NHL: It's over
Posted by KeithK
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: July 22, 2005 04:42PM
A couple of details that I really like:
[q]RENEGOTIATION -- Player contracts will not be re-negotiated, upward or downward, during their term.
SIGNING DEADLINE -- Restricted free agents who do not sign contracts by December 1 of a given year will be ineligible to play in the League for the balance of that season.[/q]These should cut down on players holding out or trying to up their salary because of a good year.
[q]RENEGOTIATION -- Player contracts will not be re-negotiated, upward or downward, during their term.
SIGNING DEADLINE -- Restricted free agents who do not sign contracts by December 1 of a given year will be ineligible to play in the League for the balance of that season.[/q]These should cut down on players holding out or trying to up their salary because of a good year.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: July 22, 2005 06:20PM
God, they've really fucked up the rules. [www.nhl.com] You can't change lines when you ice the puck? The goalie can't play the puck in the corners? Here's an idea, why not just give all the players electronic legirons that activate in the defensive zone.
I hope this crap doesn't work its way down to the college game.
I hope this crap doesn't work its way down to the college game.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: July 22, 2005 06:34PM
The rule about goalies playing the puck was tried in the AHL last season. I don't know if it will really have a big impact - Tenders don't head into the corners that often. Note: this doesn't prevent you from playing the puck anywhere in front of the goal line.
Not allowing a change after icing is dumb, IMNSHO. Icing the puck when your team is getting outplayed in your zone is a legitimate, reasonable strategy.
No need to say anything about the shootout rule.
The other stuff seems pretty reasonable.
Not allowing a change after icing is dumb, IMNSHO. Icing the puck when your team is getting outplayed in your zone is a legitimate, reasonable strategy.
No need to say anything about the shootout rule.
The other stuff seems pretty reasonable.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: David Harding (---.hsd1.il.comcast.net)
Date: July 22, 2005 10:57PM
Does this make sense? First they announce the conclusion and then they create a committee to have proposed the new rules.[q]Commissioner Gary Bettman, who presented the package to the Board, also formally announced the creation of a new Competition Committee which was responsible for formulating and recommending the proposed slate of rules changes for approval by the NHL Board of Governors.
[/q]
[/q]
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bu.edu)
Date: July 22, 2005 11:31PM
Btw, has anyone noticed that half these rule changes were changed before for the same reason?
I.e. they moved the goal line two more feet from the endboards to open up the room behind the net to increase offensive movement, and to prevent a goalie from getting back to a puck going around the board - in the guise of increasing offense. Now, they move the goal line two feet back, in order to increase the front-of-the-net neutral zone area to increase scoring.
They added to OT loss point to increase scoring in OT (nothing to lose, after the AHL proved it worked). Recently they were thinking of removing the OT loss point to give teams more to play for in OT to increase scoring. Doesn't look like they did it though, but still, huh?
Along with moving the goal line the first time, they increased the size of the neutral zone to open it up. Now, they're decreasing the size of the neutral zone without mentioning it. Of course, removing the red line for two line passes kinda negates that, but yet again, just undoing what they already did to help (supposedly).
I don't like the goalie triangle stuff, hate the shootout, and the no change after icing is pathetic too. But, agreed, the rest are alright. Hey, as long as we're trying to find ways to make the defense tired for no reason, how about we make a rule that you can't change defensemen at all until that set it scored upon. That'll be great! Really improve the game!
I.e. they moved the goal line two more feet from the endboards to open up the room behind the net to increase offensive movement, and to prevent a goalie from getting back to a puck going around the board - in the guise of increasing offense. Now, they move the goal line two feet back, in order to increase the front-of-the-net neutral zone area to increase scoring.
They added to OT loss point to increase scoring in OT (nothing to lose, after the AHL proved it worked). Recently they were thinking of removing the OT loss point to give teams more to play for in OT to increase scoring. Doesn't look like they did it though, but still, huh?
Along with moving the goal line the first time, they increased the size of the neutral zone to open it up. Now, they're decreasing the size of the neutral zone without mentioning it. Of course, removing the red line for two line passes kinda negates that, but yet again, just undoing what they already did to help (supposedly).
I don't like the goalie triangle stuff, hate the shootout, and the no change after icing is pathetic too. But, agreed, the rest are alright. Hey, as long as we're trying to find ways to make the defense tired for no reason, how about we make a rule that you can't change defensemen at all until that set it scored upon. That'll be great! Really improve the game!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2005 11:32PM by DeltaOne81.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bu.edu)
Date: July 22, 2005 11:45PM
Btw, my girlfriend makes an *excellent* point. This 'no icing to get fresh legs' rule on even strength is not going to make more goals (probably) or even keep players on the ice longer... instead of tossing it down the ice, they're just gonna flop on it. Just land on it and get a whistle. No rule against that! And if you get called for a penalty, oh well. The 20% chance of being scored on on a penalty is probably better than the 50% chance of being scored on when you're being totally outplayed and can't move your legs. Or, if worse comes to worse, just pick it up and throw it over the glass. Oh well, you'd rather havee the penalty at that point anyway.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: July 23, 2005 10:41AM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Btw, my girlfriend makes an *excellent* point. This 'no icing to get fresh legs' rule on even strength is not going to make more goals (probably) or even keep players on the ice longer... instead of tossing it down the ice, they're just gonna flop on it. Just land on it and get a whistle. No rule against that! And if you get called for a penalty, oh well. The 20% chance of being scored on on a penalty is probably better than the 50% chance of being scored on when you're being totally outplayed and can't move your legs. Or, if worse comes to worse, just pick it up and throw it over the glass. Oh well, you'd rather havee the penalty at that point anyway.[/q]
At least they still wave off icing on the penalty kill. Whistling the defensive team for icing and then not letting them make a line change would take away the principal penalty-killing strategy.
I wonder what all of this moving around of lines and nets is doing to the rink managers. Presumably everyone has to change that, even if they don't have a pro team in their rink.
Reducing (if not eliminating) the two-line offsides is a good step, but of course college/international rules already go further. I wonder how this will combine with waving off icing on missed homerun passes.
Btw, my girlfriend makes an *excellent* point. This 'no icing to get fresh legs' rule on even strength is not going to make more goals (probably) or even keep players on the ice longer... instead of tossing it down the ice, they're just gonna flop on it. Just land on it and get a whistle. No rule against that! And if you get called for a penalty, oh well. The 20% chance of being scored on on a penalty is probably better than the 50% chance of being scored on when you're being totally outplayed and can't move your legs. Or, if worse comes to worse, just pick it up and throw it over the glass. Oh well, you'd rather havee the penalty at that point anyway.[/q]
At least they still wave off icing on the penalty kill. Whistling the defensive team for icing and then not letting them make a line change would take away the principal penalty-killing strategy.
I wonder what all of this moving around of lines and nets is doing to the rink managers. Presumably everyone has to change that, even if they don't have a pro team in their rink.
Reducing (if not eliminating) the two-line offsides is a good step, but of course college/international rules already go further. I wonder how this will combine with waving off icing on missed homerun passes.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: July 23, 2005 11:25AM
Well, some things are good and some aren't.
I think they screwed up by not including no-touch icing, but I like the no-redline two line pass and touch up for offsides. I think they should have rescinded the Gretzky Rule - offsetting penalties should cause a four on four, too. And the restrictions on the goalies touching the puck really had minimal impact in the AHL last year. I don't know why they included it other than to "do something."
I think the idea of not getting a line change after icing could be interesting. I think it's going to make the bad teams worse, because they're the most likely to ice the puck to get a stoppage, but would probably have minimal impact on the better teams.
I think they screwed up by not including no-touch icing, but I like the no-redline two line pass and touch up for offsides. I think they should have rescinded the Gretzky Rule - offsetting penalties should cause a four on four, too. And the restrictions on the goalies touching the puck really had minimal impact in the AHL last year. I don't know why they included it other than to "do something."
I think the idea of not getting a line change after icing could be interesting. I think it's going to make the bad teams worse, because they're the most likely to ice the puck to get a stoppage, but would probably have minimal impact on the better teams.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: July 23, 2005 11:41AM
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
I think the idea of not getting a line change after icing could be interesting. I think it's going to make the bad teams worse, because they're the most likely to ice the puck to get a stoppage, but would probably have minimal impact on the better teams.[/q]
I think it will be the reverse. Bad teams usually can't get control of the puck long enough to ice it.
I am fine with everything but the icing. It doesn't really make sense to keep the touch method AND have linesmen discretion on missed passes. It should have been linesmen discretion and automatic icing. Preventing line changes after an icing just seems like a really bad idea that could easily lead to more injuries and clutching/grabbing from tiredness.
I don't have a problem with the shootout. One of my favorite hockey memories is watching Hasek vs. Canada at something like 2am in the 2000 olympics. It can be really exciting, and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.
I think the idea of not getting a line change after icing could be interesting. I think it's going to make the bad teams worse, because they're the most likely to ice the puck to get a stoppage, but would probably have minimal impact on the better teams.[/q]
I think it will be the reverse. Bad teams usually can't get control of the puck long enough to ice it.
I am fine with everything but the icing. It doesn't really make sense to keep the touch method AND have linesmen discretion on missed passes. It should have been linesmen discretion and automatic icing. Preventing line changes after an icing just seems like a really bad idea that could easily lead to more injuries and clutching/grabbing from tiredness.
I don't have a problem with the shootout. One of my favorite hockey memories is watching Hasek vs. Canada at something like 2am in the 2000 olympics. It can be really exciting, and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: July 23, 2005 11:41AM
[q]I don't know why they included it other than to "do something." [/q]I think that's definitely why they're doing it. There's a perception that hockey is somehow "broken" because there's not enough offense and after the lockout they want to make as many changes as possible to "prove" that they've fixed it.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: July 23, 2005 11:42AM
[q]...and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.[/q]I still think they should go endless OT in every game. 
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: mjh89 (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: July 23, 2005 11:53AM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
...and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.[/Q]
I still think they should go endless OT in every game. [/q]
or play 4 on 4 for 2 minutes, 3 on 3 for 2 minutes, 2 on 2 for 2 minutes, and then 1 on 1 until someone scores. They used to do this at some tournaments I played at growing up, and it was one of the most exciting things I'd ever seen.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: judy (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: July 23, 2005 12:05PM
[Q]mjh89 Wrote:
KeithK Wrote:
...and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.[/Q]
I still think they should go endless OT in every game. [/Q]
or play 4 on 4 for 2 minutes, 3 on 3 for 2 minutes, 2 on 2 for 2 minutes, and then 1 on 1 until someone scores. They used to do this at some tournaments I played at growing up, and it was one of the most exciting things I'd ever seen.[/q]
hmm...1 on 1...does that include the goalies? If not, why not just go a step further and have the goalies shoot the puck at each other
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bu.edu)
Date: July 23, 2005 12:22PM
[Q]mjh89 Wrote:
KeithK Wrote:
...and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.[/Q]
I still think they should go endless OT in every game. [/Q]
or play 4 on 4 for 2 minutes, 3 on 3 for 2 minutes, 2 on 2 for 2 minutes, and then 1 on 1 until someone scores. They used to do this at some tournaments I played at growing up, and it was one of the most exciting things I'd ever seen.[/q]
Umm, have you ever seen 3 on 3 as a fan? I have twice. BU @ Cornell a few years back had a 3 on 3 situation when several penalties occurred quickly. And watching the River Rats game after the ECACs in March, it occured (in OT, they definitely musta been told to call more penalties in OT to try to get a winner).
3 on 3, from a fan's perspective, is the most awful, boring hockey you can ever watch - besides maybe 2 on 2 or 1 on 1 as I've never seen those. It looks like a scrimmage. There's little movement, no interesting passes, and no one can dare try to make an exciting play because if you get caught off, the *best* case scenario is a 3 on 2 on the other way - a much bigger risk than a 5 on 4 the other way which is, well, almost nothing. 3 on 3 is only entertaining to watch because of how silly it looks, but trust me, that'd wear off quickly.
Maybe from a player's perspective knocking down the players would start getting intense, but from a fan's, it just gets boring and looks ridiculous. The proposal for a 3 on 3 is one of the rule changes I thank the lord they passed over.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: mjh89 (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: July 23, 2005 06:22PM
No, it does not include the goalies.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: LarryW (---.dhcp.psdn.ca.charter.com)
Date: July 23, 2005 07:12PM
I think the no change on icing, combined with the wave-off for a pass is agreat change. What is more boring than to just throw the puck down the other end of the ice with no offensive objective? Your team should get as minimal a benefit as possible for such a play. If you're trying to make a pass and misfire, well, that's somewhat more appropriate, and thus, allowing play to continue is also reasonable. I think the result will be more flow to the game, as intended. I could be wrong, but other than some tradition-love for the way its always been, I can't see why to oppose these ideas. I just don't see "The right to ice" as inherent to hockey. I mean, the rule is set up so that you aren't, in theory, 'supposed to do it'. Why not tweak the penalty.
The criticism of the goalie trapezoid and the zone size changes strikes me as the right response though. Change for change's sake without any understanding of whether it will actually do anything in particular. Reminds me of the proposals to "make the lines thicker," which struck me as ridiculous because only the one edge of the line ever actually mattered anyway. Did that fool anyone?
The criticism of the goalie trapezoid and the zone size changes strikes me as the right response though. Change for change's sake without any understanding of whether it will actually do anything in particular. Reminds me of the proposals to "make the lines thicker," which struck me as ridiculous because only the one edge of the line ever actually mattered anyway. Did that fool anyone?
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: July 23, 2005 08:08PM
Allowing a linesman to wave off icing because it was a pass and not an intentional icing may well mean that you get a lot more cherry picking and home run passes. This may result in more scoring, but probably not a better game.
Re: NHL: It's over
Posted by: David Harding (---.hsd1.il.comcast.net)
Date: July 23, 2005 08:26PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
mjh89 Wrote:
KeithK Wrote:
...and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.[/Q]
I still think they should go endless OT in every game. [/Q]
or play 4 on 4 for 2 minutes, 3 on 3 for 2 minutes, 2 on 2 for 2 minutes, and then 1 on 1 until someone scores. They used to do this at some tournaments I played at growing up, and it was one of the most exciting things I'd ever seen.[/Q]
Umm, have you ever seen 3 on 3 as a fan? I have twice. BU @ Cornell a few years back had a 3 on 3 situation when several penalties occurred quickly. And watching the River Rats game after the ECACs in March, it occured (in OT, they definitely musta been told to call more penalties in OT to try to get a winner).
3 on 3, from a fan's perspective, is the most awful, boring hockey you can ever watch - besides maybe 2 on 2 or 1 on 1 as I've never seen those. It looks like a scrimmage. There's little movement, no interesting passes, and no one can dare try to make an exciting play because if you get caught off, the *best* case scenario is a 3 on 2 on the other way - a much bigger risk than a 5 on 4 the other way which is, well, almost nothing. 3 on 3 is only entertaining to watch because of how silly it looks, but trust me, that'd wear off quickly.
Maybe from a player's perspective knocking down the players would start getting intense, but from a fan's, it just gets boring and looks ridiculous. The proposal for a 3 on 3 is one of the rule changes I thank the lord they passed over.[/q]
How about we go the other direction? If there is no score in the first overtime, go to 6 on 6 for five minutes. Then 7 on 7. And so on...Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)Date: July 28, 2005 05:08PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Btw, my girlfriend makes an *excellent* point. This 'no icing to get fresh legs' rule on even strength is not going to make more goals (probably) or even keep players on the ice longer... instead of tossing it down the ice, they're just gonna flop on it. Just land on it and get a whistle. No rule against that! And if you get called for a penalty, oh well. The 20% chance of being scored on on a penalty is probably better than the 50% chance of being scored on when you're being totally outplayed and can't move your legs. Or, if worse comes to worse, just pick it up and throw it over the glass. Oh well, you'd rather havee the penalty at that point anyway.[/q]
And then once you commit a penalty, you're free to ice the puck (and naturally change lines at the same time) without any negative effect. The rule change reduces the advantage of being on the power play, which IMHO, isn't great enough to open up the game. They should have never adopted this silly prohibition on line changes after icing, and instead waived the shorthanded exemption on icing. Power play efficiency (currently only ~15% in the NHL) would improve and defenses would be less likely to hold and obstruct because of the increased disadvantage of being shorthanded. I hope they do crack down on obstruction as promised, but I predict the result will be a huge number of penalties called earlier in the season, which will lead to a lot of protest and an eventual return to the status quo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2005 05:10PM by Steve M.Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)Date: July 28, 2005 05:18PM
It seems that the league is eliminating more east-west travel.
I just saw the Flyers' schedule. They only play games against two of the three western divisions, and only one game per year against each of those teams. They've increased the number of games within the division to 6.Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: jkahn (216.146.73.---)Date: July 28, 2005 05:27PM
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
They've increased the number of games within the division to 6.[/q]
It's actually 8 games against each of the teams in your division, 4 vs. non-divisional teams in the same conference, and 1 game vs. ten of the 15 teams (2 of the 3 divisions) in the opposite conference.
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)Date: July 28, 2005 05:43PM
Hey, the NHL is looking to increase scoring and excitement right? They've added shootouts. They want to open up the game. Why not get rid of power plays entirely? Just make every penalty a penalty shot. Then you have all the excitement of the shootout, extra scoring (don't have to worry about pesky teams that are good at killing penalties) and significant disincentive for clutching and grabbing!
Even better, we could play by women's hockey rules (no checking) and use the all penalty shot rule. I guarantee you'd have a wonderful, wide open, high flying game! [/sarcasm]Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)Date: July 28, 2005 10:24PM
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
It seems that the league is eliminating more east-west travel.
I just saw the Flyers' schedule. They only play games against two of the three western divisions, and only one game per year against each of those teams. They've increased the number of games within the division to 6.[/q]
There was something in the press release about the schedule emphasizing rivalries.
Who cares; everyone now admits the regular season is irrelevant anyway.
Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)Date: July 28, 2005 10:39PM
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
It seems that the league is eliminating more east-west travel.[/q]
IMHO, one of the few (only?) positive things.
I propose the following conference realignment:
Conference A: Bos, NYR, Mon, Tor, Det, Chi, Pha, StL, NYI, Edm, Cal, Buf, Was, Pgh, NJ
Conference B: TB, Atl, Car, SJ, Col, Dal, Nsh, Min, Ana, Phx, Col, LA, Van, Ott, Fla
No RS play between conferences.
No inter-conference trades permitted.
Closed conference playoff brackets to crown conference champions.
And if I lose interest in hockey prior to the "finals"? So be it.Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bu.edu)Date: July 30, 2005 01:30PM
[Q]Steve M Wrote:
They should have never adopted this silly prohibition on line changes after icing, and instead waived the shorthanded exemption on icing.[/q]
No no no no no. As much as I hate shootouts, this would be a rule that I would absoutely foresake the NHL for (not that i'm a big NHL fan as is, but that would seriously be a 'fuck them' rule). If you take away icing on the penalty kill, what the hell do you do? It doesn't become a game at that point, it becomes "let's murder the defense". I have a better idea, let's just give them a penalty shot on an open net instead! That'll increase scoring, so exciting!Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)Date: August 01, 2005 02:47PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Steve M Wrote:
They should have never adopted this silly prohibition on line changes after icing, and instead waived the shorthanded exemption on icing.[/Q]
No no no no no. As much as I hate shootouts, this would be a rule that I would absoutely foresake the NHL for (not that i'm a big NHL fan as is, but that would seriously be a 'fuck them' rule). If you take away icing on the penalty kill, what the hell do you do? It doesn't become a game at that point, it becomes "let's murder the defense". I have a better idea, let's just give them a penalty shot on an open net instead! That'll increase scoring, so exciting![/q]
Chill out dude. That was a hyperbole filled response that I'm used to seeing on USCHO. I don't know about you, but I think there is nothing more boring in hockey is an effective penalty kill when the puck gets iced and brought back up the ice a half dozen times. With this rule, the defense might actually try to advance the puck, and you would see more shorthanded goals. If they're unable to move the puck out they can still clear it and get whistled for icing, which isn't the end of the world. I think power play efficiency would improve from 15% to about 20-25%, which many college teams achieve today. You make it sound like there would be a goal every other power play. To me it's a far less radical change than having shootouts or increasing the size of the net.
Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)Date: August 01, 2005 02:54PM
[Q]Steve M Wrote:I think there is nothing more boring in hockey is an effective penalty kill when the puck gets iced and brought back up the ice a half dozen times.
[/q]
I have to disagree completely. I think an effective kill is very exciting, and I like the "cyclical" pattern that icing creates -- it turns the power play into a series of thrusts into the defensive zone. If the defense can parry the thrust, good for them.
It would be very funny if eliminating icing actually decreased overall pp scoring. The major problem NHL offenses have now is strategic -- they are always keeping guys back in order to "not make the last mistake." With the defense motivated to break the play out, there's that much less incentive for the power play team to risk crashing the net.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2005 02:55PM by Trotsky.Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: BCrespi (---.brwncald.com)Date: August 01, 2005 03:08PM
As you yourself state, killing teams would probably have to ice the puck anyway. It simply isn't possible to play solid, man-down defense for two minutes, hell even one minute, at a time. What would you rather see, cyclical charges into the offensive zone that may or may not result in goals, or 6 play stoppages within 2 minutes of clock time that would result in a few more goals? The constant stoppages are what kill an exciting hockey game, not good, solid, hard-working defensive play.
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)Date: August 01, 2005 05:02PM
[Q]Steve M Wrote:
With this rule, the defense might actually try to advance the puck, and you would see more shorthanded goals. If they're unable to move the puck out they can still clear it and get whistled for icing, which isn't the end of the world.[/q]
Except, when they ice the puck, they're not allowed to change lines. So pretty much the D is worn down until they score. Yeah, with those two rules together, I do think the PP would be about 50%. Unless you means this instead of the changing rule, which is at least less insane.
Although you point out that college teams do 20 to 25% now, and they do it without any forced rule changes. Well, they do it with no red line and touch up offsides, not anything explicitly designed to tie one of the defense's hands behind their backs. Hey, maybe that's the next new idea!Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)Date: August 01, 2005 05:43PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Steve M Wrote:
With this rule, the defense might actually try to advance the puck, and you would see more shorthanded goals. If they're unable to move the puck out they can still clear it and get whistled for icing, which isn't the end of the world.[/Q]
Except, when they ice the puck, they're not allowed to change lines. So pretty much the D is worn down until they score. Yeah, with those two rules together, I do think the PP would be about 50%. Unless you means this instead of the changing rule, which is at least less insane.[/q]
I wonder, with touch-up offsides, if the D would manage to change on the fly before the icing was whistled. It would be a pretty ridiculous sight, but then it's a ridiculous rule.
Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)Date: August 01, 2005 05:49PM
Even more humorous to see the ref trying to decide who actually got to the bench and who didn't.Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)Date: August 01, 2005 08:21PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Steve M Wrote:
With this rule, the defense might actually try to advance the puck, and you would see more shorthanded goals. If they're unable to move the puck out they can still clear it and get whistled for icing, which isn't the end of the world.[/Q]
Except, when they ice the puck, they're not allowed to change lines. So pretty much the D is worn down until they score. Yeah, with those two rules together, I do think the PP would be about 50%. Unless you means this instead of the changing rule, which is at least less insane.
Although you point out that college teams do 20 to 25% now, and they do it without any forced rule changes. Well, they do it with no red line and touch up offsides, not anything explicitly designed to tie one of the defense's hands behind their backs. Hey, maybe that's the next new idea![/q]
I'm 100% against prohibiting line changes after icing. I felt my idea was better. Who knows with the upcoming rule changes, an NHL power play might improve enough to be exciting again. If you're not really an NHL fan, why do you care?
Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)Date: August 01, 2005 08:48PM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:I wonder, with touch-up offsides, if the D would manage to change on the fly before the icing was whistled. It would be a pretty ridiculous sight, but then it's a ridiculous rule.[/q]
You mean WILL be a ridiculous sight. If an even strength, tired team ices the puck inadvertently, you can bet their players will be rushing to the bench so they won't have to stay out there after the whistle. Hopefully they will can this rule after a year.
Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)Date: August 01, 2005 09:15PM
[Q]Steve M Wrote:
If you're not really an NHL fan, why do you care?
[/q]
Because every screwball rule adapted by the N runs the risk of being adopted by the NCAA.
Re: NHL: It's overPosted by: Steve M (---.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net)Date: August 02, 2005 12:55AM
Right now at least, the rule changes are going the other way. Also power play efficiency is much better in the NCAA than in the NHL, so there's not the same need to improve the scoring.
Brian had a good point though.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.