HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Minnesota Wild (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   News Article: GM's Propose Hybrid Icing, Rule Changes (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1134793)

Jarick 03-14-2012 09:19 AM

GM's Propose Hybrid Icing, Rule Changes
 
Puck Daddy:

Ringette Line:

Quote:

It would run across the tops of the face-off circles. When coming out of the defensive zone, teams would have to advance the puck to the line before they could pass it to the far blue line.

It's a compromise between leaving the game as it is and re-instituting the red line to outlaw two-line passes. In theory, it would still allow for a stretch pass, but it would keep teams from firing the puck from deep in their end to the far blue line and simply tipping it to avoid icing.
Hybrid Icing:

Quote:

Instead of seeing who touches the puck first, the officials would see who wins the race to the face-off dots. If the defensive player wins or there is a tie, icing. If the offensive player wins, the play remains live.
Attainable Passes:

Quote:

Currently, officials can wave off icing if they feel a team made an "attainable pass." But standards vary from official to official. Starting next season, players would be required to touch the puck to negate icing.

squidz* 03-14-2012 09:26 AM

My Ringette Line response from the other thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by squidz (Post 46054069)
That proposed rule is the worst suggestion I've heard since the trapezoid. No, it's even worse than that. "Let's add yet another line on the ice and effectively increase the size of the neutral zone to encourage a new style of trap." Seriously, who comes up with this crap?


Jarick 03-14-2012 09:26 AM

Bringing it over here because it's important enough to talk about on its own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by squidz (Post 46054069)
That proposed rule is the worst suggestion I've heard since the trapezoid. No, it's even worse than that. "Let's add yet another line on the ice and effectively increase the size of the neutral zone to encourage a new style of trap." Seriously, who comes up with this crap?

Possibly just as bad is the (shot down) suggestion to not only make defensive hand passes illegal, but to make them a minor penalty. There's fantastically solid reasons for allowing the hand passes (keeps sticks lower improving safety, and keeps the game moving because the defense can't draw a faceoff with an intentional hand pass). Removing them really serves no purpose, and would be a case of change for change's sake.

If they want a to reverse the imagined decrease in scoring (5v5 scoring per 60 minutes is unchanged since the lockout) just reeducate refs to the point they understand that Detroit style "subtle interference" is still interference. Call those penalties as penalties and overall scoring will increase again.

I like the concept of getting rid of those slap passes and cutting down on dump-and-chase, but I don't like the idea of yet another line. The problem is, if you whistle down those plays, then you slow the game down with stoppages. It's annoying.

Not a fan of the trapezoid, but it's not bad either.

They need to nix the delay of game for clearing the puck penalty. Faceoff in your end, make the players stay on the ice, that's good enough.

I dislike eliminating hand passes in the D zone for the reasons you mentioned. I was thinking the same thing watching the game last night, and it would be annoying as anything to stop the game yet again.

Totally agree on that subtle interference. If you're making contact with a player trying to get the puck, that's literally interference. They are making subtle picks with their shoulders which looks like incidental contact.

squidz* 03-14-2012 09:34 AM

If the AHL adopts the Ringette line on a trial basis, I believe the result won't be "keeping stretch passes but stopping chip and chase" as intended. The result will be an effective increase in the size, and change in the position of the neutral zone. Instead of an aggressive forecheck like the Wild had running during the winning streak, you'll have teams sitting on the Ringette line, tying up the neutral zone to stuff play. It eliminates the benefits of pressuring the other team below the top of the circles, so there's that much less ice to try defend. That Tampa-Philly game from early in the season will become uncommon instead of unique.

Dr Jan Itor 03-14-2012 09:43 AM

I'm fine with the hybrid icing; I think that it is long overdue.

Don't like the ringette line, or anything resembling putting the red-line/two line pass rule back in. Slowing the game down is a B.S. excuse.

Not sure on the 3rd... could go both ways.

Jarick 03-14-2012 09:58 AM

What if they make the neutral zone smaller? Would that be a good thing? Say move the blue lines by 5 feet per side?

Dr Jan Itor 03-14-2012 10:03 AM

By how much did they move them last time?

I wouldn't be against it I guess... means more offensive zone territory that we can't take advantage of.

ironranger 03-14-2012 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 46054733)
Bringing it over here because it's important enough to talk about on its own.



I like the concept of getting rid of those slap passes and cutting down on dump-and-chase, but I don't like the idea of yet another line. The problem is, if you whistle down those plays, then you slow the game down with stoppages. It's annoying.

Not a fan of the trapezoid, but it's not bad either.

They need to nix the delay of game for clearing the puck penalty. Faceoff in your end, make the players stay on the ice, that's good enough.

I dislike eliminating hand passes in the D zone for the reasons you mentioned. I was thinking the same thing watching the game last night, and it would be annoying as anything to stop the game yet again.

Totally agree on that subtle interference. If you're making contact with a player trying to get the puck, that's literally interference. They are making subtle picks with their shoulders which looks like incidental contact.

This is pretty much exactly how i feel. also the subtle interference can make players mad when it is ongoing and isn't called, and when players get mad that usually leads to more fights and more dangerous hits cuz one player wants to get the other player back.

I also think that hybrid icing is long overdo, it works well in the NCAA so why can't it work in the NHL?

usernam* 03-14-2012 10:42 AM

I like the hybrid icing, I hate the other two.

I feel like they'll just slow down/complicate the game.

squidz* 03-14-2012 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 46055899)
What if they make the neutral zone smaller? Would that be a good thing? Say move the blue lines by 5 feet per side?

I'm not exactly sure what sort of effect that would have.

An interesting idea I saw someone (maybe somewhere else on HF?) propose was increasing the width of the blue line. That doesn't technically change the size of either the neutral zone or the offensive zone, but gives a little bit more leeway both for entering the zone and for holding the offensive end. If the goal is to slow some of the end-to-end play to reduce player speed though, maybe the opposite would be advisable. A narrower blue line would make timing for end to end rushes more difficult, perhaps forcing players to slow down a little.

I don't really buy into the "speed is too high" claims (haven't seen any empirical evidence supporting such a statement) so I don't really see a problem that needs fixing. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

OpRedDawn* 03-14-2012 12:23 PM

I think they need to go back to pre-lockout interference and such if they want to reduce concussions. Nowadays, if you wrap them up at all, or slow them down just a tad too much, interference. Players just fly full speed into each other because that's all they're allowed to do.

squidz* 03-14-2012 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpRedDawn (Post 46062223)
I think they need to go back to pre-lockout interference and such if they want to reduce concussions. Nowadays, if you wrap them up at all, or slow them down just a tad too much, interference. Players just fly full speed into each other because that's all they're allowed to do.

That's all well and good to say, and maybe we can observe some of that happening, but we need some empirical evidence if we're going to change the game "to help player safety." Look at the Wild's injuries this year for a (non-statistically sound) sample:

Latendresse - Boarded in Calgary, not a "speed of the game" issue
Bouchard - Boarded in Winnipeg, definitely not a "SotG" issue
Scandella -
Clutterbuck -

I don't recall those other injuries vividly off the top of my head, so I'll leave them blank for the moment. Weren't there other concussions as well? Palmer? Another defenseman?

Going back to "pre-lockout interference and such" wouldn't have made a difference in either of those injuries. If these are the typical concussions, then a rule change like that isn't going to help.

Minnesota 03-14-2012 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squidz (Post 46063323)
I don't recall those other injuries vividly off the top of my head, so I'll leave them blank for the moment. Weren't there other concussions as well? Palmer? Another defenseman?

Spurgeon was boarded, which resulted in a "lower-body injury." Strange, because the hit looked similar to the PMB boarding to me.

squidz* 03-14-2012 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minnesota (Post 46064583)
Spurgeon was boarded, which resulted in a "lower-body injury." Strange, because the hit looked similar to the PMB boarding to me.

That's the d-man I was thinking of. Another example of a play that wasn't a "SotG" issue. Have any of the Wild injuries (not even just concussions, but just injuries) been something that could be pinned on guys flying around at high speed, smashing into people?

Minnesota 03-14-2012 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squidz (Post 46064843)
That's the d-man I was thinking of. Another example of a play that wasn't a "SotG" issue. Have any of the Wild injuries (not even just concussions, but just injuries) been something that could be pinned on guys flying around at high speed, smashing into people?

Maybe the Spurgeon hit. :dunno:

Even in real-time, it doesn't look that fast, but I'm sure everything is faster in the eyes of the players.


Avder 03-14-2012 03:33 PM

What the hell took the NHL so long with hybrid icing? They should have implemented that years ago.

I do not like the idea of a "ringette line" or whatever they wanna call it to take away the stretch pass. The stretch pass...when its actually a stretch pass and not an ultradump and tip in... is actually one of the most fun parts of the game.

But they are right about trying to find a way to kill that shoot from your own zone to someone on the far blueline and tip it in and chase it style of play. Maybe that "attainable passes" revision will help since I think there should be a lot more icing calls on tip ins that originated deep in the defensive zone.

OpRedDawn* 03-14-2012 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squidz (Post 46063323)
That's all well and good to say, and maybe we can observe some of that happening, but we need some empirical evidence if we're going to change the game "to help player safety." Look at the Wild's injuries this year for a (non-statistically sound) sample:

Latendresse - Boarded in Calgary, not a "speed of the game" issue
Bouchard - Boarded in Winnipeg, definitely not a "SotG" issue
Scandella -
Clutterbuck -

I don't recall those other injuries vividly off the top of my head, so I'll leave them blank for the moment. Weren't there other concussions as well? Palmer? Another defenseman?

Going back to "pre-lockout interference and such" wouldn't have made a difference in either of those injuries. If these are the typical concussions, then a rule change like that isn't going to help.

Well I don't work for the NHL and I'm not going to search through tons of injuries to find what im talking about. It's basically just common sense.

-Players moving faster through the neutral zone = more vicious hits there.
-More dump ins = more full speed plays into the boards
-Not allowing slight interference = higher speeds going into the boards

That said, I'm not really in favor of bringing back the red line or anything, and those other proposals sounded too confusing. I just wish they would get rid of the trapezoid and allow more interference mainly. That or get them football helmets lol

squidz* 03-14-2012 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpRedDawn (Post 46079503)
Well I don't work for the NHL and I'm not going to search through tons of injuries to find what im talking about. It's basically just common sense.

-Players moving faster through the neutral zone = more vicious hits there.
-More dump ins = more full speed plays into the boards
-Not allowing slight interference = higher speeds going into the boards

That said, I'm not really in favor of bringing back the red line or anything, and those other proposals sounded too confusing. I just wish they would get rid of the trapezoid and allow more interference mainly. That or get them football helmets lol

"Common sense" isn't very frequently accurate when it comes to these things. If the "speed of the game" caused concussions, we'd probably be drowning in a flood of evidence to support that. In reality, we have a couple talking heads saying how it's the cause, but no one has ever actually shown it to be true. In fact, there's no evidence that concussion incidence is up at all. The biggest thing we've seen is an improvement in awareness and reporting.

OpRedDawn* 03-14-2012 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squidz (Post 46080895)
"Common sense" isn't very frequently accurate when it comes to these things. If the "speed of the game" caused concussions, we'd probably be drowning in a flood of evidence to support that. In reality, we have a couple talking heads saying how it's the cause, but no one has ever actually shown it to be true. In fact, there's no evidence that concussion incidence is up at all. The biggest thing we've seen is an improvement in awareness and reporting.

Do you have the exact numbers of concussions / year? Do you know how long they've been recorded? Do you know how many were undiagnosed? Do you know how many were to star players? Does anybody? Do you have the exact stats to say X rule change caused Y? How do you weigh other contributing factors?

It's about them (and us) discussing ways to improve the game and player safety. Obviously it's a tough thing to have exact figures (especially with concussions). Just staying "no empirical evidence" doesn't dismiss the notion and valid points brought up on both sides.

Avder 03-14-2012 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpRedDawn (Post 46083177)
Do you have the exact numbers of concussions / year? Do you know how long they've been recorded? Do you know how many were undiagnosed? Do you know how many were to star players? Does anybody? Do you have the exact stats to say X rule change caused Y? How do you weigh other contributing factors?

It's about them (and us) discussing ways to improve the game and player safety. Obviously it's a tough thing to have exact figures (especially with concussions). Just staying "no empirical evidence" doesn't dismiss the notion and valid points brought up on both sides.

I think that one just falls under advances in health technology and diagnosis advancements. Concussions would not be the first disease to have gone undiagnosed for a long time, only to be uncovered by advances in modern medicine to be far more common than once believed. Concussions were probably just as common in the old days of the NH; in fact probably slightly more common what with players running around helmetless. But they went undiagnosed because of the medical technology at the time and the way players fought through things back then. They just didnt know any better.

llamapalooza 03-14-2012 09:07 PM

Yeah, bring back the red line, add the ringette line, sounds awesome! I've always said, "you know what hockey needs? New and more complicated ways to go offside."

OpRedDawn* 03-14-2012 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avder (Post 46085469)
I think that one just falls under advances in health technology and diagnosis advancements. Concussions would not be the first disease to have gone undiagnosed for a long time, only to be uncovered by advances in modern medicine to be far more common than once believed. Concussions were probably just as common in the old days of the NH; in fact probably slightly more common what with players running around helmetless. But they went undiagnosed because of the medical technology at the time and the way players fought through things back then. They just didnt know any better.

How were so many able to play through them when nowadays they get dizzy / nauseous / can barely get around?

Avder 03-14-2012 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpRedDawn (Post 46101381)
How were so many able to play through them when nowadays they get dizzy / nauseous / can barely get around?

I imagine there were lots of pain killers involved, plus they didnt have doctors practically screaming at them, making them scared of the damage.

squidz* 03-14-2012 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpRedDawn (Post 46083177)
Do you have the exact numbers of concussions / year? Do you know how long they've been recorded? Do you know how many were undiagnosed? Do you know how many were to star players? Does anybody? Do you have the exact stats to say X rule change caused Y? How do you weigh other contributing factors?

It's about them (and us) discussing ways to improve the game and player safety. Obviously it's a tough thing to have exact figures (especially with concussions). Just staying "no empirical evidence" doesn't dismiss the notion and valid points brought up on both sides.

No, and I don't have to have a single shred of evidence to be in the right either.

The league has claimed concussions are caused by the speed of the game, and therefore we must change the rules. The onus is upon them to prove that the speed of the game has some statistically significant impact upon concussion incidence. If they cannot do that, they cannot rightfully make changes to the game to "fix" things. They're the ones making the claim, and trying to take action. The fact that they've been unable to establish any link implies either they're not trying (and therefore no one should accept their claim) or that there is not link (and therefore no one should accept their claim).

Unless they are able to establish that link, they will be wrong to even so much as suggest changes.

Saying "the league has no empirical evidence" completely and utterly negates any and every statement they make about it. They've quite literally made up a boogeyman with absolutely no factual basis, and have been attacking it violently without any effort to establish whether it actually exists. This isn't an issue of player safety because there's absolutely no reason to even so much as suspect there could possibly be a remote link. This is like hearing your car make a squeaking noise, so without looking at anything, you replace the entire exhaust system. Does the exhaust have anything to do with the noise? Maybe, but since you never bothered to establish 1) that there is a problem or 2) what is causing the problem, you just went through a long, expensive process that quite likely did you absolutely no good.

sushinsky4tsar 03-15-2012 02:08 AM

So, 1980s early 1990s is when I considered the NHL to be an aesthetic masterpiece compared to the product of today's game. What caused the NHL to mess with the ice markings from that point in the game's history? Was that all about the trap?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.