Berenson Boundary - Good for the Red or Bad for the Red?

[Josh '99]

[Q]David Harding Wrote:
Amusing that the only player quoted was a freshman defenseman, as though he had a clue on the difference it made in a college game.[/q]To be fair, last year Jack Johnson played for the U18 team, who played twenty-some games against college teams of various levels from DIII to schools like Michigan, Minnesota, BU, Harvard.  He's probably got SOME idea what he's talking about, anyway.

[pfm10]

As far as I understand this proposed change, it would not affect the offsides rule at all.

Look at it from the point of view of a team starting the puck up in their own defensive zone after a line change by both teams. In this situation, the lines are used exactly as they are at this time. Likewise, a turnover that the defense controls will also advance exactly as it does now.

I can only see two major differences: the already mentioned defensive poke-check that clears the zone and whatever might happen with the two line pass in the NHL. The rule seems to be in the interest of the offense, so why not get rid of the two line pass to pick up the pace of the game anyway. But as for the poke-checking bit ....

The difference would relly depend on how coaches use the rule. Would defensemen now stand at the red line, which would actually open up more room for the defense to secure a turnover? Or do they stay on the blue line and stifle any attempted clear from a defense that cannot assert control of the puck?

Personally, and looking at other sports, I say keep the rules the way they are. In football, the defense doesn't have to take control of the ball to gain possession for their team. It helps, but a stifled offense should punt. The shot clock in squeakball gives the ball to the D if the O isn't productive. Etc. Just don't put a shot clock in hockey!

Poke-checking is good defense, and not just a hindrance of the game.