HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Projected rule changes for 2004-05 from the fans

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-12-2004, 02:33 AM
  #1
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 1400
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Projected rule changes for 2004-05 from the fans

You know the more the NHL changes things the worse the product on the ice ends up. Maybe they should let us the fans, who pay these players salaries and earn money for the owners a say in the changes of rules. This is where to propose rule changes and to debate rule changes


I have a few examples of things I think are problems and how to solve them.


1. Diving is just terrible in the game, and refs end up not calling things or calling things that are not there because of this crap. To put an end to diving once and for all

Diving will result in a 2 minute minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct and a 10 minute misconduct. I wonder how many of the "skilled players" will attempt to beat the system under this proposed rule change.

2. Changes to the icing rule. There is nothing more boring in hockey than watching teams over and over ice the puck on the penalty kill or even worse watch someone make a pass only to have the receiver interfered with so that the puck slides down the ice for an icing. My proposed changes are as follows.

- Icing the puck while on a penalty kill will result in an icing call and a face off in the defensive end of the team who ices the puck

- An intended pass that the player receiving the pass gets interfered with whatsoever by the defensive team will result in no icing call

- An icing call will happen without the puck being touched by a defensive player unless the referee in his judgement thinks an offensive player will get to the puck first. This must be very clear. On debatable "races" between 2 players a no touch icing will occur

3. Highsticking infractions. We have had so many players hurt with high sticks over the last 3 or 4 years that something must be done. The following rule changes I think will help a little bit I hope

- High sticking is now clearly defined as a hockey stick over the shoulder blades of the player holding the stick and the only exception is the follow through of a slap shot. A player that has the stick over his shoulders will be assessed a 2 minute minor even if he does not touch another player with the stick. A player that swats at the puck over his shouders will be assessed a 2 minute minor for high sticking.

- A player under the new guidelines that connects with a player with a high stick will receive a 5 minute major penalty, and if blood and or injury occurs a game misconduct

- any player recieving 3 high sticking penaltys in 1 season will be assessed a 1 game suspension with an extra game added for each following infraction

I have plenty more rule changes without hurting the flow to the game or making really radical changes to anything. I'd like to hear the fans opinions of some changes

Poignant Discussion is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 02:55 AM
  #2
rye&ginger
Registered User
 
rye&ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NataSatan666
- A player under the new guidelines that connects with a player with a high stick will receive a 5 minute major penalty, and if blood and or injury occurs a game misconduct

Much too harsh if its as simple as that. Is there intent or obvious carelessness? In game 3, Ruchinsky got a high stick penalty when Simon raised his own stick, and as a result Ruchinsky's stick rode up Simon's into the face. Would that be a 5 minute penalty? I dont even think it should be a penalty at all because Simon may have been applying the stick to his face. I've seen is several times. The whole blood issue is dumb in the first place. It tells you nothing about how bad of a high stick it was. High sticking should be looked as accidental/fluke = 2 mins, carlessness = 4 mins, intent to injure = 5 mins (and a game if deemed worthy).

I also saw a penalty at a faceoff where Linden backhanded at the puck, and it caught the Flames player in the face who was leaning over so much that he was at Linden's knee. Too me that was a follow through. Its the guys that raise their sticks high to get around other players that need to keep them down.

The icing rules are too subjective about deciding if its no touch or not. A linesman wont know if there has been interference. How would that be judged? A call from one of the refs?

Decent ideas overall.

One I would add is game misconduct after a player gets a second fighting major. The NHL needs to get rid of the goons, and let players with legit beefs fight each other if they want to. I dont mean guys like Domi, Neil, or Simon. I mean guys like Worrell, Cummins, Shelly, etc... that are worse hockey players than half of the players in their club's farm team.


Last edited by rye&ginger: 04-12-2004 at 03:01 AM.
rye&ginger is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 03:18 AM
  #3
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 1400
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by rye&ginger
Much too harsh if its as simple as that. Is there intent or obvious carelessness? In game 3, Ruchinsky got a high stick penalty when Simon raised his own stick, and as a result Ruchinsky's stick rode up Simon's into the face. Would that be a 5 minute penalty? I dont even think it should be a penalty at all because Simon may have been applying the stick to his face. I've seen is several times. The whole blood issue is dumb in the first place. It tells you nothing about how bad of a high stick it was. High sticking should be looked as accidental/fluke = 2 mins, carlessness = 4 mins, intent to injure = 5 mins (and a game if deemed worthy).

I also saw a penalty at a faceoff where Linden backhanded at the puck, and it caught the Flames player in the face who was leaning over so much that he was at Linden's knee. Too me that was a follow through. Its the guys that raise their sticks high to get around other players that need to keep them down.

The icing rules are too subjective about deciding if its no touch or not. A linesman wont know if there has been interference. How would that be judged? A call from one of the refs?

Decent ideas overall.

One I would add is game misconduct after a player gets a second fighting major. The NHL needs to get rid of the goons, and let players with legit beefs fight each other if they want to. I dont mean guys like Domi, Neil, or Simon. I mean guys like Worrell, Cummins, Shelly, etc... that are worse hockey players than half of the players in their club's farm team.
If a player rides another players stick in my opinion its not a high stick and nothing should be called.

These rule changes are harsh and will demand accountability for a players actions. In my opinion carelessness is not an excuse why the player should not get a major penalty on a high stick. But because of this rule proposal (change) players will almost right away keep thier sticks down for fear of hitting someone. And thats what all the fans would want to see.

I agree the icing obstruction with a player receiving a pass would be difficult to call and most of the time would not be called. But certain teams are so obvious obstructing the player on the passout that maybe it could reduce some of that defensive tactics. Of course maybe the NHL could for once call the game the way its written in the books and the whole obstruction issue would be mute. Then again I'm not holding my breath

I like the idea of the proposed fighting rule. Fighting in hockey is getting sickening not because of the emotions involved but because of the "fakeness" of some fights.

I have no problem with 2 players both frustrated dropping the gloves and having a go. Its the WWE theatrics I can live without

Poignant Discussion is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 03:34 AM
  #4
Jacob
Registered User
 
Jacob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 25,854
vCash: 500
I wouldn't do anything too, too drastic. I'd bring in automatic icing, enforce the obstruction rules to a T, and add a "contact to the head" penalty.

Jacob is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 03:58 AM
  #5
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
1. drop the instigator, it's done nothing but hurt the sport... the players can and are smart enough to police themselves and know what's right and wrong

2. too many head injuries thanks to high sticks. make high sticking penalties 5 minutes regardless if blood is drawn or not, it's a serious infractions it needs to be punished like one, after lets say 3 or 4 high sticking penalties the bench gets a subsequent minor penalty. if that don't get coaches screaming for the sticks to be kept on the ice, i don't know what will (btw high stick is anything over the crossbar not shoulders )

3. move the goal line back to where it originally was, open up more room on the ice, let the players do what they do best,

4. diving... call it if you see it, if a player dives, it's HIS team that should be penalized, ... w/e the infraction that sent him to dive, obviously wasn't bad enough to get a call w/o help, therefore shoudln't be penalized... the diver goes to the box, the other team to the PP, it'll keep our nhl players from trying out for their countries' olympic diving teams.... 3 dives, gets a player a fine, the team a fine, and possible game or two suspension, fines keep growing as players keep taking the dive

5. leave icing alone, touch it up and skate back to the other end of the rink.... if a player is interferred with and falls while racing for the puck however, call the penalty, unless the dummy trips over the blue line or something, in which case it aint anyone's fault but his own, generally players are smart enough to know when and when not to race for the puck

6. let the fights happen, let the players get their frustration out, and then sit for the 5 minutes, i've never seen anyone complain about there being a fight at a game, and more often than not, the building is louder after a fight occurs, so leave it be and if it aint broke don't fix it for crying out loud,

7. malicious acts of aggression... don't stand for it, set a firm hand down,... by this i mean anything above the normal fight, it's obvious to all what's a fight and what's more than a fight... ANY malicious act carries a minimum of 5 game suspension and a $$$$$ fine... second offense gets 7 games 3rd gets 10 games IF a player gets more than that then he needs anger management and serious counselling... mandate that along w/ a one year suspension from the league

edit 8. Eliminate the pvc pads on EVERYONE except for the goalies.... those have caused more concussions, broken bones, and numerous other injuries since they've been around it's sickening... look at older players ... for example, shanahan, he's using the same pads that he's used since junior... and they do him just fine, you don't see lpayers getting knocked silly thanks to his pads, and he's still as healthy as he was years ago... same goes for helmets ... i do believe there've been more concussions thanks to helmets than when they weren't mandated, now im not trying to say players don't need to be safe, but if anyone knows, or can find, stats or figures of how many concussions per year happened in the few years before helmets were mandated, compared to the years following ... i'd be interested to know how many more concussions, other injuries were sustained after helmets were mandated around the league

that's pretty much all i can think of right now.. im sure there would be more if i thought a little more


Last edited by garry1221: 04-12-2004 at 04:10 AM.
garry1221 is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 10:32 AM
  #6
mole
Registered User
 
mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Top line, baby
Country: Denmark
Posts: 4,192
vCash: 500
I don't understand the logic that one infraction (diving) should be put above another infraction (f.x. slashing) in terms of how it is penalized, and suddenly cause extra misconduct penalties or fines. Can someone explain this to me?

mole is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 01:25 PM
  #7
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
well a player who dives IMO is trying to make a weak/borderline call, seen and/or penalized right?.... well if the ref saw what happened but decided in his mind that it wasn't bad enough to warrant a whistle, then why give him one .... or maybe make diving a double minor if you want to give both players a penalty... whichever way you wanna work it i still believe divers shoudl be given a stricter penalty

garry1221 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.