New Rules?

[marty]

Automatic suspensions for end of game major penalties is a step in the right direction. I would add automatic suspensions for roughing penalties in the last minute of regulation or at least for roughing after the final whistle.

The debacle at the Times Union Center between RPI and Union would have been less likely if suspensions had been handed out at game end in Troy in December.

This ::deadhorse:: is alive I hope.

[Dafatone]

Most of those rules look dumb.  I'm all for anything that makes Dartmouth-style post-game goonery more punishable.

I really like this one, though:

"The clarification would assess a minor penalty for delay of game to any team that either delays lining up for the ensuing faceoff or tries to "sneak" players on and off the ice as the whistle blows."

I've never understood how sneaking players onto the ice after an icing isn't a penalty.

[redice]

I really like this one, though:

"The clarification would assess a minor penalty for delay of game to any team that either delays lining up for the ensuing faceoff or tries to "sneak" players on and off the ice as the whistle blows."

I've never understood how sneaking players onto the ice after an icing isn't a penalty.

Agreed.    I was just saying the very same thing last weekend.

[upprdeck]

I think they should change the delay rule like the nfl does for icing and extend it to other things.. you ice it no line change, you hold the puck as a goalie no line change, you throw the puck ut of of your end on D no line change,  you go offside no line change.  reward the team that keeps the game moving, less line changes less delays.

[ftyuv]

I think they should change the delay rule like the nfl does for icing and extend it to other things.. you ice it no line change, you hold the puck as a goalie no line change, you throw the puck ut of of your end on D no line change,  you go offside no line change.  reward the team that keeps the game moving, less line changes less delays.

I like the idea of extending it, but only to those actions which are meant to produce a delay. I'd include the goalie freezing the puck in certain circumstances, but I wouldn't include going offsides. If you have an odd-man rush and the off winger is a step ahead, that's not an attempt to slow down the pace of the game -- if anything, it's being too eager in trying to keep the pace fast. You don't want to discourage that kind of offense by slapping an additional deterrent; having the play whistled dead is deterrent enough. Even in the case of the goalie freezing the puck, I think you'd want to differentiate between the puck being shot right into his pads, vs him diving on top of it. Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop." You also don't want to encourage keeping the pace up to the point that players are hacking away at a goalie's hands just in case he intends to not freeze the puck.

[KeithK]

I think they should change the delay rule like the nfl does for icing and extend it to other things.. you ice it no line change, you hold the puck as a goalie no line change, you throw the puck ut of of your end on D no line change,  you go offside no line change.  reward the team that keeps the game moving, less line changes less delays.

I like the idea of extending it, but only to those actions which are meant to produce a delay. I'd include the goalie freezing the puck in certain circumstances, but I wouldn't include going offsides. If you have an odd-man rush and the off winger is a step ahead, that's not an attempt to slow down the pace of the game -- if anything, it's being too eager in trying to keep the pace fast. You don't want to discourage that kind of offense by slapping an additional deterrent; having the play whistled dead is deterrent enough. Even in the case of the goalie freezing the puck, I think you'd want to differentiate between the puck being shot right into his pads, vs him diving on top of it. Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop." You also don't want to encourage keeping the pace up to the point that players are hacking away at a goalie's hands just in case he intends to not freeze the puck.

I think not allowing a change when a goalie freezes the puck is a horrible idea. Why would you not allow the defending team a breather when the goalie covers up? I understand why they do this on icing since icing the puck is something that's always been "penalized" as a defensive strategy. But the goalie freezing the puck after t allowing a rebound is something that we praise as good play.  Maybe you want to see lots of cheap goals scored off of exhausted defenders.

[upprdeck]

Yes i do. in the NHL if you clear from the D end its a penalty,  thats severe, so turn into a non change..  if you dont like off sides as a non change then just the intentional offsides get that added on.  the game is to pass the puck and to score. in the old days goalies rarely caught the puck they used the stick  and deflected it. its not like every time the goalie covers up the puck the players are tired from extended ice time. the offense caused the goalie to cover he puck and stop the game so the reward is they get a player change. the the goalie makes a save then fine let them get a change, but if they dive or cover a puck  then no change.  

we are talking a bout a game where 3+ goals is a great offense and 2+ goals is a bad offense. why would scoring 1-2x more a game be a bad thing.

basketball got rid of the jump ball after every score, why cant hockey be progessive.

[ftyuv]

I think they should change the delay rule like the nfl does for icing and extend it to other things.. you ice it no line change, you hold the puck as a goalie no line change, you throw the puck ut of of your end on D no line change,  you go offside no line change.  reward the team that keeps the game moving, less line changes less delays.

I like the idea of extending it, but only to those actions which are meant to produce a delay. I'd include the goalie freezing the puck in certain circumstances, but I wouldn't include going offsides. If you have an odd-man rush and the off winger is a step ahead, that's not an attempt to slow down the pace of the game -- if anything, it's being too eager in trying to keep the pace fast. You don't want to discourage that kind of offense by slapping an additional deterrent; having the play whistled dead is deterrent enough. Even in the case of the goalie freezing the puck, I think you'd want to differentiate between the puck being shot right into his pads, vs him diving on top of it. Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop." You also don't want to encourage keeping the pace up to the point that players are hacking away at a goalie's hands just in case he intends to not freeze the puck.

I think not allowing a change when a goalie freezes the puck is a horrible idea. Why would you not allow the defending team a breather when the goalie covers up? I understand why they do this on icing since icing the puck is something that's always been "penalized" as a defensive strategy. But the goalie freezing the puck after t allowing a rebound is something that we praise as good play.  Maybe you want to see lots of cheap goals scored off of exhausted defenders.

I'm not completely sold on this, mind you -- I think it could be an interesting experiment. But to answer your last bit directly, I'm not sure I would categorize those as cheap goals. When a goalie is forced to freeze the puck, it's usually because the offense is doing something right (or the defense is doing something wrong).  I actually think it's a bit cheap when the offense is doing a good job, getting a good cycle going, really pinned the defense back -- but then the goalie jumps 4 feet out of the crease to freeze the puck. So, am I suggesting that maybe a few more of those situations should result in goals? Sure, I'm willing to reward good offense and/or punish bad defense.

Part of my view is that I feel like goalies freeze the puck too often. If they cut back on it somewhat (significantly?), I'd be willing to revisit my views; it's all a matter of gray lines, after all. But I don't see goalies taking a high-road view of "I won't freeze the puck now, for the sake of The Game as a whole." I wouldn't expect them to.

[David Harding]

I'm not completely sold on this, mind you -- I think it could be an interesting experiment. But to answer your last bit directly, I'm not sure I would categorize those as cheap goals. When a goalie is forced to freeze the puck, it's usually because the offense is doing something right (or the defense is doing something wrong).  I actually think it's a bit cheap when the offense is doing a good job, getting a good cycle going, really pinned the defense back -- but then the goalie jumps 4 feet out of the crease to freeze the puck. So, am I suggesting that maybe a few more of those situations should result in goals? Sure, I'm willing to reward good offense and/or punish bad defense.

Part of my view is that I feel like goalies freeze the puck too often. If they cut back on it somewhat (significantly?), I'd be willing to revisit my views; it's all a matter of gray lines, after all. But I don't see goalies taking a high-road view of "I won't freeze the puck now, for the sake of The Game as a whole." I wouldn't expect them to.

What if the no line change disadvantage only kicks in if the goalie freezes the puck outside the crease?

[ftyuv]

I'm not completely sold on this, mind you -- I think it could be an interesting experiment. But to answer your last bit directly, I'm not sure I would categorize those as cheap goals. When a goalie is forced to freeze the puck, it's usually because the offense is doing something right (or the defense is doing something wrong).  I actually think it's a bit cheap when the offense is doing a good job, getting a good cycle going, really pinned the defense back -- but then the goalie jumps 4 feet out of the crease to freeze the puck. So, am I suggesting that maybe a few more of those situations should result in goals? Sure, I'm willing to reward good offense and/or punish bad defense.

Part of my view is that I feel like goalies freeze the puck too often. If they cut back on it somewhat (significantly?), I'd be willing to revisit my views; it's all a matter of gray lines, after all. But I don't see goalies taking a high-road view of "I won't freeze the puck now, for the sake of The Game as a whole." I wouldn't expect them to.

What if the no line change disadvantage only kicks in if the goalie freezes the puck outside the crease?

I'd be hesitant to make that be the only criterion, because there are times that the goalie should be out of the crease to cut an angle. If he does, and the shot goes right into his chest, it seems unfair to punish the D or force him to release the puck.

[Trotsky]

Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop."

In general, it's bad to add additional judgment calls to the officials' already large load.

But I know what you're getting at, so I'd introduce the following (judgment) language: if the goalie freezes the puck without "significant peril from a nearby opposing player," then the defending team doesn't get a line change.  That incentivizes the goalie to get the puck back into play but doesn't unduly burden him if an opposing player is on top of him.  If a forward is good enough to nearly find the 5-hole and the goalie has to sit on it for fear of knocking it into his own goal, then the attacking team gains an advantage but not as strong as a delay penalty.

[Rosey]

Does the game really need any changes? Hockey seems pretty good as-is.

[KeithK]

Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop."

In general, it's bad to add additional judgment calls to the officials' already large load.

But I know what you're getting at, so I'd introduce the following (judgment) language: if the goalie freezes the puck without "significant peril from a nearby opposing player," then the defending team doesn't get a line change.  That incentivizes the goalie to get the puck back into play but doesn't unduly burden him if an opposing player is on top of him.  If a forward is good enough to nearly find the 5-hole and the goalie has to sit on it for fear of knocking it into his own goal, then the attacking team gains an advantage but not as strong as a delay penalty.

From the chatter I think I understand the idea a little better and it's not as ridiculous as I first thought (no change any time the goalie makes a save and holds on).  While Greg's suggested rule miight be workable in theory I also don't like adding more subjectivity.  You could easily see radically different interpretations either from ref to ref (especially initially) or year to year.

if the goal is to try to increase offense I think there are probably better ways to do it.

[KeithK]

Does the game really need any changes? Hockey seems pretty good as-is.

I pretty much agree.

[ftyuv]

Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop."

In general, it's bad to add additional judgment calls to the officials' already large load.

But I know what you're getting at, so I'd introduce the following (judgment) language: if the goalie freezes the puck without "significant peril from a nearby opposing player," then the defending team doesn't get a line change.  That incentivizes the goalie to get the puck back into play but doesn't unduly burden him if an opposing player is on top of him.  If a forward is good enough to nearly find the 5-hole and the goalie has to sit on it for fear of knocking it into his own goal, then the attacking team gains an advantage but not as strong as a delay penalty.

I agree on both accounts.

if the goal is to try to increase offense I think there are probably better ways to do it.

That I agree with, and I don't even agree we need to increase offense necessarily. But if I had two gripes about the game, the second would be these freezes that stop the flow of an otherwise great-flowing game. On the other hand, the first gripe would be bad calls made by refs who are forced to make subjective decisions in a high-paced game, so there's definitely the case to be made that adding more subjectivity for the sake of more flow would be a net-negative.

Does [transportation] really need any changes? [Horse-draw carriages] seem pretty good as-is.