OT: Proposed new NHL nets

[Chris 02]

Yet another attempt to increase scoring in the NHL.  It looks kinda neat, but do we really want hockey to turn into lacrosse with that kind of scoring?  I personally like the way things are now.  This seems like another crazy idea to attract more fan attention to the NHL and tick off the old-timers fans of the game.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/050331/483/nydd40103312135&e=9

[Tub(a)]

Please god, let this be a belated April Fool's joke...  ::yark::

[Rosey]

With all due respect---who cares?  Hell, the NHL hasn't even played a game in 10 months.  When they get back to the business of playing hockey, then we can waste time discussing what they may or may not be doing to screw up the game.  Until then, what's the point?

Kyle

[Trotsky]

It would have been an early April Fool's Joke -- it was a 3/31/05 story.  It's funny looking, but it's considerably less dumb and Draconian than a lot of the idea circulating among the NHL brass.  There's one statement in the article that's alarming, though.

[q]The idea behind the curved-post design is that it not only expands the net opening, but the rounded shape makes it more difficult for goalies to hug the posts to block short-angle shots.[/q]

The NHL shouldn't go there, where "there" is applying equipment changes in order to alter traditional strategies.  When a goalie hugs the post to prevent the wrap-around or tight angle shot, he's gambling that he can get back to the other side fast enough to prevent a quick feed in front or a Gretzky Office Special (deke behind the net and then a casual deposit through the gaping other side).  That's a valid, exciting tactic and there's no reason to discourage it.

Oh, and we should care, since dramatic rule changes will percolate down into the college game, unless the conferences want to give the juniors the stick "yeah, college is cute, but it doesn't prepare you for the N."

[mjh89]

So what exactly do you think we should be talking about now that cornell is done and a "next year thread" has already been started? I'll gladly talk about the NHL anytime, and I'm sure many other ELynah goes would to.

[DeltaOne81]

I think if the NHL touches the nets their lose any remaining credibility with any real hockey fans. If scoring was low in baseball, would they put the bases closer together? Would football shorten the field? Would basketball lower the hoop? It's an absolute joke.

[mjh89]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 I think if the NHL touches the nets their lose any remaining credibility with any real hockey fans. If scoring was low in baseball, would they put the bases closer together? Would football shorten the field? Would basketball lower the hoop? It's an absolute joke.[/q]

I agree that those nets are pretty ridiculous and don't see the benefits of them over just making a net that is say 6'1" by 4'1" and keeping the rectangle. However, changes in sports are made when offense lacks:
From a recent Buccigross column: " In 1968, when Bob Gibson led Major League Baseball with a 1.12 ERA, Carl Yastrzemski won the AL batting title by hitting a paltry .301 and Glenn Beckert led the major leagues with a measly 98 runs. The next season, MLB lowered the pitcher's mound from 15 inches to 10 to increase offense. The NFL continually tweaks its rules to give the offense the advantage â€" from pass coverage rules, blocking allowances, moving the kickoff yard line back and, to a lesser degree, introducing the two-point conversion. "

[DeltaOne81]

Agreed, and there are rule changes that I don't disagree with. In fact there are ones I even support. But it seems to me that each sport has some "fundamental constants" and if you screw with those, you've just gone too far.

for example, Baseball: distance between bases, # of strikes and balls, # of outs, # of innings, # of players on the field, size of the bases, tag out/force out rules

hockey: 60 minutes total playing time in regulation (if you want to try quarters, as the IHL experimented with briefly, I don't see the point, but knock yourself out), size of the puck, size of the net, size and shapes of sticks, and the existance of 5 lines (red/blue/red/blue/red), with ratios close to current patterns, 5 guys + goalie on the ice (which leads me to not like the 4 man OT, and absolutely hate the shootout)

Those are the things that make the game what they are, if you change those, its starting to make it a different sport.

other than that, go at it. Goalie pads smaller, no red line for 2 line passes, whatever. We can debate whether we like them or not, but at least their fair game. But there are things you just don't touch, and the net is one of them.

[Josh '99]

SHHHHH!  Don't laugh, they're trying to "boost fan interest" and "grow the game".  ::rolleyes::

[jtwcornell91]

Of course, there have been revolutionary changes to some of those, like number of balls and strikes.  But they were a long time ago.

[nyiballs]

Most of you know I was a goalie, so here's my take on the big net.

First off... the curved net is just ridiculous, so I will limit my opinions to just increasing the rectangle.

I think everyone up the ladder in the NHL is very misguided...  we don't need more scoring to increase excitement in the NHL, we need more SCORING CHANCES.  A great save of a great chance is much more exciting than some garbage goal being banged in on a scrum in front of the net.  Making the net bigger will not make the scorer chances greater.

They just gotta open up the game.  Get rid of the red line, tag up offsides, larger ice surface... or even keep the red line, but get rid of the blue lines (pretty radical idea that I would not be in favor of).  

The biggest thing they can do to open up the game is make ALL contact with a player not in posession of the puck illegal and interference.  Or better yet, make all stick contact with a player above the knees illegal.  The stick is for handling the puck, shooting, and passing.  If players can move around the ice surface without getting held up, the game would really open up.

Increasing the nets might... and that's a big might... increase scoring, but it won't make the game more exciting or faster paced.

[adamw]

Agreed that SCORING CHANCES is the key ... but the merit to making the net larger is very sound.  The goalies are bigger and more athletic.  Just to keep the scoring opportunity consistent with everything before 1995, it only stands to reason that the net needs to be bigger.  If there is something that stands in the way of the net, that now is bigger and takes up more of the net than before, then make the net bigger.  You cannot make the goalies smaller - since I don't think even the NHL has a handle on genetics.

DeltaOne - lots of things have changed.  I'm not a fan of arbitrary rules changes which dubiously open up scoring at the sake of something else, only to be changed years later when scoring is too high.

But sometimes there are fundamental changes that are irreversible, and the only way to compensate, is to change some of the rules.  And it's true that players are bigger, faster, stronger, and there is no way that is ever going to reverse itself.  So something has to be done to compensate.

By the way - you listed 5 lines as a fundamental ... but there doesn't need to be a center line - except for icing - so that's something that has changed.  Also, there used to be 6 skaters per side - then they went to 5.  Stan Fischler has advocated for 4 for at least 20 years.

[DeltaOne81]

Adam, yeah, there are changes, but there's a reason we refer to records and stats "in the modern era", and its not because we're just being cocky about us being better than 100 years ago. At some point, the fundamental rules of the game changed enough so that its not fair to consider records and stats and play to be comparable to now.

There was a time in baseball when you were out if the ball was caught on just one bounce (see, I've been to Cooperstown ), but then something happened... they started using gloves and you could actually catch a ball without breaking bones. But we don't compare that game to today, because its different enough that its a different game.

The NHL can make any changes they like, but if they touch certain things (things which I tried to create a list of) then its simply a separate game. We'll no longer ever be able to compare achievements of the greats to those of greats past. Be it goal scorers, goalies, team accomplishments. It will hold no comparison, because it will be a different game. If that's what the NHL wants to do, well, they have the power, but if you change your game enough that you lose the connection to the past, well, I think that's a big mistake.

As for the lines, I debated that one. Yes, you could eliminate the redline for the 2 line pass, but that's not really eliminating the red line, is it? Its just a convenient phrase used to describe what is really eliminating the two-line pass rule. If you actually did eliminate the redline and redefined icing to who-knows-what accordingly, then you'd have changed the game. So when I said you need 5 lines, I mean you look at the surface and there are 5 lines, each with a defined use. So I stand by that as an untouchable.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

You cannot make the goalies smaller - since I don't think even the NHL has a handle on genetics.

[/q]
Dunno.  Dryden was bigger than LeNeveu, but I'll bet LeNeveu occupies greater volume, with all that friggin' padding.  Dryden looked like a human being; LeNeveu like some kind of Sasquatch.

[billhoward]

It will make every photo look like it's taken with a fisheye lens.

The 6x4 net isn't graven in stone. Maybe if the sport came out of Europe the net would be 2 meters wide by 1.5 tall. With the net size standing still, two other things change: the area that's not covered by the goalie and equipment, and to a degree harder to measure, the area a now-more-able-and-athletic goalie can't reach.

Some may be thinking a defensive team like Cornell would be hurt by a bigger net. Maybe it would be the opposite: Since so few shots get to the goalie, a bigger net would be better for us.