Berenson Boundary - Good for the Red or Bad for the Red?

It was frustrating and unfair when Bâby's shot hit the UNH goalie's head late in 2003. It was frustrating when P.C. hit the post against LSSU in '96. I think we should change the rules so that Cornell shots always go in. Or just enough to guarantee that we always win.

Ignoring the specific reasons given in the Michigan Daily, this rule change makes some sense to me, at least in the context of the various offsides rules for other sports. As it was taught to me as a kid (which could mean that I misunderstood or was misinformed), the point of offsides is to prevent an offensive player who doesn't have the ball/puck from going behind the opposing defense, away from the focus of the play, then receiving a pass, after which he would be very difficult to stop. Clearly, this is an unsporting tactic, and so the offsides rule is in place to prevent it.

With the rule change, the offensive zone doesn't expand until the blue line is crossed, so it still has the effect of stopping people from hanging out in the offensive zone and creating instant breakaways (I think the term is cherry-picking).

A second effect of the current offside rule is that the defense can disrupt ongoing offensive pressure by knocking the puck out of the zone. The key question, for me at least, is: what would happen if the blue line weren't there (ie. if the rule were changed). If the puck leaving the zone meant that there were an actual change of momentum, then the current offsides rule would make sense. But I think that there are many times when, if the blue line weren't there, the offense would be able to bring the puck back in without missing a beat. In these instances, the current offsides rule isn't preventing an unsporting play; it breaks up the natural flow of the game.

On the other hand, if the puck makes it all the way back to the redline (pulling the offense all the way back to their own half of the ice), I think it's harder to argue that the offense had ongoing offensive pressure the whole time.

In summary, as a spectator, it makes sense to me to at least give this rule change a try.

Your argument only makes sense if you value offensive continuity over staunch defensive play. It's really just a matter of preference, in my opinion, and as a Big Red fan, I've come to value both. I like the rules as they are.

Think about how many times you've watched a hockey game with a hockey newbie. And how many times you've had to explain the offsides rule when asked why the whistle just blew. Now think about how much more complicated it would be to give a quick explaination of the offsides rule if this were to come to pass. This wouldn't be good if the goal is to bring in new fans.

Keep it as is. I agree for simplicity, and for the reason BCrespi just outlined.

[Q]RichH Wrote:

Think about how many times you've watched a hockey game with a hockey newbie. And how many times you've had to explain the offsides rule when asked why the whistle just blew. [/q]Think about how much less often the whistle would blow.

That said, I don't like the proposed rule. If the D can break up the flow by poking it out of the zone, that is good D. I like that it requires offensive precision to keep the puck in the zone.

Based on a couple of posts on uscho, the net impact was zilch. Flow of the game was improved, and Michigan put 53 shots on goal, but only scored 3 goals against Toronto. Posters didn't notice any increase in icing, and power play was ineffective. Having a slew of freshmen on the team may have had something to do with these results, too.

[Q]ninian '72 Wrote:

Based on a couple of posts on uscho, the net impact was zilch. Flow of the game was improved, and Michigan put 53 shots on goal, but only scored 3 goals against Toronto. Posters didn't notice any increase in icing, and power play was ineffective. Having a slew of freshmen on the team may have had something to do with these results, too.[/q]

hmm.... the fact (well, not really since we are relying on, god forbid, uscho posters) that the net impact was null can still be used either for or against the berenson boundary. unless the proposed rule chnge picks up momentum (is this a michigan initiative or a ncaa-wide initiative?), i think the exercise may be all academic!

The NHL has talked about widening the blue line to achieve a similar result (harder to poke the pukc out of the zone). So I think a lot of people are thinking along these kinds of lines. Which means it probably won't be dismissed out of hand.

The Michigan Daily writer didn't have an assessment of his/her own. [www.michigandaily.com]
Amusing that the only player quoted was a freshman defenseman, as though he had a clue on the difference it made in a college game.
[q]The rule drew mixed reactions from players and the rule’s creator, Berenson.

“I really like it, and I think it has a lot of potential,” Berenson said. “They talk about the offensive zone and making the ice bigger and wider — and I’ve given them 30 more feet.”

Johnson felt the rule had its pros and cons, but the overwhelming feeling was that it was more of a deterrent for the offense than the defense.

“We were able to step back a little more and quarterback it and have some time,” Johnson said. “On the other hand, you’re harder pressed to get in tight and get more quality shots.”[/q]

[Q]David Harding Wrote:
Amusing that the only player quoted was a freshman defenseman, as though he had a clue on the difference it made in a college game.[/q]To be fair, last year Jack Johnson played for the U18 team, who played twenty-some games against college teams of various levels from DIII to schools like Michigan, Minnesota, BU, Harvard. He's probably got SOME idea what he's talking about, anyway.

As far as I understand this proposed change, it would not affect the offsides rule at all.

Look at it from the point of view of a team starting the puck up in their own defensive zone after a line change by both teams. In this situation, the lines are used exactly as they are at this time. Likewise, a turnover that the defense controls will also advance exactly as it does now.

I can only see two major differences: the already mentioned defensive poke-check that clears the zone and whatever might happen with the two line pass in the NHL. The rule seems to be in the interest of the offense, so why not get rid of the two line pass to pick up the pace of the game anyway. But as for the poke-checking bit ....

The difference would relly depend on how coaches use the rule. Would defensemen now stand at the red line, which would actually open up more room for the defense to secure a turnover? Or do they stay on the blue line and stifle any attempted clear from a defense that cannot assert control of the puck?

Personally, and looking at other sports, I say keep the rules the way they are. In football, the defense doesn't have to take control of the ball to gain possession for their team. It helps, but a stifled offense should punt. The shot clock in squeakball gives the ball to the D if the O isn't productive. Etc. Just don't put a shot clock in hockey!

Poke-checking is good defense, and not just a hindrance of the game.