rare but I guess tacking the 2:00 on to it may lead to an extra goal here or there, but again, pretty rare. NST says NHL teams scored 189 goals with the goalie pulled last season but there's no data on how many of those were delayed penalty vs. pulled goalie at the end of a game. I'd guess it's no more than 3/4 a team for a season. So this seems negligible. It's not going to alter strategy. The attacking team isn't going to attack any harder than they did before.

The wiping the PP out if an SHG is scored would seem to run counter to the other 2 which it appears is trying to promote more goal scoring. There were 246 SHG's scored in the NHL last season.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

I like the first two.

It never made sense to me that when given a penalty, you get to exit the box early just because the other team scored. The penalty and the result of those actions shouldn't really be tied together.

I don't love a SHG ending a penalty, because it again ties an outcome to a punishment, but I can at least understand the intent here.

Only thing I would add (in the spirit of these rules) - a period/game cannot end during a currently being served penalty. If you take a penalty with 30 seconds left in a 1-0 game, the entire penalty should be served and the game extended until the penalty is over.

Eh, exiting the box early makes sense to me: the minor penalty may have prevented the team from getting an advantage that might have lead to scoring a goal, right? So, in recompense, the team gets a better chance to score a goal via a PP. Giving them the chance to score more than one goal doesn't fit the minor level of the crime.

Majors are rewarded the way they are as a deterrent to especially dangerous play.

If the goal is to just increase goal scoring, then go ahead and make it always 2 minutes; maybe Phil Kessel will unretire just to get another 100 goals on the PP.

I love the "game can't end during a PP" idea (except you know every MTL-BOS game where MTL is trailing in the last minute will result in MTL getting at least one PP).

 

[wiffleballhero]

Just make it icing which is what it most closely equates to.

Yeah, but I understand the incentive to make it more punitive. It is better for the game-flow if you can't just flip a puck over the glass to get out of a mess. But it is not 2 minutes worth of bad.

I love the "game can't end during a PP" idea

This is a good idea, with the minor adjustment that it should simply be that a team tied or losing should not lose pp time (so in the regular season, you'd not lose time before the shootout).

 

[j44thor]

Yeah, but I understand the incentive to make it more punitive. It is better for the game-flow if you can't just flip a puck over the glass to get out of a mess. But it is not 2 minutes worth of bad.

I'd argue it is easier to fire the puck down the other end of the ice than it is to flip it into the stands to alleviate pressure. 90% of the DOG penalties are accidental chips or double hits that have nothing to do with pressure and way more to do with puck physics. Why is flipping the puck over the glass worth 2min but firing it down the other end of the ice not if they are designed to prevent the same outcome?

Perhaps you could even make it a 3 strikes rule or something, first 2 flips per game are icings the 3rd is 2min penalty and I'd also be in favor of say if you ice it 3X in a row that becomes a DOG penalty.

 

[tmracht]

Is the objective to increase scoring? In a vacuum I guess they are fine but I don't think they make significant impact.

In the NHL, the average PP success rate was around 21% last season. I don't have the data of when the average goal was scored on a PP, but I guess adding another 2-3 minutes to each team's PP per game will lead to a few more goals but I don't think it's significant.

Scoring during a delayed penalty is pretty rare but I guess tacking the 2:00 on to it may lead to an extra goal here or there, but again, pretty rare. NST says NHL teams scored 189 goals with the goalie pulled last season but there's no data on how many of those were delayed penalty vs. pulled goalie at the end of a game. I'd guess it's no more than 3/4 a team for a season. So this seems negligible. It's not going to alter strategy. The attacking team isn't going to attack any harder than they did before.

The wiping the PP out if an SHG is scored would seem to run counter to the other 2 which it appears is trying to promote more goal scoring. There were 246 SHG's scored in the NHL last season.

I think in a vacuum the third one is pretty negligible, but does put a little bit strategy into PK play, if you're a player that skates to the blue line, in certain situations do you rethink dumping it and try to go for goal. If the player misses and it leads to a transition tired 5-3 happens the other way, that could marginally increase scoring, and since well they won't be dumping it (very small chance at SHG), the very small increase in players possibly catching themselves out, it probably minorly increases scoring, but like minorly is really minorly.

I'm all for any of the rule changes, 2 minutes is 2 minutes the same way 5 minutes is 5 minutes, but 2 minutes and multiple goals for Over the Glass would be horrible, so really just fix the imbalance of the over the glass penalty being equivalent to something like an elbow or check from behind, and not icing, or the net coming off etc.

 

[cshea]

I think in a vacuum the third one is pretty negligible, but does put a little bit strategy into PK play, if you're a player that skates to the blue line, in certain situations do you rethink dumping it and try to go for goal. If the player misses and it leads to a transition tired 5-3 happens the other way, that could marginally increase scoring, and since well they won't be dumping it (very small chance at SHG), the very small increase in players possibly catching themselves out, it probably minorly increases scoring, but like minorly is really minorly.

I'm all for any of the rule changes, 2 minutes is 2 minutes the same way 5 minutes is 5 minutes, but 2 minutes and multiple goals for Over the Glass would be horrible, so really just fix the imbalance of the over the glass penalty being equivalent to something like an elbow or check from behind, and not icing, or the net coming off etc.

NHL coaches are risk adverse. They'll continue to coach to kill the 2:00 and not to get super aggressive to try and wipe it out. Same as it is today, dump it/kill it unless there is a clear cut scoring chance.

 

[Salem's Lot]

I'd argue it is easier to fire the puck down the other end of the ice than it is to flip it into the stands to alleviate pressure. 90% of the DOG penalties are accidental chips or double hits that have nothing to do with pressure and way more to do with puck physics. Why is flipping the puck over the glass worth 2min but firing it down the other end of the ice not if they are designed to prevent the same outcome?

Perhaps you could even make it a 3 strikes rule or something, first 2 flips per game are icings the 3rd is 2min penalty and I'd also be in favor of say if you ice it 3X in a row that becomes a DOG penalty.

Literally the biggest no brainer is to enforce the puck over the glass they same way they do an icing. Defensive zone faceoff, same guys have to stay out on the ice. I don’t get why that hasn’t happened yet.

 

[Bergs]

I've been saying for years that periods/games shouldn't end with a live Power Play. I would love to see that rule change.

Of the 3 rules in the OP, I like #2.

Literally the biggest no brainer is to enforce the puck over the glass they same way they do an icing. Defensive zone faceoff, same guys have to stay out on the ice. I don’t get why that hasn’t happened yet.

Seriously.

 

[cshea]

Not sure I totally agree with extending periods/games to accomodate full PP's. First, I don't think it makes sense to extend a period because PP's already carry over to the next one. I guess you could extend the period to the full 2:00 and deduct it from the 3rd period time, but that seems a bit radical. The only situation this really comes up is an end of game when a team is leading, or in overtime where it is obviously tied and a team takes a penalty with less than 2:00 left.

I think there would be a lot to iron out. Does the game end on a goal, or play the full 2:00? So does an SHG end the game even though there is time left on the penalty or are we playing the whole 2:00? What happens if the team on the PP takes a penalty themselves, does that extend it until that 2:00 is up?

 

[wiffleballhero]

With the delay of game penalty, I don't disagree with it being on-par with icing, but clearly the big brains in Toronto don't see it the same way. But yeah, it is about the same, functionally and in terms of the effort/skill/risk/value calculations. So the cost should be about the same. Fair enough.

I think there would be a lot to iron out.

The spirit of the idea is good though: you should not be able to goon it up with diminishing risk in the last five minutes when you have a lead.

I also think that inside a series, penalties should carry over between games -- slash someone with 12 seconds left in game 3, start game 4 with 1:48 short handed.

 

[cshea]

I get the idea. Personally, I just think extending games is opening a can of worms and makes things overly complicated. You start valuing some penalties more than others based on game situation.

I think a more equitable way to do it, and I don't really love this idea, but if we're worried about teams taking liberties protecting a lead or scrambling late in OT is if a penalty is taken with under 2:00 to go in the game or OT, the team going on the PP gets the choice of either the PP or a penalty shot.

 

[MiracleOfO2704]

I think there would be a lot to iron out. Does the game end on a goal, or play the full 2:00? So does an SHG end the game even though there is time left on the penalty or are we playing the whole 2:00? What happens if the team on the PP takes a penalty themselves, does that extend it until that 2:00 is up?

My solution is:

-This only applies when the PP would be permanently cut off. Therefore, only the end of regulation/OT.
-The game continues until the PP would naturally end. For majors, the full 5, and for minors, either 2 minutes or to the condition that ends the PP (under current rules, a PPG, and with the CHL rules above, a SHG).
-A penalty by the short handed team can extend the game, but one by the team on the PP ends it.
-The game clock will always run as normal, but under the above circumstances, once it reaches 0:00.0, the penalty clock is the determining factor for game end conditions.

It’s similar to how a football game can’t end with a defensive penalty. As far as an end-of-game gooning incident, I wonder if assessing a 10-minute misconduct at the start of the team’s next game to anyone receiving one that can’t be fully served would work, with the exception that any suspension for the play would overrule that penalty. To be fair, that may be a solution looking for a problem these days.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

Not sure I totally agree with extending periods/games to accomodate full PP's. First, I don't think it makes sense to extend a period because PP's already carry over to the next one. I guess you could extend the period to the full 2:00 and deduct it from the 3rd period time, but that seems a bit radical. The only situation this really comes up is an end of game when a team is leading, or in overtime where it is obviously tied and a team takes a penalty with less than 2:00 left.

I think there would be a lot to iron out. Does the game end on a goal, or play the full 2:00? So does an SHG end the game even though there is time left on the penalty or are we playing the whole 2:00? What happens if the team on the PP takes a penalty themselves, does that extend it until that 2:00 is up?

It would definitely not extend 1st or 2nd periods as, as you note, the PP time already carries over - I don't think anyone suggested that.

It would only apply in the the 3rd if the PK team is trailing by 1 (or more if it's a double minor or major and they'd have a chance to tie/win the game with multiple PP goals) or OT. Essentially, if the game is out of reach, it ends.

Assuming no other PP rule changes (e.g. making minors always go the full 2 minutes):
If the PP team is down a goal and takes a penalty that nullifies all their remaining PP time, the game ends. The reason for the time extension - the PP - has ended and the leading team doesn't need the extra PP time since they win if the game ends anyways.

If the PP team takes a penalty, but they were on a major or a double minor PP, then you continue play as normal until the trailing team's initial PP time ends. So, if the PP team takes a minor during a major with 3 minutes left that results in 2 minutes of ES play, and 1 minute of PP time.

If the leading team continues to commit penalties that extend the game, then keep going. Fuck them, stop committing penalties.

In OT, the same rules as above apply, but the teams go to the SO instead of the game ending since it's still tied. The PK team's reward for drawing the penalty is not having to kill the whole penalty.

Some penalties are already valued more than others based on game situation. A penalty by the leading team with 5 seconds remaining in the game that saves a game-tying goal is way more valuable than one taken 5 seconds into the first.

 

[ifmanis5]

Literally the biggest no brainer is to enforce the puck over the glass they same way they do an icing. Defensive zone faceoff, same guys have to stay out on the ice. I don’t get why that hasn’t happened yet.

Strong agree here, insane they haven't fixed this yet. Who actually likes it this way?

Rule #3 is kind of weird. The other two are fine but I can see the case against #1.

 

[Sausage in Section 17]

The problem I have with #1 is that it erodes some of the integrity of scoring records. More PP time is almost certainly going to result in more goals, and more goals for those particularly gifted offensive types that are always on the PP unit.

Like, this makes the chances of Ovechkin catching Gretzky just a little stronger. Imagine if Gretzky or Lemieux got all that additional PP time.

 

[cshea]

The problem I have with #1 is that it erodes some of the integrity of scoring records. More PP time is almost certainly going to result in more goals, and more goals for those particularly gifted offensive types that are always on the PP unit.

Like, this makes the chances of Ovechkin catching Gretzky just a little stronger. Imagine if Gretzky or Lemieux got all that additional PP time.

Imagine if Gretzky or Lemieux played against today's goalies.

 

[SoxJox]

Only thing I would add (in the spirit of these rules) - a period/game cannot end during a currently being served penalty. If you take a penalty with 30 seconds left in a 1-0 game, the entire penalty should be served and the game extended until the penalty is over.

I really like this.

 

[cshea]

Some penalties are already valued more than others based on game situation. A penalty by the leading team with 5 seconds remaining in the game that saves a game-tying goal is way more valuable than one taken 5 seconds into the first.

Fine, give the ref the latitude to award a penalty shot if a scoring chance is denied due to a penalty with less than 2 minutes left. Seems equitable without having to extend the game and add all these if A then B scenarios to the rule book on when games extend due to penalties.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

Fine, give the ref the latitude to award a penalty shot if a scoring chance is denied due to a penalty with less than 2 minutes left. Seems equitable without having to extend the game and add all these if A then B scenarios to the rule book on when games extend due to penalties.

Make it a PS and a PP for penalties in the last 2 minutes and I'm down for that. Don't love the refs having discretion about one or the other.

 

[cshea]

Make it a PS and a PP for penalties in the last 2 minutes and I'm down for that. Don't love the refs having discretion about one or the other.

I'd give the option to the team. A penalty taken with less than 2:00 left in the game or overtime, regardless of score, the offended team gets to elect either a PS or PP. So if there's 1:59 left they may choose PP but 5 second left, they would choose PS. But it doesn't extend the game clock.

Just thinking through it more, another issue with extending the game if the leading team takes a late penalty is blowouts. If the B's are up 8-1 and Carlo sends one over the glass accidentally with 3 seconds left are we going through the whole song and dance of the ensuing PP? Or are we going to define what close is and add that as another layer. Or a 2 goal game and this happens with 5 seconds left and a clear scoring chance is denied but obviously the PP makes no difference because you can't score 2 goals. Or, let's say it's 3-1 and the team in front takes a penalty with 1:00 left. So the game clock gets extended to 2:00. The trailing team scores on the PP in less than a minute, does the game revert back to the original time left or are we leaving the full 2:00?

I don't know. Just seems like we're trying to solve an extremely small and specific game situation. The only situation where this applies is a one goal game with under 2:00 to play or in the final 2:00 of regular season OT.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

It's a specific situation, but when it happens, it's kind of important. Trailing team has an easy tap in tying goal chance with 20 seconds left, but the D on the leading team just clubs the player down to prevent the goal? Doesn't really feel like the 20 seconds of PP punishment fits the crime especially since at any other time, the team would get a full PP out of it.

I like the FAFO nature of awarding them both a PS and a PP. Don't take O zone or breakaway penalties in the last 2 minutes, people! I think encouraging clean play at the end of games is the principle, so making it a possible 2 goal+ swing really pushes towards that.

As to the hypotheticals, if Bos is up 8-1 on Col and Col takes a penalty with 30 seconds left, you'd just play until the clock ran out since Bos scoring doesn't affect the outcome (Bos wins).

I revise my thinking on the 2 goal game hypothetical. I was thinking if it's a 2 goal lead and the leading team takes a penalty, then the game would end when the clock hits 0 as it does now, but as I think about it they should play out the full 2 minutes regardless in case the team on the PK takes another penalty which would further extend time.

All that said, I think we've got a less complicated solution than extending time. When do we get in front of the Board of Governors?

 

[TheAOE]

I feel like if the NHL adopted these rules a 5 on 3 penalty scenario would just potentially blow a game out of the water (esp if it is of the full 2 min variety....). I could easily see a team up 2-0 be down 3-2, esp if it is against the Oiler powerplay. Just seems dumb.

 

[cshea]

It's a specific situation, but when it happens, it's kind of important. Trailing team has an easy tap in tying goal chance with 20 seconds left, but the D on the leading team just clubs the player down to prevent the goal? Doesn't really feel like the 20 seconds of PP punishment fits the crime especially since at any other time, the team would get a full PP out of it.

What if the penalty in question is a puck over the glass? Or something that isn't denying a scoring chance? This is why I think a single PS option is the way to go.

As to the hypotheticals, if Bos is up 8-1 on Col and Col takes a penalty with 30 seconds left, you'd just play until the clock ran out since Bos scoring doesn't affect the outcome (Bos wins).

This one I meant BOS up 8-1 and BOS takes a penalty. If the proposed rule is the game can't end when the leading team takes a penalty greater than what's left on the game clock, the game extends, then we're putting players out there and at risk for an extra 2/4/5 minutes in a meaningless situation.

I revise my thinking on the 2 goal game hypothetical. I was thinking if it's a 2 goal lead and the leading team takes a penalty, then the game would end when the clock hits 0 as it does now, but as I think about it they should play out the full 2 minutes regardless in case the team on the PK takes another penalty which would further extend time.

You could play the what-if game all day as it relates to penalties and 2-man advantages. Technically it could just roll on in perpetuity.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I don't feel strongly about rules 2 or 3.

I hate rule 1. It will make refs less likely to call penalties. It will also put a premium on special teams, which I don't really like. I like 5 on 5 hockey, and by and large want teams to focus on maximizing teams that can figure out ways to win 5x5. Power plays are already punitive enough to keep players from committing penalties.

When I watch the NHL, and a minor penalty is called on my team, I groan and am bummed. It feels significant. Even if it happens with 40 seconds left in a period. I think that bummed feeling I get is enough to keep player from committing penalties (their own bummed, not mine).

 

[DJnVa]

Like, this makes the chances of Ovechkin catching Gretzky just a little stronger.

I doubt these rules would be in the NHL at a point where Ovechkin is still playing.

 

[Bergs]

It would definitely not extend 1st or 2nd periods as, as you note, the PP time already carries over - I don't think anyone suggested that.

I 100% suggested that. Periods extend until the kill is over. Another penalty by the shorthanded team keeps the period rolling, a penalty by the other team ends the period with "today's" version of resuming power plays 4 vs 4.

I honestly don't care if that "overage" time gets subtracted from the next period's 20 minutes or not. But I hate two 60-second powerplays over 2 quarters. They're easier to kill and reward the offending team.

Edit: of course given the way the B's get called, I should probably reverse my opinion. But the end-of-game shit should absolutely be tweaked.

 

[Zupcic]

The problem I have with #1 is that it erodes some of the integrity of scoring records. More PP time is almost certainly going to result in more goals, and more goals for those particularly gifted offensive types that are always on the PP unit.

Like, this makes the chances of Ovechkin catching Gretzky just a little stronger. Imagine if Gretzky or Lemieux got all that additional PP time.

#1 was an NHL rule until the late 1950s.

 

[wiffleballhero]

But I hate two 60-second powerplays over 2 quarters.

I'd like my powerplay on a fresh sheet of ice. Please and thank you.

If you want this continuation deal, it would seem better to just end the period at the penalty whistle inside two minutes so the team going on the PP can start with clean ice and, let's say, a period that runs up to 22 minutes.

 

[DJnVa]

I'd like my powerplay on a fresh sheet of ice. Please and thank you.

If you want this continuation deal, it would seem better to just end the period at the penalty whistle inside two minutes so the team going on the PP can start with clean ice and, let's say, a period that runs up to 22 minutes.

Then a team getting ready to kill a penalty gets a nice breather before the PK.