View Single Post
03-16-2008, 01:33 PM
Registered User
Lucius's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by RedScull View Post
I think people are foolish to believe that a change like that is going to make more games exciting. Once that change happens, the standard for an "exciting" game changes, the NHL doesn't explode with new fans, and then people are clamoring for the next great idea to increase scoring and make the game "more exciting."

You're going to get good games and dud games no matter what the rules are. Mellanby's suggestion has merit, but it's not a solution to the problem that seems to permeate the hockey community.
Make no mistake, I don't think this idea is a silver bullet by any stretch, but the core flaw in the NHL now is that it is over coached. There is no way out of that and this is one of the very few ideas I've heard that actually fights back against the over coaching.

Frankly, their other idea about eliminating the ability to ice the puck during a PP was more likely to increase scoring. They added that rule because of the Habs, so it's not a purest reason (or so Strachan said).

It is silly that the NHL gives teams that take a penalty an advantage.

I think that, a full two-minute PP and non-even up reffing would make penalties much more important, which would make discipline paramount and thus make 5 on 5 more free flowing.

The worry here is that the games become an exercise in special teams, but if there were no icing and full 2 minute PPs, teams would damn well learn to stop hooking pretty fast.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote