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

[ninian '72]

To return to discussing hockey for a change, :-) today's Michigan Daily has an article on the proposed Berenson Boundary, a rule change that would extend the offensive zone back to the red line, once the offensive blue line has been crossed.  The rule will be allowed in pre-season play on a trial basis.  See:

http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/30/433cce4c75833

My guess is that it would benefit more offensive-minded teams, although how much remains to be seen.  Michigan will be trying it out this weekend.

[KeithK]

The rationale for the change seems pretty weak to me.  In the writer's words:
[q]Anyone who has ever played or watched hockey knows the utter frustration that comes when the opposing defenders poke the puck out of your team’s offensive zone. Nothing disrupts a team’s rhythm more. Not only do the attackers have to skate back to retrieve it, but the entire team must skate back over the blue line before taking the puck back in.[/q]Oh how frustrating!  The other team made a good play to break up your offensive rush.  it's called defense.

This rule would be a huge change in the way the game is played.  It puts the defense at a significant disadvantage.  It essentially means that the defense has to control the puck and skate it out in order to clear the zone, or else ice the puck.   It would reward teams with good transition games.  Lesser teams would probably end up icing the puck fairly often, which would slow down the game even while it would iprobably increase scoring.

I think you'd see a noticeable increase in power play scoring.  Short handed teams very often ice the puck anyway, so that wouldn't change.  But it would be a lot harder to poke the puck out of the zone to get a clear for a breather and possibly a quick change.

Anyway, I don't like the idea.  But I'm interested to read about what happens in the Michigan pre-season game.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 The rationale for the change seems pretty weak to me.  In the writer's words:
[Q2]Anyone who has ever played or watched hockey knows the utter frustration that comes when the opposing defenders poke the puck out of your team’s offensive zone. Nothing disrupts a team’s rhythm more. Not only do the attackers have to skate back to retrieve it, but the entire team must skate back over the blue line before taking the puck back in.[/Q]
Oh how frustrating!  The other team made a good play to break up your offensive rush.  it's called defense.
[/q]

Pretty weak is a significant understatement :-)

It's pretty frustrating when your team has a great shot and the other goalie makes a great save - that doesn't mean we should penalize goalies for making saves, or take away the goalie altogether. Or, er, wait... is that already in the NHL rule changes?

On the flip side, it's a great feeling when your team does it. Watch the last 5 seconds of the miracle on ice with an understanding of the line rules and tell me that this rule didn't contribute to the wonderful emotions of every American in the last few seconds of that game.

[Josh '99]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
It's pretty frustrating when your team has a great shot and the other goalie makes a great save - that doesn't mean we should penaltalize goalies for making saves, or take away the goalie altogether. Or, er, wait... is that already in the NHL rule changes?
[/q]"Penaltalize"?

[Beeeej]

How dare you criticize DeltaOne81's one spelling error without recognizing and listing all of the words he's spelled correctly today?!

Beeeej

P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

P.P.S. Well, maybe I could've.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:

 [Q2]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
It's pretty frustrating when your team has a great shot and the other goalie makes a great save - that doesn't mean we should penaltalize goalies for making saves, or take away the goalie altogether. Or, er, wait... is that already in the NHL rule changes?
[/Q]
"Penaltalize"?

[/q]

You made that up! Fake fake! (pay no attention to the edit in the corner)

It's Friday, I don't do spelling on Fridays ;-)

[KeithK]

It was frustrating and unfair when Baby's shot hit the UNH goalie's head late in 2003.  It was frustrating when P.C. hit the post against LSSU in '96.  I think we should change the rules so that Cornell shots always go in.  Or just enough to guarantee that we always win.

[Shorts]

Ignoring the specific reasons given in the Michigan Daily, this rule change makes some sense to me, at least in the context of the various offsides rules for other sports.  As it was taught to me as a kid (which could mean that I misunderstood or was misinformed), the point of offsides is to prevent an offensive player who doesn't have the ball/puck from going behind the opposing defense, away from the focus of the play, then receiving a pass, after which he would be very difficult to stop.  Clearly, this is an unsporting tactic, and so the offsides rule is in place to prevent it.

With the rule change, the offensive zone doesn't expand until the blue line is crossed, so it still has the effect of stopping people from hanging out in the offensive zone and creating instant breakaways (I think the term is cherry-picking).

A second effect of the current offside rule is that the defense can disrupt ongoing offensive pressure by knocking the puck out of the zone.  The key question, for me at least, is: what would happen if the blue line weren't there (ie. if the rule were changed).  If the puck leaving the zone meant that there were an actual change of momentum, then the current offsides rule would make sense.  But I think that there are many times when, if the blue line weren't there, the offense would be able to bring the puck back in without missing a beat.  In these instances, the current offsides rule isn't preventing an unsporting play; it breaks up the natural flow of the game.

On the other hand, if the puck makes it all the way back to the redline (pulling the offense all the way back to their own half of the ice), I think it's harder to argue that the offense had ongoing offensive pressure the whole time.

In summary, as a spectator, it makes sense to me to at least give this rule change a try.

[BCrespi]

Your argument only makes sense if you value offensive continuity over staunch defensive play.  It's really just a matter of preference, in my opinion, and as a Big Red fan, I've come to value both.  I like the rules as they are.

[RichH]

Think about how many times you've watched a hockey game with a hockey newbie.  And how many times you've had to explain the offsides rule when asked why the whistle just blew.  Now think about how much more complicated it would be to give a quick explaination of the offsides rule if this were to come to pass.  This wouldn't be good if the goal is to bring in new fans.

Keep it as is.  I agree for simplicity, and for the reason BCrespi just outlined.

[ugarte]

[Q]RichH Wrote:

 Think about how many times you've watched a hockey game with a hockey newbie.  And how many times you've had to explain the offsides rule when asked why the whistle just blew.  [/q]Think about how much less often the whistle would blow.

That said, I don't like the proposed rule. If the D can break up the flow by poking it out of the zone, that is good D. I like that it requires offensive precision to keep the puck in the zone.

[ninian '72]

Based on a couple of posts on uscho, the net impact was zilch.  Flow of the game was improved, and Michigan put 53 shots on goal, but only scored 3 goals against Toronto.  Posters didn't notice any increase in icing, and power play was ineffective.  Having a slew of freshmen on the team may have had something to do with these results, too.

[min]

[Q]ninian '72 Wrote:

 Based on a couple of posts on uscho, the net impact was zilch.  Flow of the game was improved, and Michigan put 53 shots on goal, but only scored 3 goals against Toronto.  Posters didn't notice any increase in icing, and power play was ineffective.  Having a slew of freshmen on the team may have had something to do with these results, too.[/q]

hmm.... the fact (well, not really since we are relying on, god forbid, uscho posters) that the net impact was null can still be used either for or against the berenson boundary. unless the proposed rule chnge picks up momentum (is this a michigan initiative or a ncaa-wide initiative?), i think the exercise may be all academic!  

[KeithK]

The NHL has talked about widening the blue line to achieve a similar result (harder to poke the pukc out of the zone).  So I think a lot of people are thinking along these kinds of lines.  Which means it probably won't be dismissed out of hand.

[David Harding]

The Michigan Daily writer didn't have an assessment of his/her own.  http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/03/4340d10e5fc0d
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]The rule drew mixed reactions from players and the rule’s creator, Berenson.

“I really like it, and I think it has a lot of potential,” Berenson said. “They talk about the offensive zone and making the ice bigger and wider â€" and I’ve given them 30 more feet.”

Johnson felt the rule had its pros and cons, but the overwhelming feeling was that it was more of a deterrent for the offense than the defense.

“We were able to step back a little more and quarterback it and have some time,” Johnson said. “On the other hand, you’re harder pressed to get in tight and get more quality shots.”[/q]