HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

What size rink do you prefer: NHL, International or midway?

View Poll Results: What's the best rink size?
NHL: 200 feet long and 85 feet wide 24 27.91%
International: 210 feet long and 98 feet wide 23 26.74%
Midway: 205 feet long and 91 feet wide 39 45.35%
Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-03-2011, 11:31 AM
  #26
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 7,569
vCash: 500
I don't think a midway point would be as much change as people think. The rink remains significantly smaller than the international one. Physical play will still be key.

The only difference you will notice is more great NHL highlight moves on ESPN Center Ice.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 01:05 PM
  #27
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 7,569
vCash: 500
Looks like more than 2/3 of the people here want a larger surface.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 01:48 PM
  #28
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,318
vCash: 500
Awards:
It's an interesting discussion point, but I really don't see any need to change. I think the game is fine right now. There are some minor tweaks that ought to be made, but I think it's fundamentally strong and doesn't need this type of significant change.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 01:58 PM
  #29
007
Olympic nut
 
007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mannahatta
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 3,471
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to 007 Send a message via MSN to 007
I think that it would make sense to increase the size of the rinks in the NHL, because the players have become so large and fast. On the other hand, I don't like the European game as much as the NHL game -- the large ice does give more space to your skilled players, but what you end up with is players looking for the perfect shot all the time. I like that in the NHL players will shoot from anywhere on the ice, which means the game has a high tempo.

I ended up voting mid-way, but I'm not sure I shouldn't have voted for the NHL ice.

007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 02:09 PM
  #30
Puckhog27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 783
vCash: 500
I like the NHL game more. Keep the size of the rinks small.

Puckhog27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 02:44 PM
  #31
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 7,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
It's an interesting discussion point, but I really don't see any need to change. I think the game is fine right now. There are some minor tweaks that ought to be made, but I think it's fundamentally strong and doesn't need this type of significant change.

Would you support a minor change? Half a foot extra behind each net and an extra two feet of width?

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 03:24 PM
  #32
Bluenote13
20 down, 34 to go !
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
The expansion of the sheet of ice the Pros play on might help exponentially when it comes to limiting certain types of severe upper body injuries. That is just one point some in amateur hockey have expressed to me at times over the years.

I also don't think the game in Europe should be compared to what goes on in the NHL, different game. When we see the best NHL'ers playing on big sheets of ice the quality is still very good, hitting, scoring, great saves, etc. The NHL game has just as many dud games on NHL rinks as the bigger rink leagues. And remember, the dimensions are not monumentally bigger, like any talk of change an inch seems totally ridiculous to old time hockey enthusiasts

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 01:23 PM
  #33
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,060
vCash: 500
Big rinks make for far better hockey. Skills shine brighter and there is no loss of physicality. Since it would mean less revenue it can never happen.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 01:32 PM
  #34
3Four3
Registered User
 
3Four3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 660
vCash: 500
Midway, but later along the line.

With this current rink, I agree, it's harder for the offense to get creative.

With the international rink, I agree, the hits aren't that magnified.

3Four3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:07 PM
  #35
Mr Atoz
I hid the Atavachron
 
Mr Atoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,818
vCash: 500
I'm kind of partial to this size rink.


Mr Atoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2011, 12:55 PM
  #36
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 7,569
vCash: 500
I think Step would be an All Star on an international rink.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2011, 05:53 PM
  #37
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,483
vCash: 500
NHL size all the way. I love the skill, but without hitting and grinding it's like basketball with sticks. Hockey can't be all skill, or else it's not hockey. The beauty of hockey imo is that it's a perfect mix of skill and steel balls.

Also, my biggest problem with the big rink is, as the rule changes this year have shown, when physicality decreases, concussions actually increase. Just let them ****ing smash each other and there won't be a problem I always say.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2011, 06:46 PM
  #38
Latex*
DM is good
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Helsinki,Helsingfors
Posts: 5,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
NHL size all the way. I love the skill, but without hitting and grinding it's like basketball with sticks. Hockey can't be all skill, or else it's not hockey. The beauty of hockey imo is that it's a perfect mix of skill and steel balls.

Also, my biggest problem with the big rink is, as the rule changes this year have shown, when physicality decreases, concussions actually increase. Just let them ****ing smash each other and there won't be a problem I always say.
I don't see your logic here.

But i have always wanted to see NHL games in the finnish rinks, which are i guess 'mid-way'. The SM-Liiga hockey is actually a pretty interesting mix of European and north american game.


So i voted mid-way.

Latex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2011, 06:56 PM
  #39
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latexi84 View Post
I don't see your logic here.

But i have always wanted to see NHL games in the finnish rinks, which are i guess 'mid-way'. The SM-Liiga hockey is actually a pretty interesting mix of European and north american game.


So i voted mid-way.
It's not logic, it's observation. For the 2011 season they added new rules for headshots, which reduced physicality, and in the 2011 season everyone and their cat was getting a concussion. That's not my logic, it's actually what happened.

It's because players don't fear suspensions. They fear getting knocked the **** out. You take that away with rules and regulations, and guys like Matt Cooke will gladly take their suspensions with no fear of revenge. The only way we stop concussions is by letting the players stop it, with their fists if need be. Back in the days of the original six where brawls were commonplace, concussions were rare, and they didn't even wear helmets.

I know it sounds weird, but it's a fact; the softer the game becomes, the more dangerous it becomes.

For example, take Kunitz's disgusting elbow on Gange in round 1. He got a one game suspension. Big deal. Because he on;y got a slap on the wrist, I'm sure he'll do it again some day and that'll be another concussion. If he pulled that back in the day, there wouldn't be a suspension, but Kunitz would've been picking teeth out of his ass. Then he'll think twice.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2011, 07:17 PM
  #40
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
I think increasing the size of the ice could benefit the NHL game in some ways.

But, i doubt they'll ever do it. Each arena would have to take out at least 2-3 rows of seating. Which is what, 1000 seats give or take?

I do like international rules a bit more then NHL rules. Such as rules that help protect the goaltenders. Auto icing, and id like a slightly wider rink but not quite as wide as international.

It could really help put the skill of the league on display. And would help remove the "goons" from the game.

Could also help reduce some of the dangerous hits.

But just don't see the league doing it with the amount of ticket sales they'd lose by default.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2011, 01:00 AM
  #41
3Four3
Registered User
 
3Four3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
It's because players don't fear suspensions. They fear getting knocked the **** out. You take that away with rules and regulations, and guys like Matt Cooke will gladly take their suspensions with no fear of revenge. The only way we stop concussions is by letting the players stop it, with their fists if need be. Back in the days of the original six where brawls were commonplace, concussions were rare, and they didn't even wear helmets.

I know it sounds weird, but it's a fact; the softer the game becomes, the more dangerous it becomes.

For example, take Kunitz's disgusting elbow on Gange in round 1. He got a one game suspension. Big deal. Because he on;y got a slap on the wrist, I'm sure he'll do it again some day and that'll be another concussion. If he pulled that back in the day, there wouldn't be a suspension, but Kunitz would've been picking teeth out of his ass. Then he'll think twice.
There's really another reason as to why concussions were so low back then:



Skip to 2:23.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Auto icing, and id like a slightly wider rink but not quite as wide as international.
I actually hate it. Doesn't allow an opposing player to negate it, and sometimes players here take their sweet ass time trying to touch it, which the ref could negate the icing call.

3Four3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2011, 01:11 PM
  #42
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
The less digression the Refs have, the better.

Especially with the influx of younger less experienced Refs coming into the league.

Plus, an extra few seconds on the clock in a close game in the playoffs because of auto icing, could lead to more entertaining dramatics.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2011, 05:06 PM
  #43
Sad London Ranger
RIP Boogie
 
Sad London Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: london england
Posts: 2,455
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Sad London Ranger
The concussion spiral will dictate drastic changes. more space on ice is simply common sense.
It should have been dictated when the rinks were built, but it doesn't matter rinks will be increased.

As an example, following the hillsboro tragic incident in the UK football association has decreed that all football grounds had to be sitting room only, initially only the top league.

Football in UK has not looked back. The game has been more an more popular and the owner have not looked back either, increasing ticket prices as a result.

bigger ice rinks make sense for the players and for the spectators.

Sad London Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2011, 07:37 PM
  #44
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,347
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
I prefer each team picks their own size rink, hence the idea of home ice advantage that doesn't seem to exist in the NHL anymore.

But as for the question, the inbetween seems like to be in the interest of the league these days. A little more space for the guys who are obviously time and a half larger and twice as fast as they were in 1900 when the dimensions were created, and the hitting will decrease minimally.

nyrmessier011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 04:36 AM
  #45
fredrikstad
Registered User
 
fredrikstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Fredrikstad, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,116
vCash: 512
I go for international.
I believe that same size rinks all over the world would have meant a lot for hockey in general.
And all the players would benefit a lot,since they don't have to learn a new game,when moving from Europe to NA or criss cross.

fredrikstad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 12:00 PM
  #46
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 7,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredrikstad View Post
I go for international.
I believe that same size rinks all over the world would have meant a lot for hockey in general.
And all the players would benefit a lot,since they don't have to learn a new game,when moving from Europe to NA or criss cross.

If having one rink in Europe and in North America is important, shouldn't it be as a result of a compromise?

"International" really means "European." Who are the non-European countries playing hockey? Israel, China, Korea, Mexico, South Africa. I think that's it. (Kazakhstan and Turkey are partly in Europe.)

None of the major hockey powers are outside of Europe.

If Europe and North America compromised with each other to settle on some midway point in rink size, I think it would be beneficial to both.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 12:10 PM
  #47
StaalWars
TeaOrrCoffey
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,119
vCash: 500
Initially, I was a big supporter of switching to the larger international rinks. Now though, I've started to think that it wouldn't really benefit offense or increase scoring, it would just make scoring different.

Coaches crave control and predictability. I think the international rink actually makes the game more systematic and predictable. More space means more time to think, more area to escape and avoid turnovers. NHL coaches will figure out a way to stifle offense on the large rinks just as well, if not better, than on the North American rinks.

Scoring won't increase, it will just be different. Certain players will become more effective than others. Guys like Getzlaf and Perry who are able to bully opponents on the smaller rink might be less effective goal scorers. Guys like Leino and even Stepan who rely on thinking and patience will be more effective. Less goals off deflections and tip ins and scrums in front of the net.

The NHL playing on international size rinks wouldn't necessarily be better for offense, it would just be different.

StaalWars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 05:53 AM
  #48
fredrikstad
Registered User
 
fredrikstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Fredrikstad, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,116
vCash: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
If having one rink in Europe and in North America is important, shouldn't it be as a result of a compromise?

"International" really means "European." Who are the non-European countries playing hockey? Israel, China, Korea, Mexico, South Africa. I think that's it. (Kazakhstan and Turkey are partly in Europe.)

None of the major hockey powers are outside of Europe.

If Europe and North America compromised with each other to settle on some midway point in rink size, I think it would be beneficial to both.
Think about it on more time,and I have to agreed with you on this one.

fredrikstad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2012, 01:54 AM
  #49
cloak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 289
vCash: 500
NHL sized ice has been practically obsolete since 2006, i am dismayed that it's taken so long for the media or "hockey people" to try and stir up the pot. of course midway or international is the way to go duh.

cloak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2012, 02:19 AM
  #50
petejudge
Registered User
 
petejudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 647
vCash: 500
i'm a fan of grinding, physical hockey, so obviously i prefer the nhl size. however, i think with the concussion issues that are coming up in the league right now it's only a matter of time before they switch it up. even though it's gonna be a crazy expense to expand the surfaces i think it's only another 5-10 years before they switch it either the international size or the midway point.

petejudge 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 03:40 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.