Hockey, huh? How does frozen hockey appeal to a sunny Californian?
Anyway, The Prof, going with your metaphor let me say one thing: Your metaphor is injured and standing on only one leg.
If the benefit to the victimized team in your hockey example is that they get to play on for a score after the penalty and thereby a clear chance to score points, and they aren't giving up free points by doing so, then of course they are going to play on. Why wouldn't they? If they don't score in that brief time they still get the "man advantage" period to try again!
Clearly, this "man-advantage" period you speak of is certainly NOT the MT adjustment. The MT adjustment is a sure thing --- 100% guaranteed points awarded NOW. The man-adjustment is only a further opportunity for points. That's apples and oranges, my friend. If these examples were the same thing then immediately after the penalty your hockey team would be given the choice to accept the referee-awarded points or play on for those same points and risk losing them at the same time.
If that were the case, and your hockey team were given the choice to accept free points after the opponent was penalized or to play on for those same points (while putting them at complete risk), and your team's manager failed to take those free points, then I'm sure that the boo birds would start flying if he kept his team playing.