And regarding the proposal of making the nets less deep, this might be going a bit too far but this is a rink in England, and because the ice pad is so small they had to get these tiny nets so there would actually be room to skate behind them, I'm sure Alex Frolov would love it
curved spring loaded glass - obviously good. seems like it will protect players.
goal verification measures, obviously good as well.
shallower nets - i am for this. sounds great.
somewhere I read about taller nets, by like 2-4 inches? I like that idea as well. maybe 2 inches.
3 v 3 overtime? i'm ok with this. it's better than the shootout and if they can decide the game in 3 v 3, then by God, settle it in 3 v 3. It's at least worth trying. They should have it run in the AHL for more data at the very least. sure, it's pond hockey but it's still hockey. shoot outs are more... like practice drills. or soccer.
full 2 minutes penalty? do not want. as someone else stated, it just makes bad penalty call all the worse.
no icing during penalties? on the fence. it sounds pretty harsh but it also sounds like it makes perfect sense.
no hand pass - sounds good, but could go either way.
removing trapezoid - not sure what this would do
bear hug rule - need to see it in action, how it can be exploited, etc.
hybrid icing - yes
forcing goalies to play the puck - i think this rule needs some sort of modification like if the goalie tries to freeze the puck and there are no opponents within some pre-determined range, the play can be stopped but that team cannot change players so it's not a free-bee rest.
face off line up - i need to see this one.
i want to see the line change box some more as well. this is where there is a box painted around the bench area. the player coming off has to be in that box before the player coming on is allowed on the ice. it prevents cheating and unclear too many men situations.
want to see hand passes and high sticks (on pucks) result in no line change for the team who commits the infraction. actually, no clue if they do this already or not.
3 on 3 is stupid as ****. People complain about the shootout being a gimmick, how is 3 on 3 that much different. It's still a dumb gimmick. If I wanted to watch shinny I'd...move to Canada or something
Full 2 minute penalties are dumb too. Increased scoring shouldn't come from teams constantly being on the powerplay
Fine with goalies having to move the puck. Pretty tiresome to see some guys freeze the puck way outside the crease with no one around
I know this isn't discussed in the article at all but I think they should get rid of the horrid delay of game penalty when the puck is dumped over the boards in the defensive zone. All they really have to do is treat it like an icing (no line changes for defending team, no TV timeout, immediate faceoff) and that should still keep people from abusing it without having to create needless powerplays.
3 on 3 is awful. Most of the people who advocate it haven't been paying close enough attention IMO, or simply have no problem with poor hockey.
Its one of those things that people like the sound of in principle, but believe you me if implemented would be an absolute disaster for the hockey product.
What if they decided to play soccer extra time 7 versus 7? A gimmicky and absurd idea.
What they need to do is extend the 4 v 4 overtime to a 20 minute 5 on 5 extra period. That would solve about 80% of the games in overtime. And get rid of the point for reaching the end of regulation tied.
Lose the trapezoid.
I'll meet you at 4 on 4 for ten minutes. I think that would end most games legit.
Originally Posted by SLU Hockey
You cannot change the nets, just like you cannot change the pucks.
The NHL does not need to pander. I'm not wholly interested in bringing in a heapload of "casual fans," either.
What does an increase in revenue provide? We pay the same players more money to do what they were doing before. We have a 30 team league, so there is no need for expansion.
We have a league with great parity, great hockey, thatis far and away still the best league in the world. What is the constant desire to change things? The only things that need changing are moves away from poor changes that were made in the first place.
Pretty soon people will be talking about eliminating offsides.
All the NHL has tried to do the last six/seven years is pander to casual fans. And what has happened? Nothing.
The pre-lock out fans are still fans...albeit the product is better now
And the pre lock out non fans are still watching something else.
Oh and **** ESPN. Seriously I cannot stress this enough.
Where the **** do they get off writing an article about hockey? Now all of a sudden they care? Blow me.
And there is too much time in the box as is right now, without extending penalty time.
The NHL is never going to be as high as the NFL or NBA in scoring. It is never going to be as low as soccer in scoring. So I'm not sure what the desperation to move it is.
If a fan stops watching hockey because they were bored by a 1-0 score, they likely werent going to buy much merchandise anyways.
In my opinion the fact that they score every 10 seconds in basketball just takes all the excitement out of the game and eliminates the adrenalin rush when your team scores, I haven't watched a basketball game since back in the day when Michael Jordan played for the Bulls. And honestly I really don't understand how anyone can watch a live NFL game with commercials every 20 seconds, but that's probably because I'm so used to watching English soccer and rugby on TV where they don't show any commercials until half time.
Increasing scoring does not bring in more casual fans, in countries where soccer is the main sport people don't seem to care that half the games finish 0-0. I think Bettman and co. need to realise that a lot of people just don't think hockey is "for them" or have been brought up to love a certain sport that is prominent where they live.
Some of these changes are garbage. Full 2 minute penalties are bad. Its hard enough to kill 30 seconds of a man advantage let alone the full two. PK needs the icing. I don't care if its an advantage to the shorthanded team, it creates plays and thats what matters to me. The more stoppages the worse the game, and this will create stoppages. 3 v. 3? No.
Trapezoid has to go.
In all honesty, I havent had a problem with the game for a long time so I don't understand all these changes just for the sake of changing. And if, as someone said earlier, garbage goals are becoming the only type of goal, which isnt true, than all these changes just beat around the bush of the real change which is bigger ice.
Or they can just leave the game the way it is and try to put it back to the way it was.
No-touch icing? No thanks. I for one like it when a player hustles down the ice to beats out an icing call and creates a goal or a scoring chance.
They did however get one thing right. Removing that dumb trapezoid. It's amazing to me that they get rid of 2-line passes to "open up the game and create more scoring, and homerun passes, but they implement a rule where goalies CANNOT make those homerun passes and hopefully hit one of their players or teammates for a breakaway?! Yeah, THAT makes sense. Only in the NHL would that happen.
Did anyone ever stop to think that there was nothing ever wrong with the game, the way it was?
I was watching an MSG Vault on the Rangers "birth of a champion" with the 1991-1992 season, and it was probably some of the best hockey i've seen. The game was very open, and very fast and there was nothing wrong with the game as it was.
It's amazing to me, the idiots in charge of the NHL want to implement all these new rule changes every year. And then we all wonder why the referees have become increasingly, noticably worse since the post-lockout. These guys can't, or I should say, don't even know how to call the game anymore without blowing their whistles. It's ridiculous.
Where did this idea or notion come from that there was "something wrong with the game", if ever, and if there was, it was very minor.
I guess because the idiots, or whoever is in charge of these rule chages, or Gary Bettman, the guy leading the NHL into probably another lockout said or came up with the idea that "there's something wrong with the game", or "the game needs to be fixed" actually had or has people believing that there is.
I don't think there was ever really was something wrong with the game. I do think there's something wrong with the idiots in charge of the league and the NHL in general.
But hey, have no fear, someone after I make this post will probably get promoted and rewarded that works in that office, to someone saying "those rule changes you came up with, GREAT idea. Anything to screw over the diehard fan, and go after the casual idiot". Makes sense, I guess.
Pretty soon hockey will be played with those bowling bumpers that you bowled with when you were a kid, and they will be placed on the side boards, and all over the advertisements.
I'm just exagerating. If i'm the NHL, I do not worry about messing with the game and changing the rules. I'm more worried about marketing the game, and marketing in general.
Marketing is the problem for the NHL.
But with Gary Bettman running the league, the future is so bright.
Perhaps, i'd be more open to these rule changes if they weren't trying to mess with the game seemingly every off-season, and did it once in awhile, or even blue moon.
EDIT: For the record the no-touch icing comment was made in general from most of the rule changes I always hear about.
Hybrid icing does sound ok if a player looks like he can't get there. Just wanted to clear that up.
Last edited by 94Obsession: 08-26-2011 at 12:43 PM.
I like the current penalty system (score and the PP is over).
This system gives teams with great PPs a quick momentum change, which can be drastic or not, depending on the circumstances.
If the PP keeps going, the team can keep racking up goals which would make the team getting scored on go from an all-time high to an all-time low.
Overtime: Do 10 minutes of 5-on-5. I like the shootout: it's very entertaining, but I don't like the fact that it determines your place in the standings. This is a TEAM sport. Shootouts only display the skills of the INDIVIDUAL.
With that note, if no one scores in OT, make it a tie. 1 point for each team.
Don't they already have the rule where the goalie has to play the puck if the referee doesn't blow the whistle?
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
Don't they already have the rule where the goalie has to play the puck if the referee doesn't blow the whistle?
I don't think it is a "rule" but usually when the ref tells you to play it you listen, I've been given a delay of game before when the ref told me to play it and I didn't, and I had frozen it in a completely legal area (i.e in my crease) but the ref felt I was not under pressure. I know the NHL use different rules but I can't find anything in the IIHF rulebook about it