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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
