Bobby Smith offers brilliant solution to restore excitement to the NHL game!
In THN Bobby Smith offers the best solution to what is killing hockey entertainment that I have read in years. His proposal of implementing 6' wide bluelines and redline takes a little getting used to however, it accomplishes what so many experts have been unable to do which is to increase playing space without moving the existing boards. At first glance, the new rink is a little strange to look at but after looking at the diagram a few times I'm already getting used to it, just like I did with boards and ice advertising and use of colour on football fields etc. If you havn't seen the article or the diagram you may want to take the time to review it. In essence, it would increase the playing area in each zone by over 10% and allow for many more creative passing plays, odd man attacks and would limit the effectiveness of trapping. The emphasis would be returned to skill and not just on how tall a player is. BRILLIANT and I hope it flies sooner than later. I understand the WHA are thinking of implementing the wider bluelines to go with their no redline rule. We might just see more OILERS style 80's hockey. Hopefully, Gretzky will jump on board and support this idea and not go against it just because Bobby Smith former Coyotes GM was the mastermind behind it.
I forgot to mention how this would improve power plays vs. todays dominent penalty killing units which would force players to play inside the rules which would also increase the skill level and entertainment of the game.
The article is in the 2003-04 NHL hockey yearbook addition.
Pepsi Bluelines and the Coca Cola Redline would make for great advertising. Gotta love it. I got used to looking at the lines on the diagram after only a few viewings. The bluelines are actually 2" lines painted dark blue spaced 6 feet apart with light pale blue coloured in between so you can still see the puck. The redline should be done the same way. e.g.'s of how the lines which would be considered in play and part of all 3 zones; would provide an extra 2' in the offensive zone allowing for more room in the offensive zone which would alter man to man coverage which is killing hockey and an extra 6' in the neutral zone and 5' feet more length on each half of the ice allowing for penetrating longer passes which will certainly open up the game, increase scoring chances, odd man attacks, breakaways and goal production. There is no downside in doing this and IMO the sooner the better. No drastic elimination of the redline and no dramatic changes to the fundamentals of the game. No brainer.
Just bag the red line; that would keep defenses more honest as it wouldn't be so easy to get called for a two line pass when breaking out of your own zone. The faster skaters in the league could open up the ice in a hurry because it would be much easier to hit them on long outlet passes and start a quick rush. You could still trap effectively, but it would be a lot harder to do with no Red Line.
Just bag the red line; that would keep defenses more honest as it wouldn't be so easy to get called for a two line pass when breaking out of your own zone. The faster skaters in the league could open up the ice in a hurry because it would be much easier to hit them on long outlet passes and start a quick rush. You could still trap effectively, but it would be a lot harder to do with no Red Line.
I apologize if this was already discussed at length and with all due respect to Zippy, no redline increases trapping and that has been proven over and over again in Europe and in the NCAA where it is used all the time. They simply move the trap back into the neutral zone making hockey even more boring. Bobby Smith's solution is the single best hockey suggestion I have read in the last decade. It accomplish's what this league needs so badly without any major expense or drastic rule changes. I really do suggest you read and study the proposal as it has no downside, only upside to bring back entertainment value to the NHL game.
What is the difference between moving the blue line back 6' and making the blue lines 6' wide? Both seem to suffer from the same problems.
I may be wrong on this one, but I believe the point is that the line itself is considered a part of both zones. Thus increasing the size of each zone without actually adding any ice surface.
I may be wrong on this one, but I believe the point is that the line itself is considered a part of both zones. Thus increasing the size of each zone without actually adding any ice surface.
Sorry if this has all been discussed before, but I had not seen this so am trying to understand. Is the deal with the "blue" zone that you don't go offside coming in unless you are offside the offensive line (expanding the neutral zone) but once you are in you don't go "outside" until you are past the neutral zone end of the blue zone (expanding the offensive zone)? If that is it, I can actually see this working although it would really take some adjustment.
I still think that the real problem is that with the size and skill/speed of modern players, the ice surface is too small. At the end, there just is not enough room to get things moving, so the trap works and the game slows down.
Is the deal with the "blue" zone that you don't go offside coming in unless you are offside the offensive line (expanding the neutral zone) but once you are in you don't go "outside" until you are past the neutral zone end of the blue zone (expanding the offensive zone)? If that is it, I can actually see this working although it would really take some adjustment.
Exactly. Id really like to see this idea given a try-out somewhere to see how it works in the real world. At the very least it's the best idea Ive seen so far and doesnt cost the owners a penny (well ok they have to buy more paint).
Is the deal with the "blue" zone that you don't go offside coming in unless you are offside the offensive line (expanding the neutral zone) but once you are in you don't go "outside" until you are past the neutral zone end of the blue zone (expanding the offensive zone)? If that is it, I can actually see this working although it would really take some adjustment.
Think of it this way. You can't go offside if at least on of your skates is on or inside the blueline and the puck is in the offensive zone. By increasing the size of the blue-line to 6 feet(from the 1 feet now) that gives you 5 more feet to play around on in the offensive zones since you can stand on the blueline while controlling the puck.
The thicker red line also effectively does the same for two line passes. If you pass the puck over a blue-line and the red line, it's a two-line pass. But with a thicker red-line, it would take more room, albeit small, to go over the red-line.
I personally like this idea, but it would have to be something that would be tested out in the minor leagues first.
I apologize if this was already discussed at length and with all due respect to Zippy, no redline increases trapping and that has been proven over and over again in Europe and in the NCAA where it is used all the time. They simply move the trap back into the neutral zone making hockey even more boring.
Not quite true. There is trapping in the NCAA but it is by definition much more spread out and not what the NHL sees night in night out. There is much more forechecking in the NCAA than you will see in the NHL. A more wide open game for sure.
looks good. i think the rules need to be modified to speed up the game, but before that, let's just modify the reffing system, or better yet, fire all the refs and train new ones who know when to make calls and when to put the whislte in their pocket.
Think of it this way. You can't go offside if at least on of your skates is on or inside the blueline and the puck is in the offensive zone. By increasing the size of the blue-line to 6 feet(from the 1 feet now) that gives you 5 more feet to play around on in the offensive zones since you can stand on the blueline while controlling the puck.
The thicker red line also effectively does the same for two line passes. If you pass the puck over a blue-line and the red line, it's a two-line pass. But with a thicker red-line, it would take more room, albeit small, to go over the red-line.
I personally like this idea, but it would have to be something that would be tested out in the minor leagues first.
That's not quite right either Peter Griffen; Here is the explanation I posted on the Phoenix board;
Originally Posted by eye
I don't see where this rule change would make it more complicated. Basically the same rules apply. In some ways it simplifies things. Off-side occurs when a player enters the white ice inside the blueline before the puck does. Once in the zone the puck remains in play until it is cleared outside the blueline to the neutral zone white ice. Two line passes only occur when a team passes from inside their blueline on the white ice to the white ice on the other side of the redline which is 5 feet longer than current rules allow. The neutral zone is extended to 62 feet instead of the current 56 feet also allowing for longer passes and less trapping. This will actually work better than no redline hockey or using olympic sized ice surfaces all without major costs to the owners.
Not quite true. There is trapping in the NCAA but it is by definition much more spread out and not what the NHL sees night in night out. There is much more forechecking in the NCAA than you will see in the NHL. A more wide open game for sure.
In today's NHL taking out the 2-line pass is not a good idea. Sure it looked good in the olympics, but how long would it take the Jacques Lemaire's, Ken Hitchcock's and Jacques Martin's of the world to tell your defensemen to not enter the zone at all and protect the long outlet pass. It would actually make the game worse, and enourage more puck control which will increase obstruction and cautious plays. You'd have to create complicated rules against it.
In reality, it's just a complicated way of putting the ice back to the way it was in 1990. The neutral zone was 60 feet, they made it 54 feet now. His idea simply puts it back to 60.
The far more straightforward solution, not requiring any adjustment by refs or fans is to make the three zones 60 feet each again, by pulling up the rulebook from 1990, and painting the lines exactly the same way as they were.
More space behind the net is not a desirable thing. That was the huge mistake of moving the lines. Only a tiny fraction of the game happens behind the blue line, whereas a *huge* chunk of the game takes place in the neutral zone. They took the space from where it was used, and moved it to where it was not needed. Even worse, the area behind the net, Gretz's office so to speak *worked because it was so small*. Making that space bigger just stopped the office area from working.
In reality, it's just a complicated way of putting the ice back to the way it was in 1990. The neutral zone was 60 feet, they made it 54 feet now. His idea simply puts it back to 60.
The far more straightforward solution, not requiring any adjustment by refs or fans is to make the three zones 60 feet each again, by pulling up the rulebook from 1990, and painting the lines exactly the same way as they were.
Bobby Smith's solution would extend the neutral zone from 56 feet to 62 feet. At the same time it would make the offensive zones bigger without sacrificing space behind the net. So you increase the size of all three zones without any changes to the rules. I would love to see this tried out.
In reality, it's just a complicated way of putting the ice back to the way it was in 1990. The neutral zone was 60 feet, they made it 54 feet now. His idea simply puts it back to 60.
I think that is a tad over-simplifying things. The ideas accomplish a similar goal but I think there are substantial differences. With Smith's idea the space behind the net remains, but all 3 zones are increased in size rather than just the neutral zone.
Although I agree with everything you've said, and would love for them to get rid of that huge lane behind the net in favour of a larger neutral zone. Maybe the NHL could look at doing both simultaneouly or some combination of both ideas.
it certainly is a creative idea
but i really don't think the rules need to be changed to improve the game
the biggest problem in the league i think is the RIDICULOUS RIDICULOUS amount of grabbing holding hooking and stickchecking
the ducks essentially rolled their way to the finals by grabbing hold of the nearest skilled player and riding them around the ice, not to mention the obscene amount of slashing
the goalie equipment has also become much too large
i understand that new stick technology allows players to shoot harder and goalies need more protection
but i don't see how goalie pads can't become harder and more protective without getting bigger
wider lines may help, but i think it is skirting the issue
less dirty work and smaller goalie pads, i you ask me, are the biggest issues
I think that is a tad over-simplifying things. The ideas accomplish a similar goal but I think there are substantial differences. With Smith's idea the space behind the net remains, but all 3 zones are increased in size rather than just the neutral zone.
Although I agree with everything you've said, and would love for them to get rid of that huge lane behind the net in favour of a larger neutral zone. Maybe the NHL could look at doing both simultaneouly or some combination of both ideas.
it certainly is a creative idea
but i really don't think the rules need to be changed to improve the game
the biggest problem in the league i think is the RIDICULOUS RIDICULOUS amount of grabbing holding hooking and stickchecking
the ducks essentially rolled their way to the finals by grabbing hold of the nearest skilled player and riding them around the ice, not to mention the obscene amount of slashing
the goalie equipment has also become much too large
i understand that new stick technology allows players to shoot harder and goalies need more protection
but i don't see how goalie pads can't become harder and more protective without getting bigger
wider lines may help, but i think it is skirting the issue
less dirty work and smaller goalie pads, i you ask me, are the biggest issues
You have every right to disagree but if you keep an open mind and really study Bobby Smith's proposal many of your complaints would be taken care of. With more room for power plays to operate against current dominent penalty killing teams power play success rates would increase which would force coaches to instill discipline in their players to stay away from penalties. Scoring, scoring chances, odd man attacks, even breakaways would return to the game. You could move the goaline back 2 feet as well making for even more room in the offensive zone and an even longer neutral zone. THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO THIS PROPOSAL.
