HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Mellanby's idea to increase goals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-16-2008, 11:01 AM
  #26
Lone Rogue
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,506
vCash: 500
The NHL should worry first about the referees, then worry about the scoring. The officiating this year is probably the worst I can ever remember it. If they want the game to be fun so they can acquire new fans, they need to ensure the majority of calls are the right calls to make. Use replay if needed.

Good calls cut down on frustration watching the game.

Anyway, I agree with the general consensus that more goals do not mean better hockey. Want more goals? Take out the goalie. Ta-da.

Lone Rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 11:07 AM
  #27
loudi94
Master of my Domain
 
loudi94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackett View Post

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.
I have season tickets for my local team and yes, I chose them in the home team's offensive zone because I wanted to see our team score. Changing that would impact my "viewing pleasure".

loudi94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 11:12 AM
  #28
Kaptain Bégin
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Québec, Quebec
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
I don't think more goals give a better show. I was at the 1st shootout of Price, against Philly. It finished 1-0. It's the most entertaining game I see at the Bell Center. It's scoring chance we must count, not goal. I'm excited to see a breakaway with a goal or not on the play.

Kaptain Bégin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 11:20 AM
  #29
CoupeStanley
Registered User
 
CoupeStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nicolet
Country: Martinique
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CoupeStanley
Quote:
Originally Posted by loudi94 View Post
I have season tickets for my local team and yes, I chose them in the home team's offensive zone because I wanted to see our team score. Changing that would impact my "viewing pleasure".
Yup, if they want to implement that, just switch the teams bench.

If I'm a season ticket-holder for a few years, buying them on the side the Habs score 2 times and you change it I'll be really pissed off.

CoupeStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 11:30 AM
  #30
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,679
vCash: 500
One problem with more scoring is more 5-0 leads, I know we one when we were on the losing side, but that is rare, I think fans tune out.

Habbadasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 11:33 AM
  #31
bipolarhabfan
Registered User
 
bipolarhabfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,616
vCash: 500
If sloppy hockey is your cup of tea that this would be an ideal move.

I am tired of many who think that the scoreline dictates how good a game is too watch. 1-0, 2-1, etc. games can be just as exciting as a 6-5 game. I had a teacher in high school who disagreed with me on this point. He watch a 1-0 playoff game and said that I was right. Moreover, its the quality of the game that I am concerned about. Aside for some suspect officiating, I am enjoying the type of hockey being played now. You may not get the 400 team goals scored like you got in the 80s with atrocious goalies and #5-6 d men who could not skate backwards, but you do have a better product on the ice.

bipolarhabfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 11:44 AM
  #32
loudi94
Master of my Domain
 
loudi94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
One problem with more scoring is more 5-0 leads, I know we one when we were on the losing side, but that is rare, I think fans tune out.
Il lance... et mange. 'nuff said

loudi94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 11:49 AM
  #33
CanadienErrant*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: Cook Islands
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkbkbk View Post
more goals

does not equal

better games
Right on !

But I would give 3 points for a win in regulation

2 points for a win in OT ( 0 for the loosing team)

Only 1 point for a SO win (0 for the loosing team)

I hate those bonuses points for loosing teams.

Then teams would do their best to win in regulation time.


Last edited by CanadienErrant*: 03-16-2008 at 12:01 PM.
CanadienErrant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 02:01 PM
  #34
coolguy21415
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 9,285
vCash: 500
The only people who think higher scoring means more excitement are the ones who aren't watching the games and just looking at the scorelines.

coolguy21415 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 02:14 PM
  #35
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedScull View Post
The only people who think higher scoring means more excitement are the ones who aren't watching the games and just looking at the scorelines.
That's a rather narrow view. Fact is, hockey needs to grow to excel and scoring is more exciting to the casual fan. Most fans will never enjoy the intricacies of a good dump in. Clearly, we're not a representative sample of casual fans.

His point was largely that it would make the cat/mouse matchups so much harder to do by making them skate further to change. Anything that gives guys like Crosby and Malkin more room and makes teams like Minnesota miss their match-ups is a good thing.

Look at Pittsburgh/Philly on NBC right now. McGuire rightfully points out over and over that Stevens is not getting Richards out against Malkin and Malkin is shredding the Flyers. This game is far more exciting than the Habs/Sens last week where they played cat and mouse to the point where two of the most exciting teams managed to play potentially the most boring game of the year.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 02:17 PM
  #36
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GNick42 View Post
Not a fan of his but did you notice how crappy the hot stove was when Stratchan was not on it....
I loled, when I saw your avatar... Spitzer's hoe..

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 02:27 PM
  #37
Quagmier
Registered User
 
Quagmier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,865
vCash: 500
It's the same bull**** in every sport. It's not the rules that are ruining the sport, its the lack of talent relative to the demand.

The NBA was a miserable league during the late 90s. The Knicks had slowed the game down with their tight defensive style, and there were tons of character issues with the top stars in the league. Today, the NBA is flourishing and is having one of its most prosperous eras along with the Jordan/Bulls era and the mid 80s with Bird and Magic.

Is it because the NBA introduced tighter hand checking rules which allowed point guards to penetrate and dish resulting in more open shots? NO. The NBA had an influx of quality stars (Lebron, Wade, Anthony, Paul, Williams) and an increase in relevance among some large franchises (Lakers, Celtics, Rockets).

Its the same story in the NHL: teams aren't scoring more because of the freaky rule changes, they're scoring more because the talent level is on the way up. Its ironic that Bettman is simultaneously trying to increase both scoring and parity in the league when the 2 tend to offset one another. You want goals? allow talented players to play with one another. You want parity? split them up and dilute the talent level.

Bettman's NHL has been characterized by over-management. He's so concerned with how the league is perceived and how popular it is in non-traditional markets that he's shaped the league into a soulless corporate entity. Its sports...some teams should be good, and others should be bad. Its not the end of the world if you let the franchises fend for themselves.

The rules aren't (weren't) what's wrong with this game, the only way to create more space is to increase talent.

Quagmier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 02:31 PM
  #38
coolguy21415
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 9,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
That's a rather narrow view. Fact is, hockey needs to grow to excel and scoring is more exciting to the casual fan. Most fans will never enjoy the intricacies of a good dump in. Clearly, we're not a representative sample of casual fans.

His point was largely that it would make the cat/mouse matchups so much harder to do by making them skate further to change. Anything that gives guys like Crosby and Malkin more room and makes teams like Minnesota miss their match-ups is a good thing.

Look at Pittsburgh/Philly on NBC right now. McGuire rightfully points out over and over that Stevens is not getting Richards out against Malkin and Malkin is shredding the Flyers. This game is far more exciting than the Habs/Sens last week where they played cat and mouse to the point where two of the most exciting teams managed to play potentially the most boring game of the year.
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.

coolguy21415 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 02:33 PM
  #39
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
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
Old
03-16-2008, 02:37 PM
  #40
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadienErrant View Post
Right on !

But I would give 3 points for a win in regulation

2 points for a win in OT ( 0 for the loosing team)

Only 1 point for a SO win (0 for the loosing team)

I hate those bonuses points for loosing teams.

Then teams would do their best to win in regulation time.


Keep dreaming, this will never happen. The only thing I'd agree with, and I bet the league will never do that, is to cancel the extra point in OT.

It is ridiculous to take away the extra point for shootouts, as a whole game is decided by one-on-one hockey. Nothing short of extending OT will take this away. This is not soccer, scoring isn't as low as in soccer. A team that can hold off the other in a tie for 65 minutes should get a point.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 02:41 PM
  #41
coolguy21415
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 9,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
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.
Here's an idea. How about removing assistant coaches?

Wouldn't that be a direct response to overcoaching? Coach's aren't unionized afaik, so there's no problems.

No assistant coaches behind the bench during games.

You can't stop coaching. Putting players in situations where coaching is prohibited is silly to me. You're removing strategy from the game, and frankly if you do what you're speaking of you'll end up in a trapping-friendly NHL again. Every line will have to be able to trap and smother the opposing players, so offense might go up, but it won't be exciting hockey.

coolguy21415 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 02:43 PM
  #42
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedScull View Post
Here's an idea. How about removing assistant coaches?

Wouldn't that be a direct response to overcoaching? Coach's aren't unionized afaik, so there's no problems.

No assistant coaches behind the bench during games.
That's not going to do much, it will make line changes more choatic, that's about it.

By over coaching, I mean more about systems and stuff they learn during practice. I am sure the players are smart enough to figure out how to get on the ice against Sidney Crosby all on their own.

If you "ban" them altogether, the teams will hire "hockey advisors" and then we'll have freaking spy-gate drama everytime Doug Jarvis is seen near the Bell Centre!

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 02:46 PM
  #43
coolguy21415
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 9,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
That's not going to do much, it will make line changes more choatic, that's about it.

By over coaching, I mean more about systems and stuff they learn during practice. I am sure the players are smart enough to figure out how to get on the ice against Sidney Crosby all on their own.

If you "ban" them altogether, the teams will hire "hockey advisors" and then we'll have freaking spy-gate drama everytime Doug Jarvis is seen near the Bell Centre!
First, I think you underestimate the importance of in-game adjustments that teams make.

Secondly, I edit my posts (a bad habit in quick conversations) and replied as well with this:

You can't stop coaching. Putting players in situations where coaching is prohibited is silly to me. You're removing strategy from the game, and frankly if you do what you're speaking of you'll end up in a trapping-friendly NHL again. Every line will have to be able to trap and smother the opposing players, so offense might go up (I doubt it), but it won't be exciting hockey. Do we really want to encourage clamp-down defensive hockey again?

coolguy21415 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 03:28 PM
  #44
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
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.
I agree with no free pass on icing, but there are two very good reasons to leave the power play maximum at one goal. First, a minor penalty led, AT MOST, to denying a scoring chance, so the goal should clear the penalty. Second, the supposedly more radical alternative to a 2-minute penalty is a penalty shot, and the most you can get on one of those is one goal.

BaseballCoach is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 04:31 PM
  #45
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
I agree with no free pass on icing, but there are two very good reasons to leave the power play maximum at one goal. First, a minor penalty led, AT MOST, to denying a scoring chance, so the goal should clear the penalty. Second, the supposedly more radical alternative to a 2-minute penalty is a penalty shot, and the most you can get on one of those is one goal.
Fair enough, the two together may be too radical. One or the other would be a good start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedScull View Post
First, I think you underestimate the importance of in-game adjustments that teams make.

Secondly, I edit my posts (a bad habit in quick conversations) and replied as well with this:

You can't stop coaching. Putting players in situations where coaching is prohibited is silly to me. You're removing strategy from the game, and frankly if you do what you're speaking of you'll end up in a trapping-friendly NHL again. Every line will have to be able to trap and smother the opposing players, so offense might go up (I doubt it), but it won't be exciting hockey. Do we really want to encourage clamp-down defensive hockey again?
I agree there are in-game adjustments, but seriously, again modern technology. You'll have people watching and helping and if you ban something as simple as outside advise, you'll create all sorts of cheating scandals.

I am not suggesting coaching be stopped, it's just that strategy is so heavily tilted towards defense and has been for about 15 years. Something has to tilt the playing field back towards offense over defense and short of contraction, which no one wants, there isn't much I can see.

This rule idea, while likely to never happen, does make match-ups harder to physically get. That doesn't eliminate coaching, but it does make it a bit harder to always have the top D against the top O.

To me it's the type of minor change that might help, certainly couldn't hurt and wouldn't put a bunch of asterisks in the record books. That said, for all sorts of logistical, it is never going to happen.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 05:51 PM
  #46
Sir Jacques Demers
Registered User
 
Sir Jacques Demers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 941
vCash: 500
I think the game needs more rats to increase scoring

Sir Jacques Demers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:19 PM
  #47
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
I don't know about these changes..... However one i do like is one that has been trumpted by Steve Kouleas of the Score all year long.

Teams that are playing the trap are often icing the puck at even strength.... There needs to be some extra deterent to icing the puck at even strength.... It is obvious that for teams like the Canucks, Ducks, Devils, etc... that not being allowed to change lines after icing the puck is not enough of a deterent....

What about something like 3 icings in a period = 2 minute penalty for delay of game. Or something similar.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 03-16-2008 at 08:09 PM.
Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:52 PM
  #48
JrHockeyFan
Registered User
 
JrHockeyFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
I have a three other suggestion. s

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.

.
Don't know if you are aware of this, but the Habs were the reason that icing was allowed during a PK. Their power play was just too overwhelming, so the rules were changed. Now here we are with the #1 PP again.

Sounds like a great idea

JrHockeyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:56 PM
  #49
JrHockeyFan
Registered User
 
JrHockeyFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
I don't know about these changes..... However one i do like is one that has been trumpted by Steve Kouleas of the Score all year long.

Teams that are playing the trap are often icing the puck at even strength.... There needs to be some extra deterent to icing the puck at even strength.... It is obvious that for teams like the Canucks, Ducks, Devils, etc... that not being allowed to change lines after icing the puck is not enough of a deterent....

What about something like 3 icings in a period = 2 minute penalty for delay of game. Or something similar.
You realize of course that people hate the 2 minutes for shooting it over the glass. Doncha think they'd hate this idea too for the same reason. Especially if they were trying to hit a guy on a breakaway, which is actually gonna deter them from trying it with that rule change. That would be counterproductive I'd think


Last edited by Beakermania*: 03-16-2008 at 08:08 PM.
JrHockeyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:58 PM
  #50
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackett View Post
do 2nd periods annoy you, then?
if you switch it so it is first and 3rd then the idea is to cause confusion and more bad line changes would happen. I am not annoyed by 2nd periods, but why would you want to change the game to encourage bad line changes?

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 01:03 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.