[OT] NHL Scoring Out of Control!

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
No, but it's one of those catches. It's not that people who enjoy offensive hockey are morons. But it IS that (hockey) morons enjoy (only) offensive hockey.

So while you may think they're catering to the fans that enjoy offensive hockey (and I try to pretend so to help me sleep at night), really they're probably just catering to the vast population of hockey morons to get revenue up.[/q]

I agree completely. There are plenty of other reasons that scoring is down that have nothing to do with clutch-and-grab (bigger players, better conditioning, bigger goalie equipment, etc). I don't like clutch and grab any more than anyone else. But I reject the notion that low scoring is evidence that there must be clutching and grabbing. By all means call the clutching and call the grabbing, but do so without prejudice for the number of goals that "should" be scored per game.

Also don't forget "the Gretzky Rule." During his playing days, both players during offsetting minors sat in the box and they played 4 on 4. Edmonton was scoring too much, so now they play 5 on 5 (though the players are still out for 2+ minutes). I mean when's the last time you saw a good 3 on 3 - not too often.

I'd rather they repeal that rule, too, but It probably won't happen.

Why would better conditioning necessarily lead to lower scoring? Or are you just mentioning one of the things that is different compared to x years ago that might contribute to a different style of play?

Actually, when there are offsetting minors during 5x5 play, they do play 4x4. If there are offsetting minors and either team is not at full strength, there's no loss of manpower on the ice.

Actually, I misspoke - I should have said "strength training" as opposed to conditioning. Yes, I think that having players who are on average stronger would lead to less scoring - I think strength disproportionally favors defense.

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
Nah. Morons go to the games mostly for the fights.[/q]While it is true that the morons go to the game for the fights, it isn't ONLY morons that enjoy them.

If that's the case, it seems like they apply it inconsistently. I'm sure they don't, but it does seem that way to me.

I'll have to watch for that once I get back to the states.

[www.nhl.com]

Unbelievable. This is a product of too many penalties being called. It maybe more exciting hockey, but it isn't "real" hockey. Gretzky, Lemieux, and Hull never played in a system like this. Granted, the goalies were not as athletic and the equipment was not as advanced (or big) in that era. However, with 3/4 of a game being played on the powerplay, it is creating an over-inflation of stats.

I mean, come on, comparing Simon Gagne with Wayne Gretzky????

Rumor mill -- With more players drawing penalties by falling to the ice too easily, there is a movement among the players to have more diving -- and only diving -- penalties called.

Often this season referees have called coincidental minors -- one for hooking, another for diving. Players would like to see referees either call one penalty (diving) or give the diver an extra two minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct. That way, his team is penalized for his actions.

A few years ago players whistled for diving had their names posted in NHL locker rooms as a form of public humiliation. Nothing, however, is more humiliating than seeing your team allow a power-play goal while you're serving a diving penalty.


Amen!

In a very rare few occassions the play actually is half penalty, half-diving, in which case one of each is justified.

It's a shame that college refs aren't good enough (they just aren't) to distinguish between a dive and a penalty. You also need two refs to have a good shot at doing so, so that one is always close to the play. There was at least one dive in the Yale game that was called a penalty, and it's a shame.

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Often this season referees have called coincidental minors -- one for hooking, another for diving. Players would like to see referees either call one penalty (diving) or give the diver an extra two minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct. That way, his team is penalized for his actions.[/q]I thought diving already was a specific case of unsportsmanlike conduct. Resident refs or anyone with a handy link to the rules?

NCAA Ice Hockey 2006 Rules and Interpretations
Page 8[q]Points of Emphasis
The “Points of Emphasis” section calls attention to certain areas of the
game that the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Ice Hockey Rules Committee
believes must be improved, not through additional rules but by a stronger
emphasis on existing rules.
This year the rules committee requests that players, officials and coaches concentrate on the following areas:
Overall Rules Enforcement
The committee was pleased overall with the effect of last season’s focus on proper rules enforcement.
It remains the responsibility of coaches, players, officials and administrators to support this initiative. In addition to last year’s focal points, the committee points attention to the following two areas:
• Diving. An unintended result of the rules initiative was an increase in diving. A player shall not attempt to draw a penalty through any exaggerated or deceitful action.
• Strength. A player should not be penalized in a contact situation solely because of their size or strength.
[/q]
Page 57[q]Diving
SECTION 11. A player shall not attempt to draw a penalty through any exaggerated or deceitful action (“diving”).
PENALTY—Minor.
[/q]