View Single Post
Old
02-10-2004, 10:12 AM
  #7
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1731335

Basically, there were four issues debated, and here they are:

ice surface and the lines, including eliminating the red line, creating passing lanes to open room in the neutral zone, and widening the blue lines.

Keep the red line. And widen the blue line? Does that shorten-up the PP? If so, nope.

width of their pads should be further reduced -- maybe even back to the 10-inch standard that was raised to 12 in the 1989-90 season.

I'd go back to 1989-1990 standards, why not?

no-touch icing

If this eliminates the ability for a player on the 'icing' team to baet-out the defenseman/forward to the puck, the, I'd say no to no-touch icing. Why take hard-work out of the game?

reinstating the tag-up offsides rule

All for this one. Not sure why it was done-away with. Keeps the defensemen on their toes and there's always that possibilty of a turnover. It may support more aggressive forechecking and less trapping as a result.

Finally...three points for a win and a shootout instead of a tie...still dead-against a shootout. I really hate the idea of hanging a goalie out like that, intentionally, and leaving the game up to five individuals, 'shooters' to decide the game. Play the friggin' game.
Mostly all window dressing and non-controversial stuff, IMO. Sounds like they're all afraid of addressing any of the more sensitive issues.

What does creating passing lanes in the neutral zone mean? And what would be the point of widening the blue lines? Players will still try to make the play onside by the barest of margins regardless of the width of the line.

kazo is offline