NHL: It's over

[KeithK]

In case you weren't paying attention: http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/cba_ratified072205.html

[KeithK]

A couple of details that I really like:

[q]RENEGOTIATION -- Player contracts will not be re-negotiated, upward or downward, during their term.

SIGNING DEADLINE -- Restricted free agents who do not sign contracts by December 1 of a given year will be ineligible to play in the League for the balance of that season.[/q]These should cut down on players holding out or trying to up their salary because of a good year.

[jtwcornell91]

God, they've really fucked up the rules. http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/rules_changes072205.html You can't change lines when you ice the puck?  The goalie can't play the puck in the corners?  Here's an idea, why not just give all the players electronic legirons that activate in the defensive zone.

I hope this crap doesn't work its way down to the college game.

[KeithK]

The rule about goalies playing the puck was tried in the AHL last season.  I don't know if it will really have a big impact - Tenders don't head into the corners that often.  Note: this doesn't prevent you from playing the puck anywhere in front of the goal line.

Not allowing a change after icing is dumb, IMNSHO.  Icing the puck when your team is getting outplayed in your zone is a legitimate, reasonable strategy.

No need to say anything about the shootout rule.

The other stuff seems pretty reasonable.

[David Harding]

Does this make sense?  First they announce the conclusion and then they create a committee to have proposed the new rules.[q]Commissioner Gary Bettman, who presented the package to the Board, also formally announced the creation of a new Competition Committee which was responsible for formulating and recommending the proposed slate of rules changes for approval by the NHL Board of Governors.
[/q]

[DeltaOne81]

Btw, has anyone noticed that half these rule changes were changed before for the same reason?

I.e. they moved the goal line two more feet from the endboards to open up the room behind the net to increase offensive movement, and to prevent a goalie from getting back to a puck going around the board - in the guise of increasing offense. Now, they move the goal line two feet back, in order to increase the front-of-the-net neutral zone area to increase scoring.

They added to OT loss point to increase scoring in OT (nothing to lose, after the AHL proved it worked). Recently they were thinking of removing the OT loss point to give teams more to play for in OT to increase scoring. Doesn't look like they did it though, but still, huh?

Along with moving the goal line the first time, they increased the size of the neutral zone to open it up. Now, they're decreasing the size of the neutral zone without mentioning it. Of course, removing the red line for two line passes kinda negates that, but yet again, just undoing what they already did to help (supposedly).


I don't like the goalie triangle stuff, hate the shootout, and the no change after icing is pathetic too. But, agreed, the rest are alright. Hey, as long as we're trying to find ways to make the defense tired for no reason, how about we make a rule that you can't change defensemen at all until that set it scored upon. That'll be great! Really improve the game!

[DeltaOne81]

Btw, my girlfriend makes an *excellent* point. This 'no icing to get fresh legs' rule on even strength is not going to make more goals (probably) or even keep players on the ice longer... instead of tossing it down the ice, they're just gonna flop on it. Just land on it and get a whistle. No rule against that! And if you get called for a penalty, oh well. The 20% chance of being scored on on a penalty is probably better than the 50% chance of being scored on when you're being totally outplayed and can't move your legs. Or, if worse comes to worse, just pick it up and throw it over the glass. Oh well, you'd rather havee the penalty at that point anyway.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 Btw, my girlfriend makes an *excellent* point. This 'no icing to get fresh legs' rule on even strength is not going to make more goals (probably) or even keep players on the ice longer... instead of tossing it down the ice, they're just gonna flop on it. Just land on it and get a whistle. No rule against that! And if you get called for a penalty, oh well. The 20% chance of being scored on on a penalty is probably better than the 50% chance of being scored on when you're being totally outplayed and can't move your legs. Or, if worse comes to worse, just pick it up and throw it over the glass. Oh well, you'd rather havee the penalty at that point anyway.[/q]

At least they still wave off icing on the penalty kill.  Whistling the defensive team for icing and then not letting them make a line change would take away the principal penalty-killing strategy.

I wonder what all of this moving around of lines and nets is doing to the rink managers.  Presumably everyone has to change that, even if they don't have a pro team in their rink.

Reducing (if not eliminating) the two-line offsides is a good step, but of course college/international rules already go further.  I wonder how this will combine with waving off icing on missed homerun passes.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Well, some things are good and some aren't.

I think they screwed up by not including no-touch icing, but I like the no-redline two line pass and touch up for offsides.  I think they should have rescinded the Gretzky Rule - offsetting penalties should cause a four on four, too.  And the restrictions on the goalies touching the puck really had minimal impact in the AHL last year.  I don't know why they included it other than to "do something."

I think the idea of not getting a line change after icing could be interesting.  I think it's going to make the bad teams worse, because they're the most likely to ice the puck to get a stoppage, but would probably have minimal impact on the better teams.

[Tub(a)]

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:


I think the idea of not getting a line change after icing could be interesting.  I think it's going to make the bad teams worse, because they're the most likely to ice the puck to get a stoppage, but would probably have minimal impact on the better teams.[/q]

I think it will be the reverse. Bad teams usually can't get control of the puck long enough to ice it.

I am fine with everything but the icing. It doesn't really make sense to keep the touch method AND have linesmen discretion on missed passes. It should have been linesmen discretion and automatic icing. Preventing line changes after an icing just seems like a really bad idea that could easily lead to more injuries and clutching/grabbing from tiredness.

I don't have a problem with the shootout. One of my favorite hockey memories is watching Hasek vs. Canada at something like 2am in the 2000 olympics. It can be really exciting, and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.

[KeithK]

[q]I don't know why they included it other than to "do something." [/q]I think that's definitely why they're doing it.  There's a perception that hockey is somehow "broken" because there's not enough offense and after the lockout they want to make as many changes as possible to "prove" that they've fixed it.

[KeithK]

[q]...and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.[/q]I still think they should go endless OT in every game. :-D

[mjh89]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2]...and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.[/Q]
I still think they should go endless OT in every game.  [/q]

or play 4 on 4 for 2 minutes, 3 on 3 for 2 minutes, 2 on 2 for 2 minutes, and then 1 on 1 until someone scores. They used to do this at some tournaments I played at growing up, and it was one of the most exciting things I'd ever seen.

[judy]

[Q]mjh89 Wrote:

 [Q2]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2]...and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.[/Q]
I still think they should go endless OT in every game.  [/Q]
or play 4 on 4 for 2 minutes, 3 on 3 for 2 minutes, 2 on 2 for 2 minutes, and then 1 on 1 until someone scores. They used to do this at some tournaments I played at growing up, and it was one of the most exciting things I'd ever seen.[/q]

hmm...1 on 1...does that include the goalies? If not, why not just go a step further and have the goalies shoot the puck at each other :-P

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]mjh89 Wrote:

 [Q2]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2]...and games that actually matter (playoff games) will be decided in a traditional manner.[/Q]
I still think they should go endless OT in every game.  [/Q]
or play 4 on 4 for 2 minutes, 3 on 3 for 2 minutes, 2 on 2 for 2 minutes, and then 1 on 1 until someone scores. They used to do this at some tournaments I played at growing up, and it was one of the most exciting things I'd ever seen.[/q]

Umm, have you ever seen 3 on 3 as a fan? I have twice. BU @ Cornell a few years back had a 3 on 3 situation when several penalties occurred quickly. And watching the River Rats game after the ECACs in March, it occured (in OT, they definitely musta been told to call more penalties in OT to try to get a winner).

3 on 3, from a fan's perspective, is the most awful, boring hockey you can ever watch - besides maybe 2 on 2 or 1 on 1 as I've never seen those. It looks like a scrimmage. There's little movement, no interesting passes, and no one can dare try to make an exciting play because if you get caught off, the *best* case scenario is a 3 on 2 on the other way - a much bigger risk than a 5 on 4 the other way which is, well, almost nothing. 3 on 3 is only entertaining to watch because of how silly it looks, but trust me, that'd wear off quickly.

Maybe from a player's perspective knocking down the players would start getting intense, but from a fan's, it just gets boring and looks ridiculous. The proposal for a 3 on 3 is one of the rule changes I thank the lord they passed over.