HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Buffalo Sabres (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   TSN: NHL testing rule changes next week (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=967741)

jBuds 08-12-2011 03:27 PM

NHL testing rule changes next week
 
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=373620

Some of the proposed changes are kind of cool:

- 4 minute 4on4 OT, then 3on3...no more shootout. I hate the shootout, and would love 4 on 4...but 3 on 3 is bordering on "it's not hockey anymore" just like with the shootout.

- hybrid icing, where the linesmen judge based on the faceoff dots and who gets there first, not to the puck... I like this concept - but will "judgement calls" be a bad thing for the game?

- removing goalie trapezoid... doesn't do anything for us, because our goalie is not a puck handler...but does bring back a skill to the game that, for those fortunate enough to possess, is a real asset and a big-time alleviation on defensemen who get the **** kicked out of them going into the corners for every puck

Other ones suck, like:

- No icing the puck shorthanded.... might as well hand teams a goal instead of a PP opportunity...and might as well hand shot blockers like Volchenkov 8.5M$/yr deals. Is this a joke? Penalty Killing is a facet of the game, and a good penalty killer can clear the puck. How does this even remotely come close to bettering the game?

- No line changes for teams who go offsides. Why? Deliberate offsides is such a rarity, and when it does occur, it gets sent to the other zone more often than not.

__________

Would love to see the trapezoid removed, the shootout removed, and a tweak to the icing rules... don't like the "no-icing SH" nonsense.

sabresfan3383 08-12-2011 03:30 PM

One key change I want to see:
3 pts regulation win
2 pts ot win
1 pt so win

NO MORE LOSER PTS!

jfb392 08-12-2011 03:35 PM

My proposed change: sell tickets to the event, because I'd pay to see the prospects.

ChibiPooky 08-12-2011 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 35879927)
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=373620

Some of the proposed changes are kind of cool:

- 4 minute 4on4 OT, then 3on3...no more shootout. I hate the shootout, and would love 4 on 4...but 3 on 3 is bordering on "it's not hockey anymore" just like with the shootout.

- hybrid icing, where the linesmen judge based on the faceoff dots and who gets there first, not to the puck... I like this concept - but will "judgement calls" be a bad thing for the game?

- removing goalie trapezoid... doesn't do anything for us, because our goalie is not a puck handler...but does bring back a skill to the game that, for those fortunate enough to possess, is a real asset and a big-time alleviation on defensemen who get the **** kicked out of them going into the corners for every puck

Other ones suck, like:

- No icing the puck shorthanded.... might as well hand teams a goal instead of a PP opportunity...and might as well hand shot blockers like Volchenkov 8.5M$/yr deals. Is this a joke? Penalty Killing is a facet of the game, and a good penalty killer can clear the puck. How does this even remotely come close to bettering the game?

- No line changes for teams who go offsides. Why? Deliberate offsides is such a rarity, and when it does occur, it gets sent to the other zone more often than not.

__________

Would love to see the trapezoid removed, the shootout removed, and a tweak to the icing rules... don't like the "no-icing SH" nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabresfan3383 (Post 35880009)
One key change I want to see:
3 pts regulation win
2 pts ot win
1 pt so win

NO MORE LOSER PTS!

3v3 is about as few players as you can put on the ice as far as I'm concerned. Remember that it could conceivably happen during the normal course of play, so it's not quite as much of a stretch as it seems.

I'm not a big fan of the hybrid icing idea. A player doesn't even have to be going for the puck, as long as he crosses the "line" first?

Goalie trapezoid, sure, get rid of it. Makes puck-handling goalies more valuable, which opens up more options for teams.

What would the rule be for the shorthanded icing? Icing can be called on clears even shorthanded? I can see that having a negative impact, especially in the second period with the long change. Teams would be forced to soft clear shorthanded, and in the second that is a tight window. IMHO this is to increase goal scoring.

No line change for teams committing offsides - meh. It's not like football where one team can really draw the other team offside to get that reward. This doesn't really do anything imo except for intentional offside where the faceoff comes all the way down. Then it can really, really hurt as it basically turns into an icing.

3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for a win after regulation, 1 point for a tie would be my preferred scenario.

SackTastic 08-12-2011 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 35879927)
- hybrid icing, where the linesmen judge based on the faceoff dots and who gets there first, not to the puck... I like this concept - but will "judgement calls" be a bad thing for the game?

- No icing the puck shorthanded.... might as well hand teams a goal instead of a PP opportunity...and might as well hand shot blockers like Volchenkov 8.5M$/yr deals. Is this a joke? Penalty Killing is a facet of the game, and a good penalty killer can clear the puck. How does this even remotely come close to bettering the game?

- The game is full of judgement calls already. In fact, there are WAY too many. They should just go full no-touch icing and be done with it.

- It's a great idea to improve offense. Makes defending on a power play significantly more difficult.

jBuds 08-12-2011 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beechsack (Post 35880381)
- The game is full of judgement calls already. In fact, there are WAY too many. They should just go full no-touch icing and be done with it.

- It's a great idea to improve offense. Makes defending on a power play significantly more difficult.

It eliminates the art of penalty killing. It's dumb. That reeks of change "for change's sake". Stop trying to force goals - the game is fine, and you won't win any new fans by eliminating the ability to ice the puck when you're down a man.

What happens on a 5-on-3? Come on.

THamps 08-12-2011 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChibiPooky (Post 35880251)
3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for a win after regulation, 1 point for a tie would be my preferred scenario.

I've always liked the idea of 3 points total always being awarded per game:

Win in regulation: 3pts
Loss in regulation: 0pts
Win after regulation: 2pts
Loss after regulation: 1pt

I haven't formed an opinion on how I think a winner should be decided after regulation... I don't like ties though.

jflory81 08-12-2011 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THamps (Post 35880815)
I've always liked the idea of 3 points total always being awarded per game:

Win in regulation: 3pts
Loss in regulation: 0pts
Win after regulation: 2pts
Loss after regulation: 1pt

I haven't formed an opinion on how I think a winner should be decided after regulation... I don't like ties though.

I'd rather have overtime wins count as regulation wins and shootout wins/losses the only situation that results in a split of points, but to the other point, I totally agree. I will vehemently dislike any system where different amounts of total points are given out per game.

I don't dislike ties, though. I wouldn't mind going back to the old 2-1-0 system.


The icing rule was instituted in the NCAA last year (used to be automatic icing there) and I really don't like it. It made for some very difficult calls as players are bearing down on the puck on different angles and I just don't think the risks involved with "touch-icing" are that significant that the NHL has to do away with it.

To the no icing while shorthanded rule. No. **** no. Special teams is already a significant portion of the game, with good power plays well over 20%. We don't need to give them that big of an advantage (especially when combined with the no change after an icing rule).

VaporTrail 08-12-2011 04:43 PM

wow I don't think I like the no clear icing on penalty kills....How the hell are they ever gonna get off the ice when the bench is the far bench ? They might not be able to....

3-3 I agree that's bordering on non-hockey

CarlWinslow 08-12-2011 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 35879927)
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=373620

Some of the proposed changes are kind of cool:

- 4 minute 4on4 OT, then 3on3...no more shootout. I hate the shootout, and would love 4 on 4...but 3 on 3 is bordering on "it's not hockey anymore" just like with the shootout.

HATE HATE HATE this. I don't understand why this league would consider removing the shootout when casual fans find it so entertaining. It's good for business and this is coming from me; a guy who loves O6 era hockey.

Quote:

- hybrid icing, where the linesmen judge based on the faceoff dots and who gets there first, not to the puck... I like this concept - but will "judgement calls" be a bad thing for the game?
No thanks. You are spot on with the judgement calls being bad for the game thing.

Quote:

- removing goalie trapezoid... doesn't do anything for us, because our goalie is not a puck handler...but does bring back a skill to the game that, for those fortunate enough to possess, is a real asset and a big-time alleviation on defensemen who get the **** kicked out of them going into the corners for every puck
Again, I hate this one too. These rule changes are steps toward pre-lockout, post early 90s hockey, which was putrid.

Quote:

Other ones suck, like:

- No icing the puck shorthanded.... might as well hand teams a goal instead of a PP opportunity...and might as well hand shot blockers like Volchenkov 8.5M$/yr deals. Is this a joke? Penalty Killing is a facet of the game, and a good penalty killer can clear the puck. How does this even remotely come close to bettering the game?
Yep. Dumb rule.

Quote:

- No line changes for teams who go offsides. Why? Deliberate offsides is such a rarity, and when it does occur, it gets sent to the other zone more often than not.
Yep. Completely unnecessary.

AdamsApple 08-12-2011 07:25 PM

No icing shorthanded is stupid. If the goal is to increase scoring, find a way to do that even strength. If you make penalty calls that much more important, I'm going to have a heart attack at some point because the referees in this league suck on a nightly basis. Puts too much importance on the way the game is called.

French Connection 08-12-2011 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlWinslow (Post 35882065)
HATE HATE HATE this. I don't understand why this league would consider removing the shootout when casual fans find it so entertaining. It's good for business and this is coming from me; a guy who loves O6 era hockey.



No thanks. You are spot on with the judgement calls being bad for the game thing.



Again, I hate this one too. These rule changes are steps toward pre-lockout, post early 90s hockey, which was putrid.



Yep. Dumb rule.



Yep. Completely unnecessary.



All bad ideas except the so call trapezoid removal. To many D getting killed retrieving pucks.

The goalie is a player also, so who ever thought about restricting his puck handling should be sent to deep Siberia.

gaf 08-12-2011 08:08 PM

Like the OT going to 3-3.. would it be 5 minutes of 4-4 and 5 min of 3-3?
Agree w/ soccer scoring. If its not a win then each team is awarded a point. 3 points for a reg/ot win.

Like the concepts to help scoring, but these ideas don't seem to work. The one I've floated out there is allow a team 3 (?) icings a period, after that its a 2 min delay of game penalty after that.. or some **** like that..

Afino 08-12-2011 09:43 PM

You know what I'd rather see?

I'm not sure if they did this before, but how about a long change in the 1st and 3rd periods instead of the 2nd? There's something subtle for you that may pay off.

CriminallyVu1gar 08-12-2011 09:59 PM

Some changes I'd like to see that I think the NHL is sorely in need of:
Start calling interference again, especially on players setting picks. This happens all the time.

Start calling penalties on all the crosschecking and spearing that goes on in front of the net. Tired of seeing Vanek get killed.

TyMy57 08-12-2011 10:57 PM

Only one i like is the removal of the trapezoid. that was never a good idea. Goalies should be able to take the risk and go into the corner to play the puck.

jflory81 08-12-2011 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigZackKassian
You know what I'd rather see?

I'm not sure if they did this before, but how about a long change in the 1st and 3rd periods instead of the 2nd? There's something subtle for you that may pay off.

I'd definitely be interested to see the scoring statistics in the NHL in the 1st and 2nd periods (discounting the 3rd because of the ENG effect) over the last few years, to see if that would actually affect things..

LGB24 08-13-2011 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigZackKassian (Post 35888189)
You know what I'd rather see?

I'm not sure if they did this before, but how about a long change in the 1st and 3rd periods instead of the 2nd? There's something subtle for you that may pay off.

I dont think the league has a say in this. I dont think they can make a rule saying you must sit on this bench, im pretty sure the teams would just much rather sit on the closer bench. It prevents offsides, and its closer to the goalie to get the extra attacker out there for the 3rd period and on delayed calls. Also if you make a bad line change as the far bench youre absolutely screwed.

Quote:

Only one i like is the removal of the trapezoid. that was never a good idea. Goalies should be able to take the risk and go into the corner to play the puck.
Bang on. This is the only rule that should be changed. The trapezoid is completely unnecessary. the other rule changes dont make any sense. No icing on the PK, are you kidding me? Thats no minor tweak, that would completely change the game. offsides no change isnt a huge deal because you arent pinned in your own end, but theres really no point in making it a rule

Mike McDermott 08-13-2011 05:34 AM

I pretty much agree with everything JB said in his OP about the proposed rules.

In terms of points some people have started bringing up (which we all know won't change any time soon... they are going to keep giving out bonus points)

My preferecnes in order would be:

1) A win is a win and a loss is a loss... no points at all or if you must have points a win is 2 points a loss is 0 points. Keep some way to have a winner every time (preferably not the SO)
2) If they must keep givng loser points go to... 3 points for regulation/OT win. 2 points for SO win, 1 point for SO loss. The only way a loser point is given out is in a SO loss.
3) Go back to the old way.

joshjull 08-13-2011 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyMy57 (Post 35889597)
Only one i like is the removal of the trapezoid. that was never a good idea. Goalies should be able to take the risk and go into the corner to play the puck.

That rule was put into play to help teams establish a forecheck. It wasn't done to stop the small handful of goalies that can handle the puck well.

In the past many goalies (regardless of the puck handling ability) would kill a forecheck by going into the corners after a dump in and holding the puck for their dmen. Since goalies can't be touched it made it very difficult to retrieve the puck for the forechecking team. The goalie would basically shield the puck and/or their dman.


That rule forces the dmen to get the puck themselves without the help of the goalie shielding the puck or dman from a forechecker. The downside of course has been dmen getting killed by foecheckers.

ZemgusWho 08-13-2011 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 35879927)
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=373620



- No icing the puck shorthanded.... might as well hand teams a goal instead of a PP opportunity...and might as well hand shot blockers like Volchenkov 8.5M$/yr deals. Is this a joke? Penalty Killing is a facet of the game, and a good penalty killer can clear the puck. How does this even remotely come close to bettering the game?


I love this rule change. The best penalty kills- the ones that get the most applause from the crowd, and the ones that absolutely frustrate the opponent are the ones where the defense plays keep-away. I think a change in PK strategy would a) increase scoring on the PP and b) increase the value of real defense on the PK. No longer can a guy just whale on the puck and be considered an effective penalty killer.

This rule would emphasize more skill and quick decision making- the kind of things that make hockey enjoyable to watch.

Anyway, I'd love to kill the trapezoid. Anything that gets the goalie out of the net and into the action I think is good. It changes defensive strategies- and offensive strategies too.

The risk of course is that it might make the neutral zone trap more effective, and dump ins less-effective. But we'll see. I hate the gimmicky overtime things. I might still be in a minority among NHL fans, but ties don't bother me one bit.

Zip15 08-13-2011 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 35879927)
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=373620

Some of the proposed changes are kind of cool:

- 4 minute 4on4 OT, then 3on3...no more shootout. I hate the shootout, and would love 4 on 4...but 3 on 3 is bordering on "it's not hockey anymore" just like with the shootout.

Just to be clear, it'd be four minutes of 4-on-4, three minutes of 3-on-3, followed by the shootout, which may go to a best-of-five format.

I like this idea. 3-on-3 is an exciting brand of hockey. I caught a couple games last year where teams took coinciding minors in OT, and the play was thrilling. This would enhance excitement, and I think we'd see resolution to many games that would've otherwise ended in a skills competition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 35879927)

- hybrid icing, where the linesmen judge based on the faceoff dots and who gets there first, not to the puck... I like this concept - but will "judgement calls" be a bad thing for the game?

Hate it. My mind's eye sees players diving towards opposite faceoff dots, as if it's half-race, half-lacrosse game (where the players race towards the end line after a missed shot). If you want to avoid the rare devastating collisions that result from icing races, just go to no-touch icing and be done with it. Besides, I think the minor penalty has helped to reduce the icing trainwrecks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 35879927)

- removing goalie trapezoid... doesn't do anything for us, because our goalie is not a puck handler...but does bring back a skill to the game that, for those fortunate enough to possess, is a real asset and a big-time alleviation on defensemen who get the **** kicked out of them going into the corners for every puck

Ambivalent about this one. On the one hand, it'll allow goaltenders who have the important hockey skill of puck distribution to use it. On the other, as JJ correctly pointed out, it'll hurt the forechecking area of the game, especially given the sacred-cow status of goaltenders. I could go either way on this one.


Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 35879927)
- No icing the puck shorthanded.... might as well hand teams a goal instead of a PP opportunity...and might as well hand shot blockers like Volchenkov 8.5M$/yr deals. Is this a joke? Penalty Killing is a facet of the game, and a good penalty killer can clear the puck. How does this even remotely come close to bettering the game?

Don't like it. Bald attempt to increase scoring.


Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 35879927)
- No line changes for teams who go offsides. Why? Deliberate offsides is such a rarity, and when it does occur, it gets sent to the other zone more often than not.

Don't really see the point. Especially when there's already a rule for intentional offsides



Quote:

Originally Posted by sabresfan3383 (Post 35880009)
One key change I want to see:
3 pts regulation win
2 pts ot win
1 pt so win


NO MORE LOSER PTS!

God no to the bolded. Some nights there will be one-point games, other nights there will be three-point games? Every game must be worth the same amount of points. I think that is currently the biggest problem in the NHL: that all games aren't worth the same amount of points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by THamps (Post 35880815)
I've always liked the idea of 3 points total always being awarded per game:

Win in regulation: 3pts
Loss in regulation: 0pts
Win after regulation: 2pts
Loss after regulation: 1pt

I haven't formed an opinion on how I think a winner should be decided after regulation... I don't like ties though.

I agree with this. All games worth three points. I don't get bogged down in the talking points on the issue of rewarding a team for losing. This incentivizes teams to win in regulation--especially in interconference games where, currently, many teams don't care if they give one point to a team in a difference conference. Here, if you do that, your team is definitely sacrificing at least one point, and possibly two (rather than one) if they lose post-regulation.

joshjull 08-13-2011 11:44 AM

No icing on the PK is just gimmick to inflate the amount of goals scored. Further pussifying the sport. As well as further encouraging diving, embellishing and pest type play.

Just when we have physical and nasty players in the system. The NHL comes up with this chestnut.

funkymag77 08-13-2011 03:52 PM

Have yet to talk to someone who prefers ties over shootouts

jflory81 08-13-2011 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkymag77 (Post 35901693)
Have yet to talk to someone who prefers ties over shootouts

If the choice is between using the current points system with the shootout, and going back to 2/1/0 with ties, then I absolutely would prefer ties.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 AM.

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.