OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by Chris 02
OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Chris 02 (---.icsincorporated.com)
Date: April 02, 2005 09:44AM
Yet another attempt to increase scoring in the NHL. It looks kinda neat, but do we really want hockey to turn into lacrosse with that kind of scoring? I personally like the way things are now. This seems like another crazy idea to attract more fan attention to the NHL and tick off the old-timers fans of the game.
[story.news.yahoo.com]
[story.news.yahoo.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2005 09:56AM by Chris 02.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: April 02, 2005 09:50AM
Please god, let this be a belated April Fool's joke... 
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: April 02, 2005 10:10AM
With all due respect---who cares? Hell, the NHL hasn't even played a game in 10 months. When they get back to the business of playing hockey, then we can waste time discussing what they may or may not be doing to screw up the game. Until then, what's the point?
Kyle
Kyle
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 10:20AM
It would have been an early April Fool's Joke -- it was a 3/31/05 story. It's funny looking, but it's considerably less dumb and Draconian than a lot of the idea circulating among the NHL brass. There's one statement in the article that's alarming, though.
[q]The idea behind the curved-post design is that it not only expands the net opening, but the rounded shape makes it more difficult for goalies to hug the posts to block short-angle shots.[/q]
The NHL shouldn't go there, where "there" is applying equipment changes in order to alter traditional strategies. When a goalie hugs the post to prevent the wrap-around or tight angle shot, he's gambling that he can get back to the other side fast enough to prevent a quick feed in front or a Gretzky Office Special (deke behind the net and then a casual deposit through the gaping other side). That's a valid, exciting tactic and there's no reason to discourage it.
Oh, and we should care, since dramatic rule changes will percolate down into the college game, unless the conferences want to give the juniors the stick "yeah, college is cute, but it doesn't prepare you for the N."
[q]The idea behind the curved-post design is that it not only expands the net opening, but the rounded shape makes it more difficult for goalies to hug the posts to block short-angle shots.[/q]
The NHL shouldn't go there, where "there" is applying equipment changes in order to alter traditional strategies. When a goalie hugs the post to prevent the wrap-around or tight angle shot, he's gambling that he can get back to the other side fast enough to prevent a quick feed in front or a Gretzky Office Special (deke behind the net and then a casual deposit through the gaping other side). That's a valid, exciting tactic and there's no reason to discourage it.
Oh, and we should care, since dramatic rule changes will percolate down into the college game, unless the conferences want to give the juniors the stick "yeah, college is cute, but it doesn't prepare you for the N."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2005 10:21AM by Trotsky.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: mjh89 (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: April 02, 2005 11:21AM
So what exactly do you think we should be talking about now that cornell is done and a "next year thread" has already been started? I'll gladly talk about the NHL anytime, and I'm sure many other ELynah goes would to.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 11:24AM
I think if the NHL touches the nets their lose any remaining credibility with any real hockey fans. If scoring was low in baseball, would they put the bases closer together? Would football shorten the field? Would basketball lower the hoop? It's an absolute joke.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: mjh89 (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: April 02, 2005 11:28AM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
I think if the NHL touches the nets their lose any remaining credibility with any real hockey fans. If scoring was low in baseball, would they put the bases closer together? Would football shorten the field? Would basketball lower the hoop? It's an absolute joke.[/q]
I agree that those nets are pretty ridiculous and don't see the benefits of them over just making a net that is say 6'1" by 4'1" and keeping the rectangle. However, changes in sports are made when offense lacks:
From a recent Buccigross column: " In 1968, when Bob Gibson led Major League Baseball with a 1.12 ERA, Carl Yastrzemski won the AL batting title by hitting a paltry .301 and Glenn Beckert led the major leagues with a measly 98 runs. The next season, MLB lowered the pitcher's mound from 15 inches to 10 to increase offense. The NFL continually tweaks its rules to give the offense the advantage – from pass coverage rules, blocking allowances, moving the kickoff yard line back and, to a lesser degree, introducing the two-point conversion. "
I think if the NHL touches the nets their lose any remaining credibility with any real hockey fans. If scoring was low in baseball, would they put the bases closer together? Would football shorten the field? Would basketball lower the hoop? It's an absolute joke.[/q]
I agree that those nets are pretty ridiculous and don't see the benefits of them over just making a net that is say 6'1" by 4'1" and keeping the rectangle. However, changes in sports are made when offense lacks:
From a recent Buccigross column: " In 1968, when Bob Gibson led Major League Baseball with a 1.12 ERA, Carl Yastrzemski won the AL batting title by hitting a paltry .301 and Glenn Beckert led the major leagues with a measly 98 runs. The next season, MLB lowered the pitcher's mound from 15 inches to 10 to increase offense. The NFL continually tweaks its rules to give the offense the advantage – from pass coverage rules, blocking allowances, moving the kickoff yard line back and, to a lesser degree, introducing the two-point conversion. "
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 11:48AM
Agreed, and there are rule changes that I don't disagree with. In fact there are ones I even support. But it seems to me that each sport has some "fundamental constants" and if you screw with those, you've just gone too far.
for example, Baseball: distance between bases, # of strikes and balls, # of outs, # of innings, # of players on the field, size of the bases, tag out/force out rules
hockey: 60 minutes total playing time in regulation (if you want to try quarters, as the IHL experimented with briefly, I don't see the point, but knock yourself out), size of the puck, size of the net, size and shapes of sticks, and the existance of 5 lines (red/blue/red/blue/red), with ratios close to current patterns, 5 guys + goalie on the ice (which leads me to not like the 4 man OT, and absolutely hate the shootout)
Those are the things that make the game what they are, if you change those, its starting to make it a different sport.
other than that, go at it. Goalie pads smaller, no red line for 2 line passes, whatever. We can debate whether we like them or not, but at least their fair game. But there are things you just don't touch, and the net is one of them.
for example, Baseball: distance between bases, # of strikes and balls, # of outs, # of innings, # of players on the field, size of the bases, tag out/force out rules
hockey: 60 minutes total playing time in regulation (if you want to try quarters, as the IHL experimented with briefly, I don't see the point, but knock yourself out), size of the puck, size of the net, size and shapes of sticks, and the existance of 5 lines (red/blue/red/blue/red), with ratios close to current patterns, 5 guys + goalie on the ice (which leads me to not like the 4 man OT, and absolutely hate the shootout)
Those are the things that make the game what they are, if you change those, its starting to make it a different sport.
other than that, go at it. Goalie pads smaller, no red line for 2 line passes, whatever. We can debate whether we like them or not, but at least their fair game. But there are things you just don't touch, and the net is one of them.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: April 02, 2005 11:58AM
SHHHHH! Don't laugh, they're trying to "boost fan interest" and "grow the game". 
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 01:17PM
Of course, there have been revolutionary changes to some of those, like number of balls and strikes. But they were a long time ago.
My .02$
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 01:21PM
Most of you know I was a goalie, so here's my take on the big net.
First off... the curved net is just ridiculous, so I will limit my opinions to just increasing the rectangle.
I think everyone up the ladder in the NHL is very misguided... we don't need more scoring to increase excitement in the NHL, we need more SCORING CHANCES. A great save of a great chance is much more exciting than some garbage goal being banged in on a scrum in front of the net. Making the net bigger will not make the scorer chances greater.
They just gotta open up the game. Get rid of the red line, tag up offsides, larger ice surface... or even keep the red line, but get rid of the blue lines (pretty radical idea that I would not be in favor of).
The biggest thing they can do to open up the game is make ALL contact with a player not in posession of the puck illegal and interference. Or better yet, make all stick contact with a player above the knees illegal. The stick is for handling the puck, shooting, and passing. If players can move around the ice surface without getting held up, the game would really open up.
Increasing the nets might... and that's a big might... increase scoring, but it won't make the game more exciting or faster paced.
First off... the curved net is just ridiculous, so I will limit my opinions to just increasing the rectangle.
I think everyone up the ladder in the NHL is very misguided... we don't need more scoring to increase excitement in the NHL, we need more SCORING CHANCES. A great save of a great chance is much more exciting than some garbage goal being banged in on a scrum in front of the net. Making the net bigger will not make the scorer chances greater.
They just gotta open up the game. Get rid of the red line, tag up offsides, larger ice surface... or even keep the red line, but get rid of the blue lines (pretty radical idea that I would not be in favor of).
The biggest thing they can do to open up the game is make ALL contact with a player not in posession of the puck illegal and interference. Or better yet, make all stick contact with a player above the knees illegal. The stick is for handling the puck, shooting, and passing. If players can move around the ice surface without getting held up, the game would really open up.
Increasing the nets might... and that's a big might... increase scoring, but it won't make the game more exciting or faster paced.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: adamw (---.benslm01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 02:36PM
Agreed that SCORING CHANCES is the key ... but the merit to making the net larger is very sound. The goalies are bigger and more athletic. Just to keep the scoring opportunity consistent with everything before 1995, it only stands to reason that the net needs to be bigger. If there is something that stands in the way of the net, that now is bigger and takes up more of the net than before, then make the net bigger. You cannot make the goalies smaller - since I don't think even the NHL has a handle on genetics.
DeltaOne - lots of things have changed. I'm not a fan of arbitrary rules changes which dubiously open up scoring at the sake of something else, only to be changed years later when scoring is too high.
But sometimes there are fundamental changes that are irreversible, and the only way to compensate, is to change some of the rules. And it's true that players are bigger, faster, stronger, and there is no way that is ever going to reverse itself. So something has to be done to compensate.
By the way - you listed 5 lines as a fundamental ... but there doesn't need to be a center line - except for icing - so that's something that has changed. Also, there used to be 6 skaters per side - then they went to 5. Stan Fischler has advocated for 4 for at least 20 years.
DeltaOne - lots of things have changed. I'm not a fan of arbitrary rules changes which dubiously open up scoring at the sake of something else, only to be changed years later when scoring is too high.
But sometimes there are fundamental changes that are irreversible, and the only way to compensate, is to change some of the rules. And it's true that players are bigger, faster, stronger, and there is no way that is ever going to reverse itself. So something has to be done to compensate.
By the way - you listed 5 lines as a fundamental ... but there doesn't need to be a center line - except for icing - so that's something that has changed. Also, there used to be 6 skaters per side - then they went to 5. Stan Fischler has advocated for 4 for at least 20 years.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 02:52PM
Adam, yeah, there are changes, but there's a reason we refer to records and stats "in the modern era", and its not because we're just being cocky about us being better than 100 years ago. At some point, the fundamental rules of the game changed enough so that its not fair to consider records and stats and play to be comparable to now.
There was a time in baseball when you were out if the ball was caught on just one bounce (see, I've been to Cooperstown
), but then something happened... they started using gloves and you could actually catch a ball without breaking bones. But we don't compare that game to today, because its different enough that its a different game.
The NHL can make any changes they like, but if they touch certain things (things which I tried to create a list of) then its simply a separate game. We'll no longer ever be able to compare achievements of the greats to those of greats past. Be it goal scorers, goalies, team accomplishments. It will hold no comparison, because it will be a different game. If that's what the NHL wants to do, well, they have the power, but if you change your game enough that you lose the connection to the past, well, I think that's a big mistake.
As for the lines, I debated that one. Yes, you could eliminate the redline for the 2 line pass, but that's not really eliminating the red line, is it? Its just a convenient phrase used to describe what is really eliminating the two-line pass rule. If you actually did eliminate the redline and redefined icing to who-knows-what accordingly, then you'd have changed the game. So when I said you need 5 lines, I mean you look at the surface and there are 5 lines, each with a defined use. So I stand by that as an untouchable.
There was a time in baseball when you were out if the ball was caught on just one bounce (see, I've been to Cooperstown
), but then something happened... they started using gloves and you could actually catch a ball without breaking bones. But we don't compare that game to today, because its different enough that its a different game.
The NHL can make any changes they like, but if they touch certain things (things which I tried to create a list of) then its simply a separate game. We'll no longer ever be able to compare achievements of the greats to those of greats past. Be it goal scorers, goalies, team accomplishments. It will hold no comparison, because it will be a different game. If that's what the NHL wants to do, well, they have the power, but if you change your game enough that you lose the connection to the past, well, I think that's a big mistake.
As for the lines, I debated that one. Yes, you could eliminate the redline for the 2 line pass, but that's not really eliminating the red line, is it? Its just a convenient phrase used to describe what is really eliminating the two-line pass rule. If you actually did eliminate the redline and redefined icing to who-knows-what accordingly, then you'd have changed the game. So when I said you need 5 lines, I mean you look at the surface and there are 5 lines, each with a defined use. So I stand by that as an untouchable.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 02:56PM
[Q]adamw Wrote:
You cannot make the goalies smaller - since I don't think even the NHL has a handle on genetics.
[/q]
Dunno. Dryden was bigger than LeNeveu, but I'll bet LeNeveu occupies greater volume, with all that friggin' padding. Dryden looked like a human being; LeNeveu like some kind of Sasquatch.
You cannot make the goalies smaller - since I don't think even the NHL has a handle on genetics.
[/q]
Dunno. Dryden was bigger than LeNeveu, but I'll bet LeNeveu occupies greater volume, with all that friggin' padding. Dryden looked like a human being; LeNeveu like some kind of Sasquatch.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 03:01PM
It will make every photo look like it's taken with a fisheye lens.
The 6x4 net isn't graven in stone. Maybe if the sport came out of Europe the net would be 2 meters wide by 1.5 tall. With the net size standing still, two other things change: the area that's not covered by the goalie and equipment, and to a degree harder to measure, the area a now-more-able-and-athletic goalie can't reach.
Some may be thinking a defensive team like Cornell would be hurt by a bigger net. Maybe it would be the opposite: Since so few shots get to the goalie, a bigger net would be better for us.
The 6x4 net isn't graven in stone. Maybe if the sport came out of Europe the net would be 2 meters wide by 1.5 tall. With the net size standing still, two other things change: the area that's not covered by the goalie and equipment, and to a degree harder to measure, the area a now-more-able-and-athletic goalie can't reach.
Some may be thinking a defensive team like Cornell would be hurt by a bigger net. Maybe it would be the opposite: Since so few shots get to the goalie, a bigger net would be better for us.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 03:01PM
It will make every photo look like it's taken with a fisheye lens.
The 6x4 net isn't graven in stone. Maybe if the sport came out of Europe the net would be 2 meters wide by 1.5 tall. With the net size standing still, two other things change: the area that's not covered by the goalie and equipment, and to a degree harder to measure, the area a now-more-able-and-athletic goalie can't reach.
Some may be thinking a defensive team like Cornell would be hurt by a bigger net. Maybe it would be the opposite: Since so few shots get to the goalie, a bigger net would be better for us.
The 6x4 net isn't graven in stone. Maybe if the sport came out of Europe the net would be 2 meters wide by 1.5 tall. With the net size standing still, two other things change: the area that's not covered by the goalie and equipment, and to a degree harder to measure, the area a now-more-able-and-athletic goalie can't reach.
Some may be thinking a defensive team like Cornell would be hurt by a bigger net. Maybe it would be the opposite: Since so few shots get to the goalie, a bigger net would be better for us.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: French Rage (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: April 02, 2005 03:11PM
I dont think scoring or nets are really the big problem with the NHL. I'd say their biggest problem is the whole not having a season and all. Work on that first...
Re: My .02$
Posted by: cth95 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 02, 2005 03:34PM
I have to agree with you. I love big saves and don't have any problem with a 2-1 game as long as there is some good action moving up and down the ice. Big nets are simply a gimmick. More goals are not necessarily more interesting. More rushes up and down the ice are more interesting and exciting.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 06:53PM
Have European leagues seen the same decrease in scoring as the NHL and college hockey? I watched Western Hockey League games for 6 years, and scoring is significantly higher there, but then again that league regularly featured 9-8 and 8-7 games in the 80's, so today's 4-3 games are "defensive struggles."
Then there's the Unspeakable Hypothesis: maybe fighting helped scoring? If you were mugging the other team's sharp shooter, even legally, you suddenly found yourself on the receiving end of "the foil." I'm not saying bring back fighting, but its absence may be another factor in decreased scoring.
Then there's the Unspeakable Hypothesis: maybe fighting helped scoring? If you were mugging the other team's sharp shooter, even legally, you suddenly found yourself on the receiving end of "the foil." I'm not saying bring back fighting, but its absence may be another factor in decreased scoring.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: adamw (209.71.42.---)
Date: April 02, 2005 10:15PM
I don't believe big nets are a gimmick at all. I've written about this numerous times. (FYI: Jack Parker is the biggest proponent of larger nets among college hockey coaches) ... and DeltaOne ... You say that bigger nets fundamentally change the game. I say that the game is already fundamentally different because goalies are bigger, more athletic and wear bigger padding (it's also lighter, which is really the issue). Changing the size of the nets is simply an attempt to keep up with the change in the size of goalies, so that, therefore, things *are* indeed the same - and not fundamentally different.
Yes, there are also other factors needed to open up the game - but I believe this one is self-evident.
And, yes, Al, Dryden was/is bigger than LeNeveu - but he was an exception. Goalies were generally much smaller then. Everything is different about goaltending now. Bigger equipment, bigger guys, more athletic. And let's not forget their handling of the puck ... Billy Smith was the first guy able to do it with regularity. Now, if you *can't* handle the puck, you probably can't play in the NHL. LeNeveu wasn't very good at it, and he was still better than anyone from 20 years ago.
Yes, there are also other factors needed to open up the game - but I believe this one is self-evident.
And, yes, Al, Dryden was/is bigger than LeNeveu - but he was an exception. Goalies were generally much smaller then. Everything is different about goaltending now. Bigger equipment, bigger guys, more athletic. And let's not forget their handling of the puck ... Billy Smith was the first guy able to do it with regularity. Now, if you *can't* handle the puck, you probably can't play in the NHL. LeNeveu wasn't very good at it, and he was still better than anyone from 20 years ago.
Re: OT: Puck handling
Posted by: Rich S (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 10:20PM
Adam,
I agree with most of what you said here but Eddie Giacomin handled the puck frequently and exceptionally well long before Billy Smith was around. Ther e were other puck handling goalies at the same time but Ed-DIE was easily the best of his era.
In fact, other than Marty Brodeur, I can't think of anyone since who rivals him at the moment.
I agree with most of what you said here but Eddie Giacomin handled the puck frequently and exceptionally well long before Billy Smith was around. Ther e were other puck handling goalies at the same time but Ed-DIE was easily the best of his era.
In fact, other than Marty Brodeur, I can't think of anyone since who rivals him at the moment.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: April 02, 2005 10:27PM
[Q]adamw Wrote:
And, yes, Al, Dryden was/is bigger than LeNeveu - but he was an exception. Goalies were generally much smaller then.
[/q]
You missed my point, Adam.
Dryden may have been bigger sans padding, etc., but LeNeveu is effectively bigger with all that protective padding everywhere (his chest makes Jayne Mansfield look like Twiggy). Perhaps step one is to get rid of all that excess padding, making goalies "smaller" the easy way, without resorting to genetic mutation.
And, yes, Al, Dryden was/is bigger than LeNeveu - but he was an exception. Goalies were generally much smaller then.
[/q]
You missed my point, Adam.
Dryden may have been bigger sans padding, etc., but LeNeveu is effectively bigger with all that protective padding everywhere (his chest makes Jayne Mansfield look like Twiggy). Perhaps step one is to get rid of all that excess padding, making goalies "smaller" the easy way, without resorting to genetic mutation.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
puck handling and other stuff
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: April 03, 2005 01:16AM
DiPietro is equal if not better than Brodeur in puck handling...
To address padding... Chest protectors are bigger... but we forget that shots come in so much harder with these composite sticks. The point of the body padding (including leg pads) is to protect the goalie, not provide him/her with excess area to make a save. That being said, I don't think you realize how little excess padding there really is and how little of a different that would make.
Look at Marty Brodeur... his equpiment is tiny!! But smaller equipment gives him better range and motion, so it's a wash.
I'm not saying that making the nets bigger is a terrible thing, but I think it sohuld be a last resort. I am still firmly in favor of calling every single obstruction penalty. Again... the stick is for puckhandling, shooting as passing... That is ALL!
To address padding... Chest protectors are bigger... but we forget that shots come in so much harder with these composite sticks. The point of the body padding (including leg pads) is to protect the goalie, not provide him/her with excess area to make a save. That being said, I don't think you realize how little excess padding there really is and how little of a different that would make.
Look at Marty Brodeur... his equpiment is tiny!! But smaller equipment gives him better range and motion, so it's a wash.
I'm not saying that making the nets bigger is a terrible thing, but I think it sohuld be a last resort. I am still firmly in favor of calling every single obstruction penalty. Again... the stick is for puckhandling, shooting as passing... That is ALL!
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: April 03, 2005 01:37PM
[www.sabres.com]
A brief video of the net in action. They show you a comparison with a traditional net, and it really isn't that much larger.
A brief video of the net in action. They show you a comparison with a traditional net, and it really isn't that much larger.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: nr53 (209.2.88.---)
Date: April 03, 2005 02:44PM
I guess I don't mind the larger size, but frankly i think the new shape looks stupid
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: April 03, 2005 06:02PM
Hasn't the padding changed in two ways - it's both more protective (more depth or more protection per millimeter of thickness) which is okay unless toothless goalies really are a cool thing, and wider to fill up more of the net?
As for the net, the shape screams out "compromise." Or that Chris Bangle designed it. But you could get used to it. Does anybody find lacrosse boring because Cornell beats Princeton 13-12?
A bigger net is going to help Cornell because only shots that are taken and then get past the defense have a chance to go in the net. Unless your goaltender is hung out to dry for one brief and sad moment in overtime.
As for the net, the shape screams out "compromise." Or that Chris Bangle designed it. But you could get used to it. Does anybody find lacrosse boring because Cornell beats Princeton 13-12?
A bigger net is going to help Cornell because only shots that are taken and then get past the defense have a chance to go in the net. Unless your goaltender is hung out to dry for one brief and sad moment in overtime.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Tom14850 (---.hsd1.ut.comcast.net)
Date: April 03, 2005 09:10PM
I just have to say that every time I read something of Adam's, it makes sense. I agree with him now, despite the fact that my initial reaction to that curved net was one of repulsion. I think some rules changes are well justified.
Adam, did you go to Cornell?
Adam, did you go to Cornell?
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Beeeej (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 03, 2005 11:31PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Does anybody find lacrosse boring because Cornell beats Princeton 13-12?[/q]
I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off. Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
Okay, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement (and I know I'm dead to a lot of people here), but still.
Beeeej
Does anybody find lacrosse boring because Cornell beats Princeton 13-12?[/q]
I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off. Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
Okay, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement (and I know I'm dead to a lot of people here), but still.
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: April 04, 2005 12:00AM
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off. Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
Okay, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement (and I know I'm dead to a lot of people here), but still. Beeeej[/q]
we'll let that be a one time slip up ...
I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off. Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
Okay, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement (and I know I'm dead to a lot of people here), but still. Beeeej[/q]
we'll let that be a one time slip up ...
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 04, 2005 12:03AM
After watching the video, the goal doesn't look like it would be as much of a factor as I thought with good defense. However, I may be wrong, but it looks like it gives a big advantage to a good shooter over the goaltender on a breakaway.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: April 04, 2005 01:54AM
[Q]nr53 Wrote:
I guess I don't mind the larger size, but frankly i think the new shape looks stupid[/q]
I've spent too much time in Boston the last 15 months, so I was thinking "retahdid", but I share the sentiment.
I guess I don't mind the larger size, but frankly i think the new shape looks stupid[/q]
I've spent too much time in Boston the last 15 months, so I was thinking "retahdid", but I share the sentiment.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: adamw (---.benslm01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: April 04, 2005 02:18AM
Tom - I didn't go to Cornell ... believe it or not, non-Ivy Leaguers come up wit sum good thawts sometimes too. 
.... (just kidding folks - please don't throw your protractors at me)
And, FWIW, I agree with Beeeej about lax - believe it or not. Just don't tell WHCU. A friend of mine put it well ... he said lax is really much closer, in terms of strategy, to basketball than it is hockey. Some of the skills required more closely resemble hockey - but the strategy is more like basketball, because you're basically working it around the perimeter looking for a shot, instead of the constant two-sided battle going on in hockey. If you want to stick with the hockey analogy, though, lax resembles a power-play setup - which is actually much less exciting than 5-on-5.
Point being, the score in and of itself doesn't indicate excitement. Or else basketball would be the most exciting game on the planet.
Al, I actually did understand what you were saying - but I was just clarifying for others - and didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't trying to contradict you.
.... (just kidding folks - please don't throw your protractors at me)
And, FWIW, I agree with Beeeej about lax - believe it or not. Just don't tell WHCU. A friend of mine put it well ... he said lax is really much closer, in terms of strategy, to basketball than it is hockey. Some of the skills required more closely resemble hockey - but the strategy is more like basketball, because you're basically working it around the perimeter looking for a shot, instead of the constant two-sided battle going on in hockey. If you want to stick with the hockey analogy, though, lax resembles a power-play setup - which is actually much less exciting than 5-on-5.
Point being, the score in and of itself doesn't indicate excitement. Or else basketball would be the most exciting game on the planet.
Al, I actually did understand what you were saying - but I was just clarifying for others - and didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't trying to contradict you.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 04, 2005 03:33AM
I have to admit that I have not seen many lacrosse games, so I do not know the sport well. Despite this the high scores make the game less interesting to me. I personally enjoy hockey (and baseball for that matter) games in which neither team scores more than 5. It makes every goal seem more important. I have always played net in pick-up games, so I may be biased, but it seems in every sport that teams with the best defenses go the farthest. Therefore, maybe that is why I appreciate lower scoring games as well.
On a side note, I just read something which noted that Dryden was 6'4" and 205, but Cropper, who had the undefeated season, was only 5'5" and 125. What a difference!
On a side note, I just read something which noted that Dryden was 6'4" and 205, but Cropper, who had the undefeated season, was only 5'5" and 125. What a difference!
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 04, 2005 03:37AM
Adam, Do you have an opinion on my post just above this one?
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Will (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: April 04, 2005 07:16AM
[Q]cth95 Wrote:
On a side note, I just read something which noted that Dryden was 6'4" and 205, but Cropper, who had the undefeated season, was only 5'5" and 125. What a difference![/q]
Apparently, the little guys go far at Cornell, which is a good omen for Topher Scott and Justin Milo.
On a side note, I just read something which noted that Dryden was 6'4" and 205, but Cropper, who had the undefeated season, was only 5'5" and 125. What a difference![/q]
Apparently, the little guys go far at Cornell, which is a good omen for Topher Scott and Justin Milo.
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Is next year here yet?
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: jeh25 (---.epsy.uconn.edu)
Date: April 04, 2005 04:32PM
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off. Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
[/q]
Doyle may diagree with me but I think that is the result of 3 specific factors:
a) the teams you are watching
b) the trend toward using a FO specialist
c) the advent of the offset head
With regard to the first, as an Ivy fan you'll can't help but see lots of settled, control offenses since that is what typifies Princeton, and Cornell and Brown to a lesser extend. Watch some run n' gun teams and it's a different game. In someways, HS lax is more fun because you get more dropped passes and turnovers and more transition.
Second, in the old days, you didn't have purpose built FO machines like Sollog that had no place on the offense. You faced off with one of your best offensive midfielders, thus you could score in transition without having to wait for a subsititution. Don't get me wrong - Sollog was a sick FO guy - but having to wait for him to run off hurts the pacing of the game. Again, this relates to the teams you're watching as a Cornell fan.
Third, and perhaps most important, is the offset head. Before the offset head, a good stiff poke check to the bottom head could dislodge the ball. Today, you almost have to mug a guy to get the ball out. Witness Petro repeatly stripping Gait in the 88 (89?) title game. It just doesn't happen today. Without the defensive turnover, you have less emphasis on the transition game and more deadball change of possession settled offensive. Generally, I'm not regressive when it comes to new equipment, but the offset needs to go. Of course, I know Doyle disagrees, but he uses a shortie whereas I'm a longstick. Plus he's too young to remember the old days. Really, you think I'm kidding, but I played in the pre-offset pre-cascade helmet days in HS and then came back to the game ten years later. The 20 year olds on my club team think I throw a wicked poke check. Thing is, it's not really that good - it's just that no one seems to throw hard poke checks anymore.
I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off. Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
[/q]
Doyle may diagree with me but I think that is the result of 3 specific factors:
a) the teams you are watching
b) the trend toward using a FO specialist
c) the advent of the offset head
With regard to the first, as an Ivy fan you'll can't help but see lots of settled, control offenses since that is what typifies Princeton, and Cornell and Brown to a lesser extend. Watch some run n' gun teams and it's a different game. In someways, HS lax is more fun because you get more dropped passes and turnovers and more transition.
Second, in the old days, you didn't have purpose built FO machines like Sollog that had no place on the offense. You faced off with one of your best offensive midfielders, thus you could score in transition without having to wait for a subsititution. Don't get me wrong - Sollog was a sick FO guy - but having to wait for him to run off hurts the pacing of the game. Again, this relates to the teams you're watching as a Cornell fan.
Third, and perhaps most important, is the offset head. Before the offset head, a good stiff poke check to the bottom head could dislodge the ball. Today, you almost have to mug a guy to get the ball out. Witness Petro repeatly stripping Gait in the 88 (89?) title game. It just doesn't happen today. Without the defensive turnover, you have less emphasis on the transition game and more deadball change of possession settled offensive. Generally, I'm not regressive when it comes to new equipment, but the offset needs to go. Of course, I know Doyle disagrees, but he uses a shortie whereas I'm a longstick. Plus he's too young to remember the old days.
Really, you think I'm kidding, but I played in the pre-offset pre-cascade helmet days in HS and then came back to the game ten years later. The 20 year olds on my club team think I throw a wicked poke check. Thing is, it's not really that good - it's just that no one seems to throw hard poke checks anymore.
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: April 04, 2005 04:44PM
"'The History of My Skin,' by Charles Sims."
</frankslade>
I appreciate the analysis, but understanding it doesn't make it any less boring to me.
Beeeej
</frankslade>
I appreciate the analysis, but understanding it doesn't make it any less boring to me.
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2005 04:45PM by Beeeej.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: profudge (---.ct.us.ibm.com)
Date: April 04, 2005 05:01PM
New shape is dictated by folks thinking about what is easily doable without changing rinks, in any expensive way like moving mounting pipes for the net pegs ....! and conflicts with the underlying refrigeration piping.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: April 04, 2005 05:05PM
[Q]jeh25 Wrote:
Beeeej Wrote:
I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off. Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
[/Q]
Doyle may diagree with me but I think that is the result of 3 specific factors:
a) the teams you are watching
b) the trend toward using a FO specialist
c) the advent of the offset head
With regard to the first, as an Ivy fan you'll can't help but see lots of settled, control offenses since that is what typifies Princeton, and Cornell and Brown to a lesser extend. Watch some run n' gun teams and it's a different game...
Second, in the old days, you didn't have purpose built FO machines like Sollog that had no place on the offense. You faced off with one of your best offensive midfielders, thus you could score in transition without having to wait for a subsititution...
Third, and perhaps most important, is the offset head. Before the offset head, a good stiff poke check to the bottom head could dislodge the ball. Today, you almost have to mug a guy to get the ball out...[/q]
Transition play is what makes the game exciting--Bob Rule slinging the ball to a breaking middie in full stride, or a D-man taking it all the way down the field and going in on the goalie if nobody on their D thinks to pick him up. Blanket substitution of all six middies every time the ball crosses midfield after a possession change is just deadly by comparison.
The change to sudden death OT didn't help either. Now, whoever wins the face-off stalls waiting to take the last (only?) shot as time runs out. Talk about watching paint dry. In the 1976 championship game Maryland scored the first OT goal and then Cornell came back with four. Wonderfully entertaining--unless, I suppose, you were a Terp fan. Frank Gifford said it was the most exciting event he had ever called--up to that point in time. I doubt he'd have felt that way about last year's Cornell-Navy quarterfinal game.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: April 04, 2005 05:13PM
since you don't seem to like the "original" product might i suggest you watch NLL, which is hardly lacrosse, btw. [since you think it's boring you can stop reading]
as a footnote to john's analysis, in addition to position specialization, the concept of team defense has added to the slowing down of the game. hence the basketball like perimeter passing. there are no longer (or seldom utilized) take-away artists and their checks of ten years ago (see Petro and McCabe). the only one i can think of from the past five years is Ryan "McNasty" McClay and we were lucky enough he was on our team. the offset head has had an effect but nearly as significant as Hayes would like you to believe 
(he's just whining b/c he's a defender). the slow down mentality can be attributed to the success of Princeton and JHU ... even Syracuse has had to scale back their run-n-gun transition for a more conservative approach so as not to get beat by the likes mentioned above. agree or disagree the game has changed and i’m not a fan either but i will never understand how someone mentioned above they think baseball is --less— boring than any lacrosse game ever played. 
as a footnote to john's analysis, in addition to position specialization, the concept of team defense has added to the slowing down of the game. hence the basketball like perimeter passing. there are no longer (or seldom utilized) take-away artists and their checks of ten years ago (see Petro and McCabe). the only one i can think of from the past five years is Ryan "McNasty" McClay and we were lucky enough he was on our team.
the offset head has had an effect but nearly as significant as Hayes would like you to believe (he's just whining b/c he's a defender). the slow down mentality can be attributed to the success of Princeton and JHU ... even Syracuse has had to scale back their run-n-gun transition for a more conservative approach so as not to get beat by the likes mentioned above. agree or disagree the game has changed and i’m not a fan either but i will never understand how someone mentioned above they think baseball is --less— boring than any lacrosse game ever played. ___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2005 05:16PM by ben03.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: April 04, 2005 07:51PM
Kevin Paul Dupont writes in yesterday's Boston Globe about possible rules change recommendations (as well as possible developments on the CBA front) coming out of the NHL General Managers meeting later this week (about half way down the page).
[www.boston.com]
Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?
"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is [expletive]. This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"
[www.boston.com]
Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?
"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is [expletive]. This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 04, 2005 08:11PM
[q]4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. [/q]What exactly does this one mean?
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: April 04, 2005 09:18PM
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
Kevin Paul Dupont writes in yesterday's Boston Globe about possible rules change recommendations (as well as possible developments on the CBA front) coming out of the NHL General Managers meeting later this week (about half way down the page).
Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?
"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is . This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"[/q]
The rumoured CBA proposal seems quite solid. Why they didn't propose something similar to this a year ago is beyond me. Not only does the NHL eventually get its way, but the players lose a year of salary. Goodenow is Goodasgone
Kevin Paul Dupont writes in yesterday's Boston Globe about possible rules change recommendations (as well as possible developments on the CBA front) coming out of the NHL General Managers meeting later this week (about half way down the page).
Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?
"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is . This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"[/q]
The rumoured CBA proposal seems quite solid. Why they didn't propose something similar to this a year ago is beyond me. Not only does the NHL eventually get its way, but the players lose a year of salary. Goodenow is Goodasgone
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2005 10:39PM by Tub(a).
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: April 04, 2005 09:41PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. [/Q]
What exactly does this one mean?[/q]
Icing will be called during a kill?
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Robb (---.169.137.235.ts46v-07.otnc1.ftwrth.tx.charter.co)
Date: April 05, 2005 08:02AM
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
KeithK Wrote:
4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. [/Q]
What exactly does this one mean?[/Q]
Icing will be called during a kill?[/q]
No more Gretzky rule? The PKers better hit the exercise bikes!
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: April 05, 2005 09:44AM
No icing on the kill is the Montreal Rule. The Gretzky Rule is no change in strength for coincidental minors during a powerplay.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 05, 2005 12:04PM
Oh - that's right...
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: April 05, 2005 12:07PM
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?
"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is . This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"[/q]A) Of course a goalie doesn't like the idea of making the net bigger or making the pads smaller. I don't think that's a reflection on the PA, I think that's just because, as I said, he's a goalie.
B) Does anyone else find a French-Canadian player saying "Excuse my French" before swearing to be really funny?
Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?
"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is . This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"[/q]A) Of course a goalie doesn't like the idea of making the net bigger or making the pads smaller. I don't think that's a reflection on the PA, I think that's just because, as I said, he's a goalie.
B) Does anyone else find a French-Canadian player saying "Excuse my French" before swearing to be really funny?
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: bigredtrumpet (---.fds.com)
Date: April 05, 2005 01:07PM
[Q]adamw Wrote:
Or else basketball would be the most exciting game on the planet. [/q]
I have to agree with DeltaOne on this one. Going by your logic, Adam, if the NBA looked at its athletes and decided since 90% (made up number) of them can dunk, they should make the nets higher just because they can. It wouldn't increase scoring, but it would make it more of a shooter's game, plus decrease those "in your face" slams. I mean you can give any reason to change something in the game whether it's to increase scoring or to tame it down (no fighting) or make it more watchable, but only the watchable is what translates into $$ for the NHL.
I doubt that changing the game will make it any more popular than actually playing a real NHL game right now. And if anything needs changing, clutching and grabbing away from the puck should be more frequently called. Get rid of touch-up icing (so many players get hurt on such a useless play) and reinstate touchup offside.
that is all,
BRT
Or else basketball would be the most exciting game on the planet. [/q]
I have to agree with DeltaOne on this one. Going by your logic, Adam, if the NBA looked at its athletes and decided since 90% (made up number) of them can dunk, they should make the nets higher just because they can. It wouldn't increase scoring, but it would make it more of a shooter's game, plus decrease those "in your face" slams. I mean you can give any reason to change something in the game whether it's to increase scoring or to tame it down (no fighting) or make it more watchable, but only the watchable is what translates into $$ for the NHL.
I doubt that changing the game will make it any more popular than actually playing a real NHL game right now. And if anything needs changing, clutching and grabbing away from the puck should be more frequently called. Get rid of touch-up icing (so many players get hurt on such a useless play) and reinstate touchup offside.
that is all,
BRT
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: April 05, 2005 05:07PM
Don't forget to eliminate the redline for two line offsides.
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: adamw (209.71.42.---)
Date: April 05, 2005 11:30PM
[Q]bigredtrumpet Wrote:
adamw Wrote:
Or else basketball would be the most exciting game on the planet. [/Q]
I have to agree with DeltaOne on this one. Going by your logic, Adam, if the NBA looked at its athletes and decided since 90% (made up number) of them can dunk, they should make the nets higher just because they can. It wouldn't increase scoring, but it would make it more of a shooter's game, plus decrease those "in your face" slams. I mean you can give any reason to change something in the game whether it's to increase scoring or to tame it down (no fighting) or make it more watchable, but only the watchable is what translates into $$ for the NHL.
BRT[/q]
The thing of mine you're quoting is in response to whether lacrosse is boring or not - so that has nothing to do with the nets thing.
The nets analogy in basketball is absolutely not remotely the same thing. First of all, they can all dunk, so that doesn't matter. Despite that, scoring is still down. So it's an irrelevant analogy.
The argument for increasing the net size in hockey is, once again, because the game has been radically altered by the increased size and ability of the goaltenders. Solve that first. There's only one way to compensate for that. ... As for the clutching and grabbing - sure, solve that too. That's a separate issue, in my opinion.
As for icing - instead of having no-touch icing - just don't call icing at all for pass attempts that go astray. That would keep things moving and encourage long passes (and of course, eliminate the red line to go with it).
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: April 06, 2005 03:38PM
You're right on the Gretzky rule, but I think the "Montreal rule" is to end the power play after a goal is scored.
Icing Rule may apply during PKs
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: April 06, 2005 03:50PM
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
Kevin Paul Dupont writes in yesterday's Boston Globe about possible rules change recommendations (as well as possible developments on the CBA front) coming out of the NHL General Managers meeting later this week (about half way down the page).
Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?
"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is . This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"[/q]
I hope Dupont is right about overhauling the icing rule. I agree with those who say changing the net size is too radical a change before other measures are tried. If interference were called as religiously as offsides, AND power plays were more effective by calling icing on teams on the penalty kill, goal scoring would increase and the game would be a lot more exciting.
I advocated the idea of calling icing on shorthanded teams in a thread on USCHO a year ago, but was met with nothing besides indifference and ridicule.
Kevin Paul Dupont writes in yesterday's Boston Globe about possible rules change recommendations (as well as possible developments on the CBA front) coming out of the NHL General Managers meeting later this week (about half way down the page).
Dupont's predictions re rules change recommendations?
"What makes the GMs' short list for the April 20 Board of Governors meeting? The guess here: 1. the elongated neutral zone, sans red line; 2. goalie equipment dramatically downsized; 3. shootouts to settle tie games; 4. overhaul of icing rule as it pertains to penalty-killing. Predictably, Montreal goalie Jose Theodore, a proud member of the Just Say No Players Association, didn't like the idea to enlarge the net or trim back the pads. Theodore, to the Montreal Gazette: 'Excuse my French, but this is . This is junk and I hope it's not serious. The idea of a bigger net is crap.'"[/q]
I hope Dupont is right about overhauling the icing rule. I agree with those who say changing the net size is too radical a change before other measures are tried. If interference were called as religiously as offsides, AND power plays were more effective by calling icing on teams on the penalty kill, goal scoring would increase and the game would be a lot more exciting.
I advocated the idea of calling icing on shorthanded teams in a thread on USCHO a year ago, but was met with nothing besides indifference and ridicule.
Re: Icing Rule may apply during PKs
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 06, 2005 04:50PM
[q]I advocated the idea of calling icing on shorthanded teams in a thread on USCHO a year ago, but was met with nothing besides indifference and ridicule.[/q]I am not trying to heap on the ridicule here. But how would caalling icing on short-handed teams make the game more exciting? It would probably increase scoring a bit because it would make it harder for penalty killers to clear the zone. Or more likely would just effectively lengthen power plays because the PK would still ice the puck and the puck would get back into the defensive zone a lot faster. But I don't think power plays are that terribly exciting - they tend to be more deliberate than even strength. So unless you flatly equate more goals with more excitement I don't think this change would achieve the desired result.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith
Respectfully submitted,
Keith
Re: OT: Proposed new NHL nets
Posted by: CUlater 89 (64.244.223.---)
Date: April 06, 2005 04:58PM
[Q]Steve M Wrote:
You're right on the Gretzky rule, but I think the "Montreal rule" is to end the power play after a goal is scored.[/q]
That's right.
You're right on the Gretzky rule, but I think the "Montreal rule" is to end the power play after a goal is scored.[/q]
That's right.
Will all this really matter?
Posted by: RichH (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 06, 2005 05:05PM
Looking at this thread in it's entirety, I had to ask myself: why such a big fuss now over every little detail of the game? If the game isn't good enough to want to watch it even if it were played on a pond, do you really think the people who aren't watching it now are going to come in droves with miniscule line and rule tweaks? What's the magical "scoring increase threshhold" that will bring considerable interest to the NHL? Will 6-5 games really generate considerable more ticket sales than 3-2 games?
This happens to be a great time for the fans of the game to suggest changes. But to think that these things are going to grow the sport outside the existing fanbase is folly.
In the late-80s to early-90s, I thought the NHL was the coolest league. I was fascinated by it. Smythe, Norris, Patrick, Adams...to know how the league was set up was a flash of excitement to me. Gretzky, Lemieux, Coffey, Nieuwendyk...the mention of the names got my attention. It wasn't on TV where I lived, so every morsel was welcome. The NHL All-Star Game was my only chance because it was on NBC. Even the Stanley Cup finals were only available to me on a staticy AM signal from somewhere over the border.
Flash forward to the early-aughts. I don't care. I may be swayed to tune into the Stanley Cup Finals. Other than that, I can't be bothered to watch more than a few minutes of the NHL season.
So why am I not an active NHL fan anymore? Not because of the Neutral Zone Trap. Not because the nets are too small, the goalie pads are too big, and icing isn't to my ideal. I think it's because Bettman and his marketing wizards dropped the ball. Regional rivalries aren't as compelling when it's Atlanta vs. Nashville or Anaheim vs. Phoenix instead of Hartford vs. Boston. I got pissed that so many fans in "breadbasket" cities and Canada were alienated because they had to un-regionalize and expand to places where people confuse Zamboni with a pasta. You grow by seeding those regions with AHL/IHL franchises. Not the Winnipeg Jets. I don't want the NHL to be the NBA.
Also, how well did the NHL promote their stars? Well doing that would increase salaries, so we can't have that. There are some incredibly gifted players that have been casulties of this labor dispute. Many could name the stars of the '80s, but how many casual fans really know of Iginla, St. Louis, Tkachuk, Nabokov, etc.?
This happens to be a great time for the fans of the game to suggest changes. But to think that these things are going to grow the sport outside the existing fanbase is folly.
In the late-80s to early-90s, I thought the NHL was the coolest league. I was fascinated by it. Smythe, Norris, Patrick, Adams...to know how the league was set up was a flash of excitement to me. Gretzky, Lemieux, Coffey, Nieuwendyk...the mention of the names got my attention. It wasn't on TV where I lived, so every morsel was welcome. The NHL All-Star Game was my only chance because it was on NBC. Even the Stanley Cup finals were only available to me on a staticy AM signal from somewhere over the border.
Flash forward to the early-aughts. I don't care. I may be swayed to tune into the Stanley Cup Finals. Other than that, I can't be bothered to watch more than a few minutes of the NHL season.
So why am I not an active NHL fan anymore? Not because of the Neutral Zone Trap. Not because the nets are too small, the goalie pads are too big, and icing isn't to my ideal. I think it's because Bettman and his marketing wizards dropped the ball. Regional rivalries aren't as compelling when it's Atlanta vs. Nashville or Anaheim vs. Phoenix instead of Hartford vs. Boston. I got pissed that so many fans in "breadbasket" cities and Canada were alienated because they had to un-regionalize and expand to places where people confuse Zamboni with a pasta. You grow by seeding those regions with AHL/IHL franchises. Not the Winnipeg Jets. I don't want the NHL to be the NBA.
Also, how well did the NHL promote their stars? Well doing that would increase salaries, so we can't have that. There are some incredibly gifted players that have been casulties of this labor dispute. Many could name the stars of the '80s, but how many casual fans really know of Iginla, St. Louis, Tkachuk, Nabokov, etc.?
Re: Icing Rule may apply during PKs
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: April 06, 2005 05:51PM
I think one of the most boring things to watch in hockey is a successful penalty kill, in which a team is able to repeatedly ice the puck and 10-15 seconds elapse until the team on the power play can bring it back. If icing is called, penalty killers would rag the puck much more than they do now, which is fun to watch. Since power plays would be more effective, teams would be less likely to commit penalties and the game would open up even more. Also there would be more goals scored, and I think hockey does need a bit more scoring.
Re: Will all this really matter?
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: April 06, 2005 06:02PM
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think the game was more fun to watch when there was more offense. If teams can realistically come back from 2 and 3 goal deficits, the games are a lot more interesting IMO.
Re: Icing Rule may apply during PKs
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 06, 2005 06:05PM
If icing were called I think you'd just end up with a lot more icing calls during power plays. But that's just one man's opinion. A successful penalty kill isn't terribly exciting to watch, but neither are a lot of successful power plays. (Well, if it's your team scoring then it's always exciting but you know what I mean.)
Now if this increased power play effectiveness to serve as a deterrent to commiting penalties then it might be worthwhile. But I'm skeptical and consistently calling obstruction more closely would probably be more effective in this regard anyway.
Now if this increased power play effectiveness to serve as a deterrent to commiting penalties then it might be worthwhile. But I'm skeptical and consistently calling obstruction more closely would probably be more effective in this regard anyway.
Re: Will all this really matter?
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: April 06, 2005 06:17PM
[Q]Steve M Wrote:
If teams can realistically come back from 2 and 3 goal deficits, the games are a lot more interesting IMO.[/q]
Fully agree.
If teams can realistically come back from 2 and 3 goal deficits, the games are a lot more interesting IMO.[/q]
Fully agree.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.