NHL: It's over

[mjh89]

No, it does not include the goalies.

[LarryW]

I think the no change on icing, combined with the wave-off for a pass is agreat change.  What is more boring than to just throw the puck down the other end of the ice with no offensive objective?  Your team should get as minimal a benefit as possible for such a play.  If you're trying to make a pass and misfire, well, that's somewhat more appropriate, and thus, allowing play to continue is also reasonable.  I think the result will be more flow to the game, as intended.  I could be wrong, but other than some tradition-love for the way its always been, I can't see why to oppose these ideas.  I just don't see "The right to ice" as inherent to hockey.  I mean, the rule is set up so that you aren't, in theory, 'supposed to do it'.  Why not tweak the penalty.

The criticism of the goalie trapezoid and the zone size changes strikes me as the right response though.  Change for change's sake without any understanding of whether it will actually do anything in particular.  Reminds me of the proposals to "make the lines thicker," which struck me as ridiculous because only the one edge of the line ever actually mattered anyway.  Did that fool anyone?

[KeithK]

Allowing a linesman to wave off icing because it was a pass and not an intentional icing may well mean that you get a lot more cherry picking and home run passes.  This may result in more scoring, but probably not a better game.

[David Harding]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]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.[/q]

How about we go the other direction?  If there is no score in the first overtime, go to 6 on 6 for five minutes.  Then 7 on 7.  And so on...  :-D  

[Steve M]

[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]

And then once you commit a penalty, you're free to ice the puck (and naturally change lines at the same time) without any negative effect.  The rule change reduces the advantage of being on the power play, which IMHO, isn't great enough to open up the game.  They should have never adopted this silly prohibition on line changes after icing, and instead waived the shorthanded exemption on icing.  Power play efficiency (currently only ~15% in the NHL) would improve and defenses would be less likely to hold and obstruct because of the increased disadvantage of being shorthanded.  I hope they do crack down on obstruction as promised, but I predict the result will be a huge number of penalties called earlier in the season, which will lead to a lot of protest and an eventual return to the status quo.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

It seems that the league is eliminating more east-west travel.  

I just saw the Flyers' schedule.  They only play games against two of the three western divisions, and only one game per year against each of those teams.  They've increased the number of games within the division to 6.

[jkahn]

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

  They've increased the number of games within the division to 6.[/q]
It's actually 8 games against each of the teams in your division, 4 vs. non-divisional teams in the same conference, and 1 game vs. ten of the 15 teams (2 of the 3 divisions) in the opposite conference.

[KeithK]

Hey, the NHL is looking to increase scoring and excitement right?  They've added shootouts.  They want to open up the game.  Why not get rid of power plays entirely?  Just make every penalty a penalty shot.  Then you have all the excitement of the shootout, extra scoring (don't have to worry about pesky teams that are good at killing penalties) and significant disincentive for clutching and grabbing!

Even better, we could play by women's hockey rules (no checking) and use the all penalty shot rule.  I guarantee you'd have a wonderful, wide open, high flying game! [/sarcasm]

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

 It seems that the league is eliminating more east-west travel.  

I just saw the Flyers' schedule.  They only play games against two of the three western divisions, and only one game per year against each of those teams.  They've increased the number of games within the division to 6.[/q]

There was something in the press release about the schedule emphasizing rivalries.

Who cares; everyone now admits the regular season is irrelevant anyway. ::rolleyes::

[Trotsky]

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
It seems that the league is eliminating more east-west travel.[/q]

IMHO, one of the few (only?) positive things.

I propose the following conference realignment:

Conference A: Bos, NYR, Mon, Tor, Det, Chi, Pha, StL, NYI, Edm, Cal, Buf, Was, Pgh, NJ
Conference B: TB, Atl, Car, SJ, Col, Dal, Nsh, Min, Ana, Phx, Col, LA, Van, Ott, Fla

No RS play between conferences.
No inter-conference trades permitted.
Closed conference playoff brackets to crown conference champions.

And if I lose interest in hockey prior to the "finals"?  So be it.  :-D

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
They should have never adopted this silly prohibition on line changes after icing, and instead waived the shorthanded exemption on icing.[/q]

No no no no no. As much as I hate shootouts, this would be a rule that I would absoutely foresake the NHL for (not that i'm a big NHL fan as is,  but that would seriously be a 'fuck them' rule). If you take away icing on the penalty kill, what the hell do you do? It doesn't become a game at that point, it becomes "let's murder the defense". I have a better idea, let's just give them a penalty shot on an open net instead! That'll increase scoring, so exciting!

[Steve M]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]Steve M Wrote:
They should have never adopted this silly prohibition on line changes after icing, and instead waived the shorthanded exemption on icing.[/Q]
No no no no no. As much as I hate shootouts, this would be a rule that I would absoutely foresake the NHL for (not that i'm a big NHL fan as is,  but that would seriously be a 'fuck them' rule). If you take away icing on the penalty kill, what the hell do you do? It doesn't become a game at that point, it becomes "let's murder the defense". I have a better idea, let's just give them a penalty shot on an open net instead! That'll increase scoring, so exciting![/q]

Chill out dude.  That was a hyperbole filled response that I'm used to seeing on USCHO.  I don't know about you, but I think there is nothing more boring in hockey is an effective penalty kill when the puck gets iced and brought back up the ice a half dozen times.  With this rule, the defense might actually try to advance the puck, and you would see more shorthanded goals.  If they're unable to move the puck out they can still clear it and get whistled for icing, which isn't the end of the world.  I think power play efficiency would improve from 15% to about 20-25%, which many college teams achieve today.  You make it sound like there would be a goal every other power play.  To me it's a far less radical change than having shootouts or increasing the size of the net.  

[Trotsky]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:I think there is nothing more boring in hockey is an effective penalty kill when the puck gets iced and brought back up the ice a half dozen times.  
[/q]

I have to disagree completely.  I think an effective kill is very exciting, and I like the "cyclical" pattern that icing creates -- it turns the power play into a series of thrusts into the defensive zone.  If the defense can parry the thrust, good for them.

It would be very funny if eliminating icing actually decreased overall pp scoring.  The major problem NHL offenses have now is strategic -- they are always keeping guys back in order to "not make the last mistake."  With the defense motivated to break the play out, there's that much less incentive for the power play team to risk crashing the net.

[BCrespi]

As you yourself state, killing teams would probably have to ice the puck anyway.  It simply isn't possible to play solid, man-down defense for two minutes, hell even one minute, at a time.  What would you rather see, cyclical charges into the offensive zone that may or may not result in goals, or 6 play stoppages within 2 minutes of clock time that would result in a few more goals?  The constant stoppages are what kill an exciting hockey game, not good, solid, hard-working defensive play.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
With this rule, the defense might actually try to advance the puck, and you would see more shorthanded goals.  If they're unable to move the puck out they can still clear it and get whistled for icing, which isn't the end of the world.[/q]

Except, when they ice the puck, they're not allowed to change lines. So pretty much the D is worn down until they score. Yeah, with those two rules together, I do think the PP would be about 50%. Unless you means this instead of the changing rule, which is at least less insane.

Although you point out that college teams do 20 to 25% now, and they do it without any forced rule changes. Well, they do it with no red line and touch up offsides, not anything explicitly designed to tie one of the defense's hands behind their backs. Hey, maybe that's the next new idea!