I dont know if anyone caught the hotstove last night but Scott Mellanby came up with a theory to increase goals that I've never really considered but it makes alot of sense.
His idea is to play the game so that the long change is in effect for two out of three periods in a game. As it stands right now, the long change only comes into effect in the 2nd period. Coincidentally, the 2nd period is the period that has the most goals scored in a game.
I think this would make killing penalties a much more difficult task. We have seen players shoot the puck down the ice on a long change pk and still not be able to change all their troops. It makes line matchups a bit tougher. If this were implemented, my only big worry is the refs loosening up on the too many men calls. I can imagine the coaches really pushing the envelope to get the right matchup.
My following question is geared toward the season ticket holders. Do you people pick your seats based largely upon your viewing perspective for 2/3 periods? Would it be a big deal if you only see this viewing perspective for 1/3 periods? I have a feeling that this would be the league's biggest hurdle.
Other than that, I think its a subtle change to the product that will give a boost to scoring. I find myself to be a traditionalist, but I'm not against ideas to boost goals as long as they are subtle and I think this idea is perfect in that sense
I'm not against this because of traditionalist reasons, I am against this because sloppy line changes doesn't make hockey more exciting, it just makes it amateurish.
I thought it was a brilliant suggestion. He also added that it would cut down on the line matching which would open up the game a little more.
Stratchan came up with a good idea. No icing permitted on penalties. I've been pulling for this rule change for years. I would also lean towards serving the full penalty. Goals don't erase any penalties.
As novel as some of those ideas were... I still actually would rather see them just make the net a little bit bigger if it's more goals they want. All the other stuff just whittles away at the edges, and you just have to know it would never end up being enough and they'd be right back to looking at bigger changes eventually anyway. Get it over with, I say.
And any of the changes which affect powerplay scoring just shouldn't be part of the equation IMHO. Powerplay scoring shouldn't be considered a "problem" area even to those who are busy clamouring for more goals. With the current random nature of penalty calls, I don't think you need to start stacking the odds even further against the penalty killers by eliminating icing or taking the faceoffs into the PKers' zone.
Go ahead and make the nets bigger, and throw a bone back to the goalies by making their creases off-limits. Then just leave us alone about the goal-scoring "problem" for a decade or so, please.
I dont know if anyone caught the hotstove last night but Scott Mellanby came up with a theory to increase goals that I've never really considered but it makes alot of sense.
His idea is to play the game so that the long change is in effect for two out of three periods in a game. As it stands right now, the long change only comes into effect in the 2nd period. Coincidentally, the 2nd period is the period that has the most goals scored in a game.
I think this would make killing penalties a much more difficult task. We have seen players shoot the puck down the ice on a long change pk and still not be able to change all their troops. It makes line matchups a bit tougher. If this were implemented, my only big worry is the refs loosening up on the too many men calls. I can imagine the coaches really pushing the envelope to get the right matchup.
My following question is geared toward the season ticket holders. Do you people pick your seats based largely upon your viewing perspective for 2/3 periods? Would it be a big deal if you only see this viewing perspective for 1/3 periods? I have a feeling that this would be the league's biggest hurdle.
Other than that, I think its a subtle change to the product that will give a boost to scoring. I find myself to be a traditionalist, but I'm not against ideas to boost goals as long as they are subtle and I think this idea is perfect in that sense
I have a three other suggestion. s
One makes more logical sense out of the game of hockey, and it will surely increase goals and give the skill players more room.
In Soccer, if a team is playing a man down, the rules don't change, the goalies still can't play a pass back with his hands. In minor baseball, if they let you play with 8 men, your pitcher doesn't get a strikeout on only two strikes.
So, make this one change: icing when short-handed is still icing. If you think that is too punitive, you can allow a line change after the icing when short-handed.
The two other ideas come from basketball.
My second suggestion is to discourage hooking, holding etc. some more by instituting the rule that after X number of minor penalties, the player is out of the game. I would exclude simultaneous minors from the calculation.
The third suggestion is to mirror the basketball rule on "shooting fouls". Normally, a foul shot is awarded for a foul in the act of shooting, but after X number of fouls in a quarter or half, the "penalty" kicks in and every foul leads to a foul shot.
We can do the same in hockey. After X number of minor penalties in a period, the future ones cause an automatic penalty shot.
I realize this is all out of the box thinking, but it beats discussing whether Saku Koivu is a second line centre all day.
Maybe if Bettman stopped alienating other hockey nations and the NHL started putting some money in to develop hockey into other nations Slovenia, Belarus, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, wherever the hell you can, do it. Make sure we get some transfer agreements going with Russia.
Islanders, the team we played last night, got shutout, they lack offensive talent. If we increase the area that we bring players in from, we bring in more talent, thusly alll 30 teams are more actively represented with premiere offensive talent and the games will have more scoring because teams will be able to play offensively.
The Islanders simply don't have the horses to play run and gun. Montreal does, and we've been rewarded by being one of the top goal-scoring teams in the NHL.
I like Mellanby's idea but I think we should make the long change for all three periods...........to accomadate the fans we get them to change ends every period...
i dont understand why they are trying to change the game every years. smaller goalies equipments or bigger nets bla bla bla.. i think its fine the way it is. big saves are as good as goals. if they want to make the arena a little bit bigger its fine to create more scoring chances.
Making it easier to score doesn't make the game more exiting. More goals isn't the way to do it. Look at the all star games.
Want to increase scoring that bad, why not just remove goalies period?
It's not more goals that will make the game more exciting, I agree. A fast pace skating game with puck movement is exciting. So too are legal hits. The goal for me is less restraining fouls, less ways for unskilled players to bring the skilled players down to their level.
As novel as some of those ideas were... I still actually would rather see them just make the net a little bit bigger if it's more goals they want. All the other stuff just whittles away at the edges, and you just have to know it would never end up being enough and they'd be right back to looking at bigger changes eventually anyway. Get it over with, I say.
And any of the changes which affect powerplay scoring just shouldn't be part of the equation IMHO. Powerplay scoring shouldn't be considered a "problem" area even to those who are busy clamouring for more goals. With the current random nature of penalty calls, I don't think you need to start stacking the odds even further against the penalty killers by eliminating icing or taking the faceoffs into the PKers' zone.
Go ahead and make the nets bigger, and throw a bone back to the goalies by making their creases off-limits. Then just leave us alone about the goal-scoring "problem" for a decade or so, please.
Agreed, but before I enlarge the nets I might shave 10 percent of the surface area off the goalie pads.
The idea of a full 2 minute penalty is intriguing, however I see this more as a way to fight obstruction and other penalties. There's no better deterrent to a lazy penalty than the prospect of forcing your team into facing a 30,40 or 50 percent PP.
As novel as some of those ideas were... I still actually would rather see them just make the net a little bit bigger if it's more goals they want. All the other stuff just whittles away at the edges, and you just have to know it would never end up being enough and they'd be right back to looking at bigger changes eventually anyway. Get it over with, I say.
And any of the changes which affect powerplay scoring just shouldn't be part of the equation IMHO. Powerplay scoring shouldn't be considered a "problem" area even to those who are busy clamouring for more goals. With the current random nature of penalty calls, I don't think you need to start stacking the odds even further against the penalty killers by eliminating icing or taking the faceoffs into the PKers' zone.
Go ahead and make the nets bigger, and throw a bone back to the goalies by making their creases off-limits. Then just leave us alone about the goal-scoring "problem" for a decade or so, please.
I'm against making nets bigger. Keep the equipment size to a rational limit, and that's it.
As for the crease area, it should be OFF-LIMITS unless the puck is in the crease first. Period. The offensive team goes in the crease with a toe tip and we get a faceoff in the centre ice area. You score a goal with a fellow player's skate in the crease, it's waved off, and it's video reviewable. These things should be as automatic as "offside" or in basketball "three in the key" . No grey zone.
Another thing, goals kicked in should be good goals. Goals gloved in should not be good. Why? Hand passes are not allowed, but control of the puck with the skates is allowed in every other context in the game. You can take a pass off your skate, you can kick a pass to a teammate, and you should be able to direct a deflection into the net.......as long, of course, as your skate is not in the crease before the puck.
Finally, get rid of the silly trapezoid behind the net.
I'm against making nets bigger. Keep the equipment size to a rational limit, and that's it.
As for the crease area, it should be OFF-LIMITS unless the puck is in the crease first. Period. The offensive team goes in the crease with a toe tip and we get a faceoff in the centre ice area. You score a goal with a fellow player's skate in the crease, it's waved off, and it's video reviewable. These things should be as automatic as "offside" or in basketball "three in the key" . No grey zone.
Another thing, goals kicked in should be good goals. Goals gloved in should not be good. Why? Hand passes are not allowed, but control of the puck with the skates is allowed in every other context in the game. You can take a pass off your skate, you can kick a pass to a teammate, and you should be able to direct a deflection into the net.......as long, of course, as your skate is not in the crease before the puck.
Finally, get rid of the silly trapezoid behind the net.
The idea of not allowing kicked in goals is because the NHL doesn't want players swinging their feet around like mad-men and cutting people. Basically, goals kicked in should only count if the skate blade stays on the ice during the whole motion. If at any point the skate blade comes off the ice, it's no goal.
The idea of not allowing kicked in goals is because the NHL doesn't want players swinging their feet around like mad-men and cutting people. Basically, goals kicked in should only count if the skate blade stays on the ice during the whole motion. If at any point the skate blade comes off the ice, it's no goal.
Curiously the rule book does not take a stance on kicking motions other than disallowing goals that are the result of a kicking motion. I would have thought a rulebook which is concerned about cuts would make kicking a penalized play but it never has.
I can't imagine the horror of having 2 or three players swinging their legs at pucks in the crease, so I probably am satisfied with the rule as is, but can we ask the league to figure out what kicking is and consistently call it.
The players association or union will never accept that, you'd be chopping off too many jobs in their views.
Maybe, but the remaining players would end up getting more money. Reduce by 2 players the roster size, but only cut back a few games = more $ for each remaining player.
Maybe we should do like basket ball did with their 3 point rule: put a line on the ice somewhere and if you score a goal from behind that line then it counts as two goals!
The players association or union will never accept that, you'd be chopping off too many jobs in their views.
Maybe, but the remaining players would end up getting more money. Reduce by 2 players the roster size, but only cut back a few games = more $ for each remaining player.
Right now, it's pretty good, you don\t know if you're going to see a boring, New Jersey game, an Ottawa vs Philly/Buffalo (all those fights), or a nice, hard hitting game.
Who remembers the game that Montreal was up 1-0 and lost 3-1? Sad, i know, but for the majority of that game, it was 0-0 and 1-0 and that was a great game.
If you switch it so you continuously have 6-5 games, fans are going to be like "yeah... we scored, there's no sarcasm in this statement."
