HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Columbus Blue Jackets (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Proposed Rule Changes (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1381473)

pete goegan 03-21-2013 07:06 AM

Proposed Rule Changes
 
Here's a not from Portzline re: JK at the GM meeting:

"Blue Jackets GM Jarmo Kekalainen attended his first GM meetings today in Toronto. He served on "sub-committees" regarding hybrid icing, shootout reviews and line changes for faceoffs after icing. The GMs voted for mandatory visors, smaller equipment for goaltenders and hybrid icing, pushing them to the NHL's competition committee to vote on this June. Kekalainen told The Dispatch tonight that he voted favor of all three."


I, too, would support all three. How about you? I saw a figure that had approximately 75% of current player now wearing visors. I'm sure the visor issue would include a grandfather clause, allowing those currently playing without one to complete their career as they are. Can only see goalies complaining about the equipment issue! Seems to me that the hybrid icing is a good compromise - continue the race to the faceoff dot and allow the officials to judge the winner at that point, preventing the high-speed collisions with the boards at the end of the rink.

What do you think are the chances that any/all of them get past the Comp Comm and the NHLPA?

blahblah 03-21-2013 07:25 AM

Hybrid icing and mandatory visors seem fine to me. On the fence on goal tender gear.

pete goegan 03-21-2013 07:40 AM

Here's a link to a Puck Daddy article on the rules discussion:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...tml#more-53366

BluejacketNut 03-21-2013 07:51 AM

Mandatory visors only makes sense, too dangerous out there not too. While i'm fine with the no touch icing, not sure how the hybrid icing would help. The injuries that happen from icing happen from the race for the puck...I guess it would depend on how they determine when to automatically blow the whistle. If they wont blow the whistle on a close race, the injuries will still occur....I say either no touch, or touching icing

Skraut 03-21-2013 07:53 AM

Police wear bulletproof vests that fit under their uniforms. Surely they can find some sort of materials that can stop a rubber puck and don't make goaltenders look like the Michelin Man.

I think it would bring a lot of skill back to the position as goalies have to actually move their bodies or limbs in front of the puck, instead of just being big and in front of the net.

Matthew 03-21-2013 08:18 AM

How has the icing rule worked out so far in the AHL? I feel like I would support the idea, but don't like the idea of giving refs more responsibility when judgement calls like that.

1857 Howitzer 03-21-2013 08:31 AM

Hybrid icing and mandatory visors seem fine to me. On the fence on goal tender gear.

I have no problem with the smaller goalie gear. Hybrid icing I am on the fence. It would help to stop a few injuries and might even speed up the game a tad. But there are times that races for pucks are important plays and exciting plays during a game. I'm don't care ether way on the visors. IMO players should have a choice, but at some point they are going to be made mandatory it's just a matter of time.

Roadman 03-21-2013 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1857 Howitzer (Post 62091729)
Hybrid icing and mandatory visors seem fine to me. On the fence on goal tender gear.

I have no problem with the smaller goalie gear. Hybrid icing I am on the fence. It would help to stop a few injuries and might even speed up the game a tad. But there are times that races for pucks are important plays and exciting plays during a game. I'm don't care ether way on the visors. IMO players should have a choice, but at some point they are going to be made mandatory it's just a matter of time.

The insurance companies will make sure of that.

Iron Balls McGinty 03-21-2013 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skraut (Post 62090611)
Police wear bulletproof vests that fit under their uniforms. Surely they can find some sort of materials that can stop a rubber puck and don't make goaltenders look like the Michelin Man.

I think it would bring a lot of skill back to the position as goalies have to actually move their bodies or limbs in front of the puck, instead of just being big and in front of the net.

I'm not sure I would equate a bulletproof vest to actual padding. I'm not a cop but from what I've seen a bulletproof vest doesn't provide padding, it just prevents the bullet from going into you. I'm going to take a guess that a powerful slapshot into someone's chest wearing a kevlar vest could still break a rib pretty easily.

On the other end of the spectrum, how many times can they make goalie's pads smaller? They already restricted sizes a handful of years ago to the leg pads. Are they claiming they didn't make them small enough?

Jackets16 03-21-2013 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete goegan (Post 62089707)
Here's a not from Portzline re: JK at the GM meeting:

"Blue Jackets GM Jarmo Kekalainen attended his first GM meetings today in Toronto. He served on "sub-committees" regarding hybrid icing, shootout reviews and line changes for faceoffs after icing. The GMs voted for mandatory visors, smaller equipment for goaltenders and hybrid icing, pushing them to the NHL's competition committee to vote on this June. Kekalainen told The Dispatch tonight that he voted favor of all three."


I, too, would support all three. How about you? I saw a figure that had approximately 75% of current player now wearing visors. I'm sure the visor issue would include a grandfather clause, allowing those currently playing without one to complete their career as they are. Can only see goalies complaining about the equipment issue! Seems to me that the hybrid icing is a good compromise - continue the race to the faceoff dot and allow the officials to judge the winner at that point, preventing the high-speed collisions with the boards at the end of the rink.

What do you think are the chances that any/all of them get past the Comp Comm and the NHLPA?

I like all 3. However, I would like to see them make the nets a little bigger and just go to no touch icing.

WubbaLubbaDubDub 03-21-2013 10:39 AM

As a goalie I'm not okay with making gear smaller, they already changed the rules for more offense, I hate games with huge numbers a 2-1 game is always more interesting. Also smaller gear means more injuries. You can't really shrink the chest pad, or leg pads any more so what now, the gloves?

I'm all for the visors and icing though.

SuperGenius 03-21-2013 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slightlystewpid420 (Post 62096343)
As a goalie I'm not okay with making gear smaller, they already changed the rules for more offense, I hate games with huge numbers a 2-1 game is always more interesting. Also smaller gear means more injuries. You can't really shrink the chest pad, or leg pads any more so what now, the gloves?

I'm all for the visors and icing though.

as a fan, i like tight 2-1 games too, but they're more fun if they're due to the ability of the goalie than the fact their pads cover so much area.

IMO, the padding is completely out of hand. If they're worried about safety, go back to wooden sticks..maybe then we'll also see less fumbled pucks and better passing plays.

WubbaLubbaDubDub 03-21-2013 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperGenius (Post 62097527)
as a fan, i like tight 2-1 games too, but they're more fun if they're due to the ability of the goalie than the fact their pads cover so much area.

IMO, the padding is completely out of hand. If they're worried about safety, go back to wooden sticks..maybe then we'll also see less fumbled pucks and better passing plays.

Have you ever put on goalie gear? You really can't shrink the chest protector any more without sacrificing the safety of the goalies. Leg pads are already pretty skinny after the last pad shrinkage. Maybe the gloves could shrink and the cheaters taken off pants but not much else. For anyone else wanting smaller pads I suggest you go get some goalie gear and have some above average players shoot on you and tell me you want smaller pads.

Also you'll never see wooden sticks again, sponsors make entirely too much money on composites to go back.

1857 Howitzer 03-21-2013 12:23 PM

I think the height of the leg pads is the main thing they are wanting to reduce.

WubbaLubbaDubDub 03-21-2013 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1857 Howitzer (Post 62101175)
I think the height of the leg pads is the main thing they are wanting to reduce.

Eh I wear 34+2's and I still catch pucks in the thighs from time to time.

Mayor Bee 03-21-2013 12:46 PM

I'd love to see restrictions on shot blocking. The six-goalie system that some teams (let's call them "the Rangers") use is pathetically boring. Good strategy, poor entertainment.

SuperGenius 03-21-2013 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slightlystewpid420 (Post 62100787)
Have you ever put on goalie gear? You really can't shrink the chest protector any more without sacrificing the safety of the goalies. Leg pads are already pretty skinny after the last pad shrinkage. Maybe the gloves could shrink and the cheaters taken off pants but not much else. For anyone else wanting smaller pads I suggest you go get some goalie gear and have some above average players shoot on you and tell me you want smaller pads.

Also you'll never see wooden sticks again, sponsors make entirely too much money on composites to go back.

No reason they couldn't figure out a way to make money on composites with more wooden qualities. It's not rocket science. They don't because they don't have to. Require it and they'll figure it out.

I would imagine that anyone that concerned with being 100% safe at all times wouldn't step on the ice and let people shoot 100mph pucks at them for a living. If you want safe, work from home selling magazines.

I don't really care what goalies want or don't want. This is about the game, and clearly, IMO, the pads have gotten out of hand. it's almost comical to compare pads of various eras. I get it, pucks are shot harder, bigger players, etc, but there needs to be a way to bring the bottom of the net back into play more often. IMO, players do not need pads up to their waist to play goal safely or well. If you can't reduce pads without making other changes (sticks, pucks, ice size), fine, make those as well. I would like to see more athleticism-related saves than equipment-related saves.

Columbus Mike 03-21-2013 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 62102211)
I'd love to see restrictions on shot blocking. The six-goalie system that some teams (let's call them "the Rangers") use is pathetically boring. Good strategy, poor entertainment.

How? I don't disagree that it can lead to boring hockey, but I don't see how you can enforce something like this. A 2 minute penalty for sliding to block a shot? That seems harsh.

WubbaLubbaDubDub 03-21-2013 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperGenius (Post 62102507)
No reason they couldn't figure out a way to make money on composites with more wooden qualities. It's not rocket science. They don't because they don't have to. Require it and they'll figure it out.

I would imagine that anyone that concerned with being 100% safe at all times wouldn't step on the ice and let people shoot 100mph pucks at them for a living. If you want safe, work from home selling magazines.

I don't really care what goalies want or don't want. This is about the game, and clearly, IMO, the pads have gotten out of hand. it's almost comical to compare pads of various eras. I get it, pucks are shot harder, bigger players, etc, but there needs to be a way to bring the bottom of the net back into play more often. IMO, players do not need pads up to their waist to play goal safely or well. If you can't reduce pads without making other changes (sticks, pucks, ice size), fine, make those as well. I would like to see more athleticism-related saves than equipment-related saves.

I'm fine with shrinking height but not width because you can buy knee and thigh protectors. Other than that you can't shrink anything else. I get that they are paid to go out there, but that doesn't make it fair to keep changing pad regulations every 5 years just because it's not "exciting" enough.

Jackets16 03-21-2013 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperGenius (Post 62102507)
No reason they couldn't figure out a way to make money on composites with more wooden qualities. It's not rocket science. They don't because they don't have to. Require it and they'll figure it out.

I would imagine that anyone that concerned with being 100% safe at all times wouldn't step on the ice and let people shoot 100mph pucks at them for a living. If you want safe, work from home selling magazines.

I don't really care what goalies want or don't want. This is about the game, and clearly, IMO, the pads have gotten out of hand. it's almost comical to compare pads of various eras. I get it, pucks are shot harder, bigger players, etc, but there needs to be a way to bring the bottom of the net back into play more often. IMO, players do not need pads up to their waist to play goal safely or well. If you can't reduce pads without making other changes (sticks, pucks, ice size), fine, make those as well. I would like to see more athleticism-related saves than equipment-related saves.

Why not just make the net bigger then? That is what I would do.

Double-Shift Lasse 03-21-2013 01:42 PM

Don't make the nets bigger or the pads smaller. Make the goalies themselves smaller!


1857 Howitzer 03-21-2013 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Columbus Mike (Post 62103475)
How? I don't disagree that it can lead to boring hockey, but I don't see how you can enforce something like this. A 2 minute penalty for sliding to block a shot? That seems harsh.

Not saying I agree with outlawing shot blocking, but you could just blow the play dead and move the face off out of the zone or into the other zone. No need to make it a penalty.

Skraut 03-21-2013 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slightlystewpid420 (Post 62100787)
You really can't shrink the chest protector any more without sacrificing the safety of the goalies.

You can easily shave 2" off the top of every chest protector. It's one thing to have linebacker style shoulder pads, but then the chest protector has additional padding on top of the shoulders that provides necessary protection to what exactly? The only answer is the top of the net.

How many shots does a goaltender face each night from the rafters so that 4" of padding is necessary on the top of each shoulder?

The one other rule I'd love to see changed is to prevent hard plastic caps on the pads of skaters. I'm fine with it on goalies if it helps provide the protection needed in a smaller frame, but lets get the elbow battering rams out of the game. Dense foam hurts enough as it is without adding something hard to the end.

Tonysil 03-21-2013 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew (Post 62091315)
How has the icing rule worked out so far in the AHL? I feel like I would support the idea, but don't like the idea of giving refs more responsibility when judgement calls like that.

I didn't have a problem with the hybrid icing while they used it here but the only way it would prevent injuries is if the defensive player was a good 6 feet ahead of the offensive player, any closer than that and it's a drag race. Cody Bass has missed 46 games this year from a wrist injury that stemmed from an icing early in the season.

Mayor Bee 03-21-2013 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Columbus Mike (Post 62103475)
How? I don't disagree that it can lead to boring hockey, but I don't see how you can enforce something like this. A 2 minute penalty for sliding to block a shot? That seems harsh.

The way that college coaches have pitched it, it would be for a skater leaving his feet to block a shot. The standing block and a sliding block (on a 2-on-1, taking away the pass) would remain, but skaters basically acting like mobile butterfly goalies would be outlawed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1857 Howitzer (Post 62104967)
Not saying I agree with outlawing shot blocking, but you could just blow the play dead and move the face off out of the zone or into the other zone. No need to make it a penalty.

From my perspective, the improvements in equipment over the years have taken away the "sacrifice" and "heart" involved in blocking shots. It's become the lowest common denominator; 99% of players do it well, which is a pretty good indicator that it's less of a skill than it used to be.

To me, it would be like legalizing pass interference in football. If there's a defensive player who can't contain a receiver, just pull him down...it's basically a talentless play that suffocates the offense without repercussion.

Blowing the play dead and having a faceoff would actually serve as an incentive to engage in the most boring play in hockey.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.