What Makes a Penalty Good or Bad in the NHL?

What makes a penalty in the NHL justifiable?

How many times has a player let you down at a critical moment, leaving you insulting their name and maybe more than that? 

Yes, I am talking about you Marek Malik.  

In the game of ice hockey there are absolutely both good and bad penalties.  A good penalty might stop an odd man rush, respond to a dirty play, or stop a goal from being scored. 

While on the other hand a bad penalty just seems needless, a lazy hook, or an arrogant slash.

These are the plays that can make or break a game in the modern NHL.  In the Devils' last game against the Montreal Canadiens Alexei Kovalev was guilty of a very lazy tripping penalty, that ended up costing the habs the game. Conversely, what was aforementioned may seem to be an example of a good penalty.  Brian Rolston reaching in and preventing Chris Drury from getting an easy breakaway.

On the ice itself everything seems different. The game moves so fast that it is impossible for players to tell the difference between good and bad 90 percent of the time. 

In one case a slash on the hands might be blatantly unneeded, then again maybe it's miss directs a shot.  It is too hard to ask players to make the correct snap judgement every time. 

However, it is not much to ask them to remove limit, the knuckle headed stuff.  I am tired of seeing lazy plays, seeing players give up on the play before the whistle blows, and seeing players act out like children behind the play. 

If you think it is necessary to take a penalty because you think your team is in danger, then fine I can live with that.  What I won't tolerate in my favorite players is lazy, lackadaisical, or lollygagging. 

Come hard, play hard, but most of all play smart.