HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Pittsburgh Penguins (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Puck Daddy R&D Camp grades (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=971093)

Certified Assassin 08-19-2011 10:05 AM

Puck Daddy R&D Camp grades
 
I'm not pushing Puck Daddy material or promoting it, just thought it was a good article to line out the changes being tested this year and it gives insight as to what exactly is going on at the camp. I generally agree with the grades given though.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...rn=nhl-wp10865

Your feedback?

Riggs 08-19-2011 11:13 AM

I really like the curved glass idea... yeah, some odd bounces will be a result, but all the players wear helmets and are subject to random pucks flying into the bench anyway.

Shady Machine 08-19-2011 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riggs (Post 36047281)
I really like the curved glass idea... yeah, some odd bounces will be a result, but all the players wear helmets and are subject to random pucks flying into the bench anyway.

Yeah I agree. Great idea. And from that angle, you would most likely only be firing the puck out of zone off that glass so it shouldn't hit the curved part anyway. Possibly dump ins but it should be rare.

I like the verification line as well, although a little weird seeing another painted line. The "bear hug" rule seems pretty stupid. Overall, I agree with Puck Daddy's assessments.

Tasty Biscuits 08-19-2011 12:29 PM

Definitely like the shallow nets idea. Would be nice if they could get that going for this upcoming season.

Big McLargehuge 08-19-2011 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shady Machine (Post 36048005)
Yeah I agree. Great idea. And from that angle, you would most likely only be firing the puck out of zone off that glass so it shouldn't hit the curved part anyway. Possibly dump ins but it should be rare.

I like the verification line as well, although a little weird seeing another painted line. The "bear hug" rule seems pretty stupid. Overall, I agree with Puck Daddy's assessments.

Same, though I am in favor of taking the shootout up to 5 players (Puck Daddy just said nay because of his hatred for the shootout...which is understandable, I still say it's preferable to ties).

Ziggyjoe21 08-19-2011 01:31 PM

Like the shallow nets idea. Don't know why it hasn't been implemented sooner.

Don't undestand the point of the verification line. Isn't that what the blue goal line is for?

Don't like curved glass. Good idea in theory, but potential puck bounces may cause problems.

Hybrid icing= literally the dumbest idea I have ever heard regarding NHL rule changes.


I would like them to bring back entire 2 minute power plays.

Shady Machine 08-19-2011 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggyjoe21 (Post 36051041)
Like the shallow nets idea. Don't know why it hasn't been implemented sooner.

Don't undestand the point of the verification line. Isn't that what the blue goal line is for?

Don't like curved glass. Good idea in theory, but potential puck bounces may cause problems.

Hybrid icing= literally the dumbest idea I have ever heard regarding NHL rule changes.


I would like them to bring back entire 2 minute power plays.

What don't you get about the verification line? The distance between the goal line (which is often blocked in overhead angles by goalie equipment, etc.) and the verification line is the exact width of a puck (or just a hair wider from what I've read). so if any of the puck is deemed to have touched that line then that must mean it has completely crossed the goal line. What blue goal line are you referring to?

In terms of curved glass, when will someone be shooting at the bench so as to hit the curved glass? I agree deflections are possible, but probably not very often and results less serious than getting your head smashed into the stanchion.

mpp9 08-19-2011 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggyjoe21 (Post 36051041)
Like the shallow nets idea. Don't know why it hasn't been implemented sooner.

Don't undestand the point of the verification line. Isn't that what the blue goal line is for?

Don't like curved glass. Good idea in theory, but potential puck bounces may cause problems.

Hybrid icing= literally the dumbest idea I have ever heard regarding NHL rule changes.


I would like them to bring back entire 2 minute power plays.

Verification line is to see if the puck touches it rather than having to see if there's any white between the puck and the goal line. They're also putting clear plastic on top of the net possibly to make it easier to see. Gets the game going quicker which is very important imo.

Curved glass is going to happen either way. The league seems pretty adament about it to avoid any more incidents like the Chara hit. It'll cause strange bounces but it's better than needless concussions.

Hybrid icing will make the linesman's job a bit harder as it'll be up to him whether to blow it down when there's a race for the puck. They're trying to allow for the oppositin to negate the icing if he has a step on the defenseman but if it's obvious that the defenseman will get to it first then why not blow it dead and keep serious injury from occuring.

Ziggyjoe21 08-19-2011 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shady Machine (Post 36051489)
What don't you get about the verification line? The distance between the goal line (which is often blocked in overhead angles by goalie equipment, etc.) and the verification line is the exact width of a puck (or just a hair wider from what I've read). so if any of the puck is deemed to have touched that line then that must mean it has completely crossed the goal line. What blue goal line are you referring to?

In terms of curved glass, when will someone be shooting at the bench so as to hit the curved glass? I agree deflections are possible, but probably not very often and results less serious than getting your head smashed into the stanchion.

I meant red goal line.

There's nothing that the verification line does that the red goal line does not do. If there is confusion that the puck crossed the red line, there will be confusion if it touched the verification line. Pointless, imo.

JordanStaal#1Fan 08-19-2011 01:59 PM

Why don't they just put a chip in the puck? Or why don't they develop something similair to tennis's hawkeye?

Ziggyjoe21 08-19-2011 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpp9 (Post 36051609)
Verification line is to see if the puck touches it rather than having to see if there's any white between the puck and the goal line. They're also putting clear plastic on top of the net possibly to make it easier to see. Gets the game going quicker which is very important imo.

Curved glass is going to happen either way. The league seems pretty adament about it to avoid any more incidents like the Chara hit. It'll cause strange bounces but it's better than needless concussions.

Hybrid icing will make the linesman's job a bit harder as it'll be up to him whether to blow it down when there's a race for the puck. They're trying to allow for the oppositin to negate the icing if he has a step on the defenseman but if it's obvious that the defenseman will get to it first then why not blow it dead and keep serious injury from occuring.

More often than not it will be a very close race. It's also a strange concept that if player A wins this call then you keep on skating, but if player B wins then the play is whistled down. That just sounds stupid to me. Some of these injuries can be stopped if the refs enforced more hits from behind and boarding calls during races for icing calls.

Shady Machine 08-19-2011 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggyjoe21 (Post 36051723)
I meant red goal line.

There's nothing that the verification line does that the red goal line does not do. If there is confusion that the puck crossed the red line, there will be confusion if it touched the verification line. Pointless, imo.

Fair enough. I think it just increases the odds (even if slightly) that a goal will be called correctly. To me, it's at a better angle of sight from above camera views. I guess if anything, it doesn't hurt the game in any way so why not try it?

Uemoda 08-19-2011 02:04 PM

Hey guys, question.

When would we know if they implement these things for next season? Apparently, the curved glass is supposed to be installed in each arena this year, but what about the shallow nets, thinner mesh, etc? When would they let us know?

Ziggyjoe21 08-19-2011 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shady Machine (Post 36051903)
Fair enough. I think it just increases the odds (even if slightly) that a goal will be called correctly. To me, it's at a better angle of sight from above camera views. I guess if anything, it doesn't hurt the game in any way so why not try it?

I agree it doesn't hurt to try. Another way of helping determine a goal may be to put cameras inside the posts? One camera at each corner, facing downward, or perhaps 1 camera at each post at ice level.

Ziggyjoe21 08-19-2011 02:12 PM

Perhaps this should go in the Rags board but did anyone else notice the big CITI sign on the plexi glass behind the nets at Madison Square Garden? Does anyone know if these signs hinder the view of the people behind them? I would be pissed if that sign was in my way.

Jeff Goldblum 08-19-2011 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggyjoe21 (Post 36052187)
Perhaps this should go in the Rags board but did anyone else notice the big CITI sign on the plexi glass behind the nets at Madison Square Garden? Does anyone know if these signs hinder the view of the people behind them? I would be pissed if that sign was in my way.

Those ads do not obstruct anyone's view because they're not really there. 'Virtual Advertisements' are only visible on TV.

Certified Assassin 08-19-2011 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ominous Grey (Post 36051963)
Hey guys, question.

When would we know if they implement these things for next season? Apparently, the curved glass is supposed to be installed in each arena this year, but what about the shallow nets, thinner mesh, etc? When would they let us know?

Rumor is they are to try the shallow nets this pre-season. As far as being implemented permanently, I have no idea of the process that is involved.

Ziggyjoe21 08-19-2011 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Goldblum (Post 36052351)
Those ads do not obstruct anyone's view because they're not really there. 'Virtual Advertisements' are only visible on TV.

Well I just learned something new.

TravisUlrich 08-19-2011 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggyjoe21 (Post 36051723)
I meant red goal line.

There's nothing that the verification line does that the red goal line does not do. If there is confusion that the puck crossed the red line, there will be confusion if it touched the verification line. Pointless, imo.

Many times you can't tell of the puck is "all the way over" the redline or you'll see the puck in the net but under a goalie's glove or pad and there's no video evidence that it's all the way over the redline. This way, if the puck is touching the green line you can tell that even though you can't see the back half of the puck, it's all the way over the line.

Freeptop 08-19-2011 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggyjoe21 (Post 36051723)
I meant red goal line.

There's nothing that the verification line does that the red goal line does not do. If there is confusion that the puck crossed the red line, there will be confusion if it touched the verification line. Pointless, imo.

The goal line is frequently obscured by players and by the net itself. How many times were they trying to determine if there was any white ice visible between the puck and the goal line during reviews last season? Just for the Pens, no less? The verification line provides an easy way to verify that the puck has completely cleared the goal line without having to find some sliver of white between the puck and a scuffed-up goal line. If the verification line is just a touch past a puck-width beyond the goal line, then there shouldn't need to be nearly the level of scrutiny involved in determining whether it touched the line or not - if it's close enough to wonder, that would mean the puck had definitely cleared the goal line.

It should aid video review in a number of cases. Sure, it isn't fool-proof, but it's cheap, easy, and doesn't change any rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan (Post 36051827)
Why don't they just put a chip in the puck? Or why don't they develop something similair to tennis's hawkeye?

The League claims they've tried putting a chip in the puck, but weren't able to get a puck that had the proper characteristics. I can believe that - despite what people think, sensors like that aren't 100% accurate. Inside a hockey arena, there's plenty of opportunities for interference and radio reflections, not to mention the basic fact that those kinds of tracking systems are not as accurate as people tend to think.

Consider that even a 1 inch error would mean that such a system would be useless for the situations that the verification line is meant to handle. And a 1 inch margin of error would be phenomenal for that kind of sensor.

As for something like tennis' hawkeye - that doesn't work too well if the problem is that the puck was obscured by the bodies of players or the net itself. Without being able to track what the puck may or may not have bounced off of, a computer can't accurately tell you where the puck is (and a single camera in the net is not sufficient to accurately track a puck in 3D). Tennis has a lot less to obstruct the vision of the cameras.


As for the rest of it:

At first, I thought the shallower nets could be interesting. After watching the video showing them on NHL.com, I'm looking forward to them testing them out in pre-season games - not only do they create more space behind the net, but they were designed to be tougher for someone to knock off the mooring by shoving at the net from behind. Add that to the clear panels that allow greater visibility around the goal-line and the HD cameras (both of which they should put in even if they don't change the depth of the net), and I'm all for it.

The curved glass needs to happen. An occasional odd deflection is worth it to improve safety.

The rest of it needs more time in testing, or needs to go straight to the trash bin, IMO.

Darth Vitale 08-19-2011 03:49 PM

Good article, thanks for linking to it. I pretty much agree with everything he said and for this year I think there is zero excuse for not doing the following:

Curved glass at end of benches - Shanny made it sound like this was likely / planned.

Goal-related changes - confirmation line, clear top, HD camera, shallower

Face-off Penalty line - really good idea IMO

7 minute OT, 4v4 + 3v3, but I'd make it 5 minutes of 4v4, 2 minutes of 3v3 because it becomes too much like pond hockey / rat hockey at that point. More of a skills competition than legit test of teams. Not a fan of 5 player Shootout. No need to draw that process out more than it is drawn out already.


Ideas that suck bigtime:

No clearing the puck on PK:
Are you ****ing kidding me? At the worst it should be what Disco said, you get maybe 3 clears and then you get penalized again. It's giving the offensive team too much of an advantage otherwise. If you can't make them chase it / keep them honest at the blue line, most PKs are going to get pwned on a pretty regular basis. After a minute+ they're going to get totally run ragged. Bad idea. I like the challenge of the PP / PK for both teams as it's currently set up. If it ain't broke...

Hybrid Icing:
Hey I got an idea, since we don't have enough gray area to argue about with headshots and high hits and judging of intention, let's add more gray area and let the refs make an arbitrary decision that's based on nothing but instinct! Real simple: if you want to cut out those injuries, mandate automatic suspensions for anyone who runs a player into the boards (accidental or not) on the icing chase. Make players take responsibility for their speed and positioning at that moment and the rest will take care of itself. This is the same rule that should be applied to head shots. Mandatory. Just as with high sticking to the face, intention is irrelevant. Just match the suspension to the severity of the outcome of the play and to any pattern of behavior with these type of hits. Guys like Richards, Cooke, Ovy get a shorter leash, etc.

Mancouver 08-19-2011 05:12 PM

What happened to the chichi who made funny jokes? Hmm? Where did he go?

Ziggyjoe21 08-19-2011 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisUlrich (Post 36053691)
Many times you can't tell of the puck is "all the way over" the redline or you'll see the puck in the net but under a goalie's glove or pad and there's no video evidence that it's all the way over the redline. This way, if the puck is touching the green line you can tell that even though you can't see the back half of the puck, it's all the way over the line.

If something is obstructing the view over the goal line, it's just as likely that it will be obstructing the verification line.

Like I said before, it doesn't hurt to try it, but I just don't think it will help in any way.

Ogrezilla 08-19-2011 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggyjoe21 (Post 36057413)
If something is obstructing the view over the goal line, it's just as likely that it will be obstructing the verification line.

Like I said before, it doesn't hurt to try it, but I just don't think it will help in any way.

But now both would need to be obstructed. There is nothing but positive about it.

eXile59 08-19-2011 05:56 PM

Please get rid of the trapezoids and no to 3 on 3 in over time. 3 on 3 would be nice for an exhibition like the all-star game. Also like the faceoff penalty idea. Cheating at faceoffs has gotten out of control and if you get waived out the next just does the same thing.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 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.