New Rules?

[marty]

USCHO article on the coaches meeting.

It would change our game:

Anastos, the rules committee chair, said the most prominent idea presented to increase scoring opportunities was to not allow players to intentionally leave a skating position (i.e., kneel or lay down) to block shots.

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2013/05/10/committee-hears-coaches-ideas-on-regionals-ncaa-selection-but-consensus-lacking/#ixzz2SvYnINeR

This is dumb. How do you enforce this? Are they going to put contact sensors on the skaters' knees to know if they hit the ice? I don't see how the officials would be able to consistently differentiate between a "skating position" and not.

The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

After a while it's not so bad. Fewer teeth.

[Rita]

As the Caps-Rangers game demonstrated today, you got to be able to block shots. I know that according to the NC$$ most of the "student-athletes" will be going pro in something else, but for those that do on playing hockey, shot blocking is among the required skill set.

[Josh '99]

The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Players do it in the NHL with (often though not always) no face protection at all.

[CowbellGuy]

Just ask Mark Fraser...

[Trotsky]

The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Doesn't help the guy who takes a deflection full face, though.

Removing bumpers may not be optimal for reducing traffic accident injuries.

It's been 60 years.  Engineers can get off their butts and finally do some work:



Damned if that aint Gordie Howe...

[Trotsky]

As the Caps-Rangers game demonstrated today, you got to be able to block shots. I know that according to the NC$$ most of the "student-athletes" will be going pro in something else, but for those that do on playing hockey, shot blocking is among the required skill set.

While trying to legislate shot-blocking from the game is absurd, this argument could be (and is, relentlessly, in major junior) made for why fighting "must be" part of the game.

[Rosey]

The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Doesn't help the guy who takes a deflection full face, though.

Deflections always have less energy: elastic collisions are really not possible with any of the materials involved.

That doesn't mean they can't injure. Eliminating cages also wouldn't really mean that "no one" would kneel to block shots. But as with any change to incentives, it would reduce the dangerous behavior. So would changing the rules to prohibit shot blocking, but with the danger of hockey's penalties approaching the inane arbitrariness of squeakball's foul rules. No thanks.

Removing bumpers may not be optimal for reducing traffic accident injuries.

Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

[Josh '99]

Just ask Mark Fraser...

Fraser, it should be pointed out, was standing basically upright and not actively trying to block the shot that hit him in the face.  Mandating this "skating position" thing might increase offense (if we assume that's a goal that needs to be achieve) but it's not going to do anything for safety.

[CowbellGuy]

Fraser, it should be pointed out, was standing basically upright and not actively trying to block the shot that hit him in the face.  Mandating this "skating position" thing might increase offense (if we assume that's a goal that needs to be achieve) but it's not going to do anything for safety.

I know, I know, The timing was appropriate though

[Trotsky]

The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Doesn't help the guy who takes a deflection full face, though.

Deflections always have less energy: elastic collisions are really not possible with any of the materials involved.

It's all ball bearings these days.

[Trotsky]

Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

There's something intuitively attractive to the idea that the safer we are the worse we drive, but there's also the empirically demonstrable fact that young males will always be fuckwits.  I strongly suspect, no matter how unsafe you made them, they would still be, as a class, the Greatest Menace We Face.

This is why God made conscription.

[Rita]

The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Doesn't help the guy who takes a deflection full face, though.

Deflections always have less energy: elastic collisions are really not possible with any of the materials involved.

That doesn't mean they can't injure. Eliminating cages also wouldn't really mean that "no one" would kneel to block shots. But as with any change to incentives, it would reduce the dangerous behavior. So would changing the rules to prohibit shot blocking, but with the danger of hockey's penalties approaching the inane arbitrariness of squeakball's foul rules. No thanks.

Removing bumpers may not be optimal for reducing traffic accident injuries.

Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

I am a potential subject for this experiment. Walking in Miami is FREAKIN dangerous. However, I think there are other variables at play besides car safety and traffic controls... i.e. the ability to understand the traffic control laws in our country. When I get hit Kyle, you'll be one of the first people I notify .

[KeithK]

Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

There's something intuitively attractive to the idea that the safer we are the worse we drive, but there's also the empirically demonstrable fact that young males will always be fuckwits.  I strongly suspect, no matter how unsafe you made them, they would still be, as a class, the Greatest Menace We Face.

This is why God made conscription.

I suspect that the more societies try to restrict the ability of young males to make stupid decisions the more they try to rebel and take even greater risks. As with most things there's probably a sweet spot where there's some modest degree of prevention/safety and some freedom fo the indidivual to be a fuckwit.

[Josh '99]

Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

There's something intuitively attractive to the idea that the safer we are the worse we drive, but there's also the empirically demonstrable fact that young males will always be fuckwits.  I strongly suspect, no matter how unsafe you made them, they would still be, as a class, the Greatest Menace We Face.

This is why God made conscription.

I suspect that the more societies try to restrict the ability of young males to make stupid decisions the more they try to rebel and take even greater risks. As with most things there's probably a sweet spot where there's some modest degree of prevention/safety and some freedom fo the indidivual to be a fuckwit.

"There's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college."

[JasonN95]

Seems like a rule of this sort would be more fodder for the Canadian leagues to use to convince players with NHL aspirations to skip the college route.