HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   National Hockey League Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   Remove Offsides (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=19508)

Markov79 10-13-2003 09:13 AM

Remove Offsides
 
I've been thinking about this for awhile (ok like ten minutes). Why not remove the offsides rule? 90% of the time it is called it is for someone being 3 inches across the line on the rush, or a defenceman being a tenth of a second too late in catching a pass. Why should there be a stoppage in play and a waste of offensive oppurtunities over a few inches.

The only counter argument I've faced so far is that people will start cherry picking. I have two counter arguments to this.

1. Under the current rules a player can hang around at centre ice and wait for a pass. It might not be waiting infront of the net but it results in the same thing, an unobstructed chance at scoring. If it isn't being done now then why would it be done without the offsides rule?

2. If someone does cherry pick, this would leave the other team with two options. Either play 5-4 in the offensive zone, or play 4-4 while leaving a d-man back. Eitherway it opens the game up to more offence.

What do you think?

Freudian 10-13-2003 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markov79
I've been thinking about this for awhile (ok like ten minutes). Why not remove the offsides rule? 90% of the time it is called it is for someone being 3 inches across the line on the rush, or a defenceman being a tenth of a second too late in catching a pass. Why should there be a stoppage in play and a waste of offensive oppurtunities over a few inches.

The only counter argument I've faced so far is that people will start cherry picking. I have two counter arguments to this.

1. Under the current rules a player can hang around at centre ice and wait for a pass. It might not be waiting infront of the net but it results in the same thing, an unobstructed chance at scoring. If it isn't being done now then why would it be done without the offsides rule?

2. If someone does cherry pick, this would leave the other team with two options. Either play 5-4 in the offensive zone, or play 4-4 while leaving a d-man back. Eitherway it opens the game up to more offence.

What do you think?

With no offside the game would be very boring. There would be one way to play it, just throw long pucks to 1-2 players camping out in the offensive zone.

I would like to see red line offside go though. Here in Sweden is has opened up the game and made trapping a bit less effective and there are slightly more breakaways. No huge difference but slightly more open.

Guest 10-13-2003 11:11 AM

Or they could just start calling the rules as they should be. That way the star players could play, and wouldn't be dragged down and injured as often.

andora 10-13-2003 11:12 AM

bring back tag up.. taking off sides out completely is just numb

JDB3939 10-13-2003 11:50 AM

Without offsides, hockey becomes a cramped up version of soccer on ice. Instead of having a 2 defenseman, you'll have a sweeper and stopper with a 2 midfielders and a striker.

Why not get rid of the 2 line pass rule instead?

Hold the Pickles 10-13-2003 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andora's box
bring back tag up.. taking off sides out completely is just numb

I couldn't agree more. and anyway whats more boreing then watching a team dinkle around in their own zone to waste time just cause someone was off-sides 10 seconds ago. I've heard arguements suggesting that the tag rule promotes dumping and uncreative play, but personally I appreciate a spirited forecheck enough that for me it counters those points.

Jericho 10-13-2003 06:52 PM

I have no problem with hockey's offside rule. I do have a problem with soccer, where it encourages players to draw people offsides by simply running forward an not playing D.

I would fully endore getting rid of the two-line pass rule, as I see no reason to keep it. It certainly couldn't hurt the offense

SmokeyClause 10-13-2003 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
Or they could just start calling the rules as they should be. That way the star players could play, and wouldn't be dragged down and injured as often.

Fat chance of it actually happening (something more than just cursory lipservice) but if it was truly implemented, scoring chances would go up dramatically. And, as such, so would scoring.

BCCHL inactive 10-13-2003 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
Or they could just start calling the rules as they should be. That way the star players could play, and wouldn't be dragged down and injured as often.

What does this have to do with the offside rule?

Histrion 10-13-2003 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van
What does this have to do with the offside rule?

It has to do with the reason for which the guy first wanted to change the offside rule: the lack of production. By having the star players in the game, you can help the offensive production throughout the league.


BTW, I'm all for taking out the two-line offside pass.

Bring_Bak_Damphousse 10-13-2003 08:24 PM

I`d be happy to see them get rid of the 2 line pass rule aswell. But since like you say all the offsides are because of a matter of inches couldn`t they widen the blue lines slightly maybe half a foot??? This way it gives the players another 6 inches to work with. :dunno:

SmokeyClause 10-13-2003 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van
What does this have to do with the offside rule?

As was pointed out, he was challenging the solution, which was the removal of offsides. He just posed his solution to the issue at hand: lack of offensive production.

c-carp 10-13-2003 09:57 PM

In short no, quit making major changes to the game leave it alone. just my two cents.

oildrop 10-13-2003 11:36 PM

I don't agree with taking out the Offside Rule but I do agree that they NEED to bring back Tag-up Offside. Delayed offsides are ridiculous and it slows down the game waaaaaaaaaay too much.

Malefic74 10-14-2003 09:55 AM

Tag-up offsides don't really speed up the game on the ice in terms of increased offense, it usually just means fewer faceoffs. Two-line off side I really don't have a problem with actually, but it certainly does speed the game up a bit if the Canadian University games I've been watching are any indication.

I have long believed that if the icing rule was modified so that icing would only be called if the puck left the players stick before his own BLUE line, it would open up the neutral zone considerably.

Example: How many times a game do you see a defenceman cross his own blueline, try to pass to a forward on the other side of the red line, the forward misses the pass? The result: Icing. Stop the game go all the way back and start all over again.

Move icing back to the defensive blueline and you will start to see those kinds of passes again that really stretch the neutral zone out. And of course fewer face-offs. Even if the forward misses the pass the worst that could happen is a dump in with at least two guys already going hard into the zone.

MotownMadman 10-14-2003 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malefic74
Tag-up offsides don't really speed up the game on the ice in terms of increased offense, it usually just means fewer faceoffs. Two-line off side I really don't have a problem with actually, but it certainly does speed the game up a bit if the Canadian University games I've been watching are any indication.

I have long believed that if the icing rule was modified so that icing would only be called if the puck left the players stick before his own BLUE line, it would open up the neutral zone considerably.

Example: How many times a game do you see a defenceman cross his own blueline, try to pass to a forward on the other side of the red line, the forward misses the pass? The result: Icing. Stop the game go all the way back and start all over again.

Move icing back to the defensive blueline and you will start to see those kinds of passes again that really stretch the neutral zone out. And of course fewer face-offs. Even if the forward misses the pass the worst that could happen is a dump in with at least two guys already going hard into the zone.

I like that idea. I'll also throw in my support for the tag up rule. I don't think that tagging up would change the game dramatically, but it did seem to keep the action going a little more and allowed teams a little more chance to create some offense.

Yayo 10-14-2003 02:46 PM

Excuse my ignorance, but what is tag-up offside??

Hockeycrazed07 10-14-2003 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Get rid of a few teams. Florida, Nashville, Anaheim and Phoenix could all go. This will bunch some talent on every team.

Jason~
I don't mean to nitpick, but if a team is dissolved, it'll be New Jersey first and foremost, Cups notwithstanding. They can't even sell out a playoff game, sadly. Anaheim was rocking during the Finals.

It might be nice and happy to shove all Sun Belt teams under the rug, but the fact of the matter is that they show up for winning teams (obviously, those you listed aren't exactly winners, but...), which is something that New Jersey (among others) can't claim.

Furthermore, with those teams having already paid an entrance fee (and salaries, and in some cases, new arenas, etc.) to get into the league, who will repay them for the forced closure of the teams and any other losses (which will be major in term) incurred?

It's an easy thing to just say you'll dissolve a team or two (or more, in this case), but in reality, it's far, far more complicated than it would seem.

~Crazed.

SmokeyClause 10-14-2003 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Get rid of a few teams. Florida, Nashville, Anaheim and Phoenix could all go. This will bunch some talent on every team.

Might as well get rid of New Jersey too. I mean, if they weren't a good team, why would they exist? They aren't a non-traditional market so they won't be expanding the sport. They don't have a good fanbase or really anything of note, other than a great GM. Why not put them on the chopping block before you eliminate teams that will grow the sport into necessary markets (read: the south). In fact, let's just do what should have been done years ago and move Lamariello to Nashville along with Elias, Madden and Neidermeyer (would take Broduer but he makes too much compared to Vokoun). That would be better for hockey. It eliminates a needless team, helps produce a winner in a non-traditional market which will help the sport grow in Nashville. After years of successful hockey, Nashville will eventually become a hockey town and New Jersey will be an afterthought.

:D

VirginiaMtlExpat 10-14-2003 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jericho
I have no problem with hockey's offside rule. I do have a problem with soccer, where it encourages players to draw people offsides by simply running forward an not playing D.

I would fully endore getting rid of the two-line pass rule, as I see no reason to keep it. It certainly couldn't hurt the offense

I'm with Jericho. I find that kind of defending ridiculous, particularly when botched offside calls cost legitimate goals, and it's an example of how a rule has denatured a game. Make defenders defend. If they're too slow to keep up with skilled forwards, then put some faster and more skilled players on defense.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with forcing a team on the defensive to defend the whole ice surface at once. So yes, given how the game is played now, I would do away with offsides, as the trap has denatured the flowing game that I remember as a kid. Furthermore, I would give 3 points for a win, and 1 point for a tie, as a disincentive to trapping.

lux_interior 10-14-2003 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man
Excuse my ignorance, but what is tag-up offside??

Tag-up offsides means that if the puck leaves the offensive zone, the puck can be dumped back into the zone (while attacking players are inside the zone), provided all of the attacking players exit the offensive zone (or "tag up") before any of them re-enter the zone, or touch the puck inside the zone. Hope that makes sense.

The way the rule is now, the puck cannot be dumped back into the zone until all of the players have "tagged up" or in other words exited the zone.

triggrman 10-15-2003 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
NJ had one of the better attendance records up untill last year when Bursn came in. They are now a storied franchise and you can't move those types of teams. Hockey shouldn't be in Florida, Phoenix or parts of California. If they ever did get a salary cap on the league then cities like Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hamilton should have teams. I know that won't happen due to the bussiness side of hockey but thats the way it should be.

I agree, lets get rid of them, I mean it's not even cold enough there for snow and you know how many outdoor games the NHL plays. Or let's get rid of them because their attendance isn't like it should be, you know like the Islanders, the Penguins, the Sabres, the Bruins, the Blackhawks or the Devils. Really look at the Predators the Bruins averaged a whopping 1700 more fans a night, and we all know why, it's because the Bruins have a rich tradition in hockey, it had nothing to do with Nashville having a disappointing season.

Robert Paulson* 10-15-2003 06:32 PM

I would like to see the 2 line pass gone, it would make defenders drop back more, thus opening more room in the neutral zone, thus making less clutching and hooking, thus making the game more exciting, thus.. ah let's end it there. :)

SmokeyClause 10-15-2003 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Want a tissue.... Hockey was born in Canada and it should be here, all those franchises I named before don't support the game and hockey will never expand into their minds. I don't like the thought of expanding into the south. I would rather a franchise in Moscow then in Nashville. If you people living in the south have a problem with what I am saying.....wait I dont care.

You're a class act, Jason :handclap:

When you can't adequately support your argument with anything other than rash generalizations and absurd conclusions, flame and run...flame and run.

You bring pride to all hockey fans. Why don't you keep your thoughts, however ignorant, to yourself next time. Because, guess what? We don't care either ;)

Hockeycrazed07 10-15-2003 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Want a tissue.... Hockey was born in Canada and it should be here, all those franchises I named before don't support the game and hockey will never expand into their minds. I don't like the thought of expanding into the south. I would rather a franchise in Moscow then in Nashville. If you people living in the south have a problem with what I am saying.....wait I dont care.

In that case, Colorado will give Quebec their team back, and NJ can give the Devils back to Colorado, and then everyone will be happy, eh?

Calgary should move back to Atlanta, by that thesis, as well, since that's where the Flames were born. Good idea!

For that matter, let's just bar all teams from moving, and move those that have moved back to their origional homes. That means the Stars would be back in Oakland, creating a heck of a rivalry in the Bay Area, thus drawing even more fans!

I'm all for it. Can we change the names of teams back to what they were, originally, too?

~Crazed.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.