OT: Proposed new NHL nets

[Trotsky]

No icing on the kill is the Montreal Rule.  The Gretzky Rule is no change in strength for coincidental minors during a powerplay.

[Robb]

Oh - that's right...

[Josh '99]

[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?

[bigredtrumpet]

[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

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Don't forget to eliminate the redline for two line offsides.

[adamw]

[Q]bigredtrumpet Wrote:

 [Q2]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).

[Steve M]

You're right on the Gretzky rule, but I think the "Montreal rule" is to end the power play after a goal is scored.

[Steve M]

[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.

[KeithK]

[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

[CUlater 89]

[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.

[RichH]

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.?

[Steve M]

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.

[Steve M]

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.

[KeithK]

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.

[Al DeFlorio]

[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.