HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Mellanby's idea to increase goals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-16-2008, 07:00 PM
  #51
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,689
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.
I would actually be in favour of something like this. Outside of last minute desperation, there is no excuse for professional hockey players to ice the puck.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 03-16-2008 at 07:08 PM.
Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:06 PM
  #52
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan View Post
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
Every potential rule change has its plus/minuses..... perhaps there are ways to modify this so that breakaway pass icings don't count towards your total?? .... Perhaps the number has to be played around with a little bit?? Any change should be done slowly and tested at the AHL level first, and this seems to be the NHL has gone in recent years.

For example some have suggested allowing the puck to be played off the netting.... this might keep the play going and could produce some more exciting hockey.... but you have to look at what coaches will be thinking with a change like this too..... Could coaches use it as a defensive strategy?? Ie throw every dump in at the mesh in the corner cause it will cushion the puck and there won't be big bounces off the boards... make the d retreat farther to get the puck??

its give and take and there are no easy solutions, without radically changing the way the game is played.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:15 PM
  #53
JrHockeyFan
Registered User
 
JrHockeyFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
Every potential rule change has its plus/minuses..... perhaps there are ways to modify this so that breakaway pass icings don't count towards your total?? .... Perhaps the number has to be played around with a little bit?? Any change should be done slowly and tested at the AHL level first, and this seems to be the NHL has gone in recent years.

For example some have suggested allowing the puck to be played off the netting.... this might keep the play going and could produce some more exciting hockey.... but you have to look at what coaches will be thinking with a change like this too..... Could coaches use it as a defensive strategy?? Ie throw every dump in at the mesh in the corner cause it will cushion the puck and there won't be big bounces off the boards... make the d retreat farther to get the puck??

its give and take and there are no easy solutions, without radically changing the way the game is played.
I hear ya.

I wish they'd use judgement on those delay of game penalties, i.e. if the guy is not under pressure. But if they won't do that, then I think it would be a tough sell for other rules

JrHockeyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:16 PM
  #54
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
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?
Its not so much as to cause confusion as it is to make line matchups a more difficult chore.

I agree with the people that say more goals does not necessarily mean better entertainment. But I think the league is hellbent in order to find a way to increase goals and I just want to exhaust every subtle change to try and boost the scoring. Becuase we know what is coming if all else fails. Bigger nets


Last edited by Beakermania*: 03-16-2008 at 07:23 PM.
Hackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:29 PM
  #55
FTowwn
Registered User
 
FTowwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bermy View Post
the game is fine how it is imo
agreed.

All this talk about scoring more goals and blah blaH, the game is already very entertaining. Changing the size of the nets or again decreasing goalie pad sizes is just plain stupid.

FTowwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:42 PM
  #56
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FTowwn View Post
agreed.

All this talk about scoring more goals and blah blaH, the game is already very entertaining. Changing the size of the nets or again decreasing goalie pad sizes is just plain stupid.
Leg pads I agree.... but did you see the Chest protection that Giguere had on last week vs Montreal..... thats a little ridiculous if you ask me.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:43 PM
  #57
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FTowwn View Post
agreed.

All this talk about scoring more goals and blah blaH, the game is already very entertaining. Changing the size of the nets or again decreasing goalie pad sizes is just plain stupid.
I also like the game the way it is... but as a personal opinion, if they'd really want to open up the game, I'd take away the offsides (keep the blue line) and reinstate the no-two line pass rule, but only apply it for the offensive blue line. This way they'D keep a form of transition, but with the possibility to eliminate trapping with five man in the middle zone, plus good offensive teams will be able to keep the puck longer in the zone being able to cross the blueline without causing an offside. The league will never do that tho, as they are too conservative and this would downgrade their tactic to help less talented teams and produce parity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
Leg pads I agree.... but did you see the Chest protection that Giguere had on last week vs Montreal..... thats a little ridiculous if you ask me.
Yeah it is ridiculous... I've always despised Giggy somewhat because of that... he's one of those goalies that take all his equipment to the limit... HE seems to want to compensate for lack of something...


Last edited by Ozymandias: 03-16-2008 at 07:55 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 07:49 PM
  #58
Krautso
Registered User
 
Krautso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,459
vCash: 500
The only way to get better hockey it to have better players on the ice. Player development and team contraction.

Krautso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 08:41 PM
  #59
KnucklesTheTard*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 84
vCash: 500
I personally would like to see olympic size rinks. Lets be frank here, how many NHL teams actually sell out? Most Ranger games front seats are all given to big companies and people don't show up. If money is a problem get more advertising on the ice. Longer boards mean more advertising. Let the face off circles in the team zones have adds.

KnucklesTheTard* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 08:44 PM
  #60
Istvan
Registered User
 
Istvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
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.
If the goals were increased by the width of the posts the league could quasi quantify the expected increase in goal scoring by reviewing the number of posts and crossbars hit during the season. Personally I like the idea of the larger international ice surface.

Istvan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 08:59 PM
  #61
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,743
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Istvan View Post
If the goals were increased by the width of the posts the league could quasi quantify the expected increase in goal scoring by reviewing the number of posts and crossbars hit during the season. Personally I like the idea of the larger international ice surface.
The game would be considerably less physical if you increased the size of the rinks.

Honestly, the NHL just has to start putting money into developing hockey in european/foreign countries and increase the amount of talented players coming in from all over the world. The more Kovalchuk's we have vs. Jarkko Ruutu's, the better offensive games we're going to have.

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 09:02 PM
  #62
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnucklesTheTard View Post
I personally would like to see olympic size rinks. Lets be frank here, how many NHL teams actually sell out? Most Ranger games front seats are all given to big companies and people don't show up. If money is a problem get more advertising on the ice. Longer boards mean more advertising. Let the face off circles in the team zones have adds.
The argument that by taking out the first two rows of seats you lose the two highest paying rows in the arena is false..... You actually lose the two lowest paying rows on the first tier of your arena.

This is because Row 3 now becomes Row 1, and you can charge more for it..... 4 becomes 2 and so on down the line.....

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 10:34 PM
  #63
LesHabsRock
Registered User
 
LesHabsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,905
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.
I like the idea and have brought this up over the last couple of years. Accidentally clearing the puck out of your defensive zone over the glass is a delay of game penalty, so why isn't an intentional icing call a penalty ? To me, icing is a delay of the game, literally. I agree there should be a given increment of icing calls like, say, after every 5 icing calls.

Trivia question (and I don't know the answer)...What is the league average of icing calls per game?

BTw I'm not a fan of making it easier to score on the PP. The PP is already an advantage. I think 5 on 5 is the part of the game they should look at, if anything, but, then again, I think hockey is fine the way it is and more exciting than ever, post lockout. The game is faster and has more odd man rushes and pretty passing plays. It's clear the rule changes made after the lockout has somewhat deterred the trap and allowed for talented fast skating players to excel.

Might I close in saying this...Making the game easier rewards mediocre players. Let's leave the game alone and reward greatness rather than tamper with it to reward mediocrity.

LesHabsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2008, 11:40 PM
  #64
Montrealer
Registered User
 
Montrealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chambly QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,450
vCash: 500
I'll give my 2 cents on some ideas.

Icing during penalty kills: Not crazy about this one. It's actually a pretty great play when the penalty killers can shoot the puck down the ice after barely hanging onto a 5-on-3.

Full-length minor penalties: I love this idea. It's a blast from the past and it ends up making teams pay dearly for stupid penalties. Imagine how even 2 goal leads can evaporate from a stupid hooking call with 3 minutes left in the game. Nice way of upping offense without changing anything too drastically, and rewards great play and would probably also have the effect of reducing clutching/grabbing/hooking due to the severity of the penalty increasing.

Bigger nets: If all else fails, at least this is foolproof. Unlike many, I don't think net size is written in stone, and considering net size was designed around goalies who were at least 10% smaller than today's netminders, I wouldn't mind seeing an increase in net size for the first time in 100 years. Don't understand why some people think this means increasing by 1 foot on each size; even a couple of inches wider and taller would mean a marginal but significant increase in scoring without even being noticeable to the average fan. However, the sheer apoplexy it would produce in some fans does make it a less attractive idea than the full-length penalty idea.

Bigger rinks: No. I don't understand where the myth started that bigger rinks means bigger offense, but if European leagues and international play aren't enough to convince proponents, look at how Boston used to fare in their tiny Garden before they moved to the current TD BankNorth. Somehow they still had some potent offensive teams, even in the crazy eighties. Don't think this would work at all and is not worth the trouble of reconstructing every arena.

Montrealer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 12:42 AM
  #65
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Mellanby and Ron put me to sleep when they talk. Sound like a couple of ol d hags sipping tea on the BBC.

To your question, no... Mellanby is out to lunch as usual.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 01:59 AM
  #66
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesHabsRock View Post
I like the idea and have brought this up over the last couple of years. Accidentally clearing the puck out of your defensive zone over the glass is a delay of game penalty, so why isn't an intentional icing call a penalty ? To me, icing is a delay of the game, literally. I agree there should be a given increment of icing calls like, say, after every 5 icing calls.

Trivia question (and I don't know the answer)...What is the league average of icing calls per game?

BTw I'm not a fan of making it easier to score on the PP. The PP is already an advantage. I think 5 on 5 is the part of the game they should look at, if anything, but, then again, I think hockey is fine the way it is and more exciting than ever, post lockout. The game is faster and has more odd man rushes and pretty passing plays. It's clear the rule changes made after the lockout has somewhat deterred the trap and allowed for talented fast skating players to excel.
Once again, we're thinking out of the box here. I haven't necessarily thought these ideas all the way through but let me throw a few out for discussion:

First, we eliminate the AUTOMATIC penalty for delay of game when a puck is shot out of the arena. These situations will be integrated with icings. However, all faceoffs following a needless puck over the glass infraction are in the defensive zone of the offending team.

To speed up the game, we eliminate the automatic faceoff on all icing calls. We also institute no-touch icing at the same time. This means that an icing is an automatic "infraction" the minute the puck is shot down the ice and the goaltender does not attempt to play the puck, HOWEVER, the play continues, and the official scorekeeper merely rings up an icing call when instructed by the linesman. Each period, a team is allowed 4 icings and/or needless pucks over the glass (from any zone and off the stick of any player). The fifth icing or puck over glass gets you an automatic delay of game penalty and the counter is re-started.

Exception: the last minute of the third period and the overtime period. During these times, a puck over glass is a penalty, and an icing is a faceoff in the defensive zone.

Second change: All two minute minor penalties will be eliminated. Minor fouls will either result in a penalty shot if they are on the puck carrier who is on a breakaway OR IN THE OFFENSIVE ZONE IN A POSITION TO SHOOT, or they will be one minute penalties. Icings during a one-minute penalty count toward the team's limit. Just Icings during a two-man disadvantage, or during a four-minute or five-minute one man disadvantage are not infractions.

Third change: to discourage needless obstruction fouls, any player who accumulates three fouls in a single game gets a ten-minute miscounduct. A fourth foul and he is out of the game. Simultaneous penalties for roughing or other altercations will not count. (The two minute unsporstmanlike penalty for mouthing off wouldn't exist anymore and thus wouldn't count toward these limits. Offenders would get ten-minute or game misconducts like in the old days. Bench minors would be one-minute penalties.)

Feel free to discuss the pros and cons of each idea or combinations of them.

BaseballCoach is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 06:38 AM
  #67
Moester
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 947
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Moester Send a message via MSN to Moester
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
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.....
Those suggestions make no sense to me. They're not about making the game better. Having constant penalty shots or constant icing calls during penalties sounds like a snooze-fest to me. You want to keep the action continuous, not have faceoffs every three seconds and 5 penalty shots during the third period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
Once again, we're thinking out of the box here. I haven't necessarily thought these ideas all the way through but let me throw a few out for discussion:

First, we eliminate the AUTOMATIC penalty for delay of game when a puck is shot out of the arena. These situations will be integrated with icings. However, all faceoffs following a needless puck over the glass infraction are in the defensive zone of the offending team......
To me putting the amount of times you can do something is just plain laughable. You really think that a ref won't "forget" that the Rangers are on their 3rd clearing for the game. To me it would just make it more difficult to get into a game.

Scoring is FINE...We've got 40-50 goal scorers in the league, if anything I think we need to stop hamstringing the defense and let the players play.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 03-17-2008 at 10:30 AM.
Moester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 09:07 AM
  #68
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 20,944
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....
yea, Stratchan is such a little rumour-mongering weasel that is he's entertaining to watch. He loooves the dirt!

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 10:24 AM
  #69
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 18,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Istvan View Post
If the goals were increased by the width of the posts the league could quasi quantify the expected increase in goal scoring by reviewing the number of posts and crossbars hit during the season. Personally I like the idea of the larger international ice surface.
I just think making the nets bigger is the "most harmless" way of satisfying whatever marketing need it is that they feel they need to satisfy with more goals. Without having any other real effects on the game. (Other than messing with goalies' heads. IMHO the size increases we're talking about wouldn't result in players suddenly shooting more from everywhere on the ice to a degree that would affect the flow or look of a game as some have sometimes suggested.)

I'm not saying I agree with the marketing need, mind you. Just recognizing its existence and influence. My overall impression of the game is mostly an "ain't broke" one, save with a few little grudges against the consistency of the officiating and standards of existing rule application, but not with the rules themselves.

I really don't like the larger international surfaces, though. It doesn't *always* take the physicality out of a game (we've seen enough Team Canada bangers to know that) and it doesn't always make teams more careful in terms of keeping 4 back, but I can see how it might generally, on average, have that kind of result.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 11:14 AM
  #70
shortcat1
Registered User
 
shortcat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Downtown Palau, ON
Country: Palau
Posts: 895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed ible View Post
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...
This is absolutely the best suggestion of all!

I love it! (no sarcasm intended either - I'm just enjoying picturing the whole thing taking place... )

shortcat1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 11:51 AM
  #71
llamateizer
Registered User
 
llamateizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Country:
Posts: 5,081
vCash: 500
i disagree

1st-------2nd-------3rd-----OT
1709 2089 2058 103

not a big difference between 2nd and 3rd period

llamateizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 12:49 PM
  #72
shortcat1
Registered User
 
shortcat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Downtown Palau, ON
Country: Palau
Posts: 895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
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.
I don't know if the NHL is even thinking this way but, that aside, this is a super point. Swinging skates in close proximity can surely lead to a lot of blood-letting.

shortcat1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 06:54 PM
  #73
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by husamus156 View Post
i disagree

1st-------2nd-------3rd-----OT
1709 2089 2058 103

not a big difference between 2nd and 3rd period
The 3rd period is inflated because of empty net goals. Mellanby took those out in the stats that he showed, something like 170 have been scored so only 1888 real goals have been scored in the 3rd period.

CGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2008, 10:09 PM
  #74
coolguy21415
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 9,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc2005 View Post
The 3rd period is inflated because of empty net goals. Mellanby took those out in the stats that he showed, something like 170 have been scored so only 1888 real goals have been scored in the 3rd period.
I would say that some of those goals are "over-discounted" in that you're removing any real goals because of empty net status.

If empty net goals didn't count for as much, I would discount them, but when there's only a 1 goal lead, they count for just as much as any other goal.

coolguy21415 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 04:58 AM.

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.