HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Possible rule or rules to minimize the trap or possibly eliminate it.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2011, 11:50 AM
  #1
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,314
vCash: 500
Possible rule or rules to minimize the trap or possibly eliminate it.

After watching the highlights from the Tampa/Philly game and the reaction to it. I was thinking of ways the NHL could get rid of the trap or at least reduce its impact.


A start would be to impliment a rule or rules that force teams to have at least one active forechecker in the opposing zone. By active I mean, chasing the puck and providing pressure. This would force the action but would still allow teams to to set up a defensive system. But it would prevent teams from sitting back completely and not attempting to forecheck at all.


If they really wanted to break up the trap. They could force teams to have two forecheckers in the opposing zone with at least one of them active. Making it very hard set up a neutral zone trap (at least as we've seen it implimented).




EDIT: After some ideas were tossed around in this thread. I think the following would be a good idea.

If a team doesn't have a forechecker at or below the faceoff dots the team looking to break out can ice the puck.

They could even paint a thin red line (thinner than the faceoff circles) across the ice through the faceoff dots to help facilitate this. This way there is as little interpretation as possible needed by the officials.

This would force teams to actively forecheck with at least one player deep or the puck will end up in their zone.


Last edited by joshjull: 11-11-2011 at 01:39 PM.
joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 12:01 PM
  #2
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,653
vCash: 500
The problem I see is that it is hard to enforce.

For instance, are they breaking the rule if the team dumps the puck in and the forwards go off on a line change? Technically, the team isn't actively forechecking.....

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 12:31 PM
  #3
nesford2457
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 118
vCash: 500
IMO I don't think there are any rules that the NHL could create to keep teams from playing the trap. The only thing I could see them trying to do is actually enforce the interference rule since the trap hinges on you slowing down the entire team not just the puck carrier. As for the rule suggestion I think it would be too subjective as to if a player is "actively" forchecking.

nesford2457 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 12:32 PM
  #4
brian_griffin
Measured Intangibles
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Z4QQQ batman symbol
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 6,721
vCash: 500
Eliminate the 12th skating forward from the 23-man roster. Replace with Admiral Ackbar.

brian_griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 12:42 PM
  #5
gallagt01
Registered User
 
gallagt01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sloan
Posts: 8,672
vCash: 500
I think it's something the refs just have to enforce. If they believe the opposing team is trapping, issue a bench minor. Delay of game/delaying the flow of the game. It'd piss off a lot of coaches but I don't think there's any other way.

gallagt01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 12:54 PM
  #6
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The problem I see is that it is hard to enforce.

For instance, are they breaking the rule if the team dumps the puck in and the forwards go off on a line change? Technically, the team isn't actively forechecking.....
Simply state a line change doesn't apply in the rule.


I think a little common sense can go a long way.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:02 PM
  #7
sk8haggard9
Registered User
 
sk8haggard9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 280
vCash: 500
While I generally have a hard time agreeing with WGR, I feel Howard Simon's solution this morning was great. Rather than doling out a plethora of penalties (which would be difficult to enforce), why not just allow the team on offense to ice/dump the puck in from any point on the ice if the opposing team is trapping.

Think about it. If the opposing team is playing a 1-3-1, a dump in from before the red line would give the forechecking team the advantage, for they could have 2 guys headed into the offensive zone, against the single guy from the trapping team.

This would mean rather than having to enforce some type of penalty based rule which would cause a ton of drama due to personal discretion, line changes, etc, you would have a rule that would basically deter teams from trapping, even though it is still technically allowed.

sk8haggard9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:03 PM
  #8
LGB24
Registered User
 
LGB24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loods View Post
I think it's something the refs just have to enforce. If they believe the opposing team is trapping, issue a bench minor. Delay of game/delaying the flow of the game. It'd piss off a lot of coaches but I don't think there's any other way.
Why? I dont understand everyone's frustration with it. Its a strategy perfectly within the rules of hockey. It's a strategy that if implemented correctly has shown its worked effectively. Sure it can be boring, but the team is doing what it can to win hockey games and not breaking any rules, I dont see why the NHL needs to step in and eliminate a strategy because one team felt they didnt want to play against it.

LGB24 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:03 PM
  #9
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nesford2457 View Post
IMO I don't think there are any rules that the NHL could create to keep teams from playing the trap. The only thing I could see them trying to do is actually enforce the interference rule since the trap hinges on you slowing down the entire team not just the puck carrier. As for the rule suggestion I think it would be too subjective as to if a player is "actively" forchecking.
Like any other rule, the league would come up with the parameters of what constitutes actively forechecking.

I would say an active forechecker is one thats at or below the faceoff dots when the puck is below the faceoff dots. They also can't leave the zone until the puck does.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:06 PM
  #10
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,114
vCash: 500
It's a difficult question to answer. The closest thing I can come up with is that you cannot have 3 players assuming defensive positions in the neutral zone if you don't have the puck. A defensive position would be defined as a player with his back to his own goal, and not pursing an opponent in any way.

Most of the time in the 1-3-1 or the LWL the defenders are static. The forechecker is trying to direct the puck carrier or the pass towards the defensive setup, where the defenders collapse. If you only allow two players to be setup in this way, more ice is opened up, and it's slightly easier to move the puck through the middle.

This doesn't mean that you can't have 3 or 4 players in the neutral zone, it just means that you're limiting the 'cloggers' if you will. Teams could still play a passive 1-2-2 if they wanted, but again that would leave more room than the current trap methods. Also, if you force defenders to move, that opens things up too.

The downside is that this is yet ANOTHER judgement call by the officials, who already have too many, but I think it's a decent idea.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:06 PM
  #11
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGB24 View Post
Why? I dont understand everyone's frustration with it. Its a strategy perfectly within the rules of hockey. It's a strategy that if implemented correctly has shown its worked effectively. Sure it can be boring, but the team is doing what it can to win hockey games and not breaking any rules, I dont see why the NHL needs to step in and eliminate a strategy because one team felt they didnt want to play against it.
My frustrating is from an entertainment point of view. I want exciting entertaining hockey.

Many pro leagues tweak their rules to encourage things they feel fans find entertaining. Or to eliminate what fans find to be boring. I don't expect the teams or coaches to do it. Since their priority is to win.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:08 PM
  #12
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGB24 View Post
Why? I dont understand everyone's frustration with it. Its a strategy perfectly within the rules of hockey. It's a strategy that if implemented correctly has shown its worked effectively. Sure it can be boring, but the team is doing what it can to win hockey games and not breaking any rules, I dont see why the NHL needs to step in and eliminate a strategy because one team felt they didnt want to play against it.
The forward pass in football used to be illegal too. The game must always evolve.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:08 PM
  #13
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk8haggard9 View Post
While I generally have a hard time agreeing with WGR, I feel Howard Simon's solution this morning was great. Rather than doling out a plethora of penalties (which would be difficult to enforce), why not just allow the team on offense to ice/dump the puck in from any point on the ice if the opposing team is trapping.

Think about it. If the opposing team is playing a 1-3-1, a dump in from before the red line would give the forechecking team the advantage, for they could have 2 guys headed into the offensive zone, against the single guy from the trapping team.

This would mean rather than having to enforce some type of penalty based rule which would cause a ton of drama due to personal discretion, line changes, etc, you would have a rule that would basically deter teams from trapping, even though it is still technically allowed.

I would rather see rule changes that encourge creativity and excitement. Countering the trap with icing is hardly a step towards more entertaining hockey.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:09 PM
  #14
Kruschiki
Registered User
 
Kruschiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 13,966
vCash: 500
Kind of like Basketball 'illegal defense'.

Also, I'd like to acknowledge that getting rid of the red line for two-line pass has really reduced the effectiveness of the trap. We don't see anything as effective these days, and scoring is up from the pre-lockout days.

Kruschiki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:13 PM
  #15
LGB24
Registered User
 
LGB24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
My frustrating is from an entertainment point of view. I want exciting entertaining hockey.

Many pro leagues tweak their rules to encourage things they feel fans find entertaining. Or to eliminate what fans find to be boring. I don't expect the teams or coaches to do it. Since their priority is to win.
I think its just extremely hard to enforce a new rule in a situation, without introducing more judgement calls and such for the refs.
When we played tampa back to back its not like everyone on the boards was complaining about how boring the game was. I mean if philly decided to play like every other team does against Tampa we wouldn't even be talking about it.

LGB24 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:13 PM
  #16
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schadenfreude View Post
Kind of like Basketball 'illegal defense'.
Yes, that was the base idea. I tried to think how it could be modified to hockey, and that's about as close as I could get.

It might work better to maybe only disallow it in the offensive half of the neutral zone, or something like that. I dunno obviously.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:14 PM
  #17
LGB24
Registered User
 
LGB24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
The forward pass in football used to be illegal too. The game must always evolve.
Do you mean the backwards pass?

LGB24 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:15 PM
  #18
LGB24
Registered User
 
LGB24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,639
vCash: 500
laptop is gonna die, catch up with ya later fellas

LGB24 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:16 PM
  #19
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGB24 View Post
Do you mean the backwards pass?
No he meant forward. Football's roots are in rugby where the forward pass is not allowed.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:16 PM
  #20
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,561
vCash: 500
if a team is trapping, and the forechecker is not actively pursuing the puck, allow the linesman to wave off icing...

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:19 PM
  #21
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGB24 View Post
Do you mean the backwards pass?
No. The forward pass was illegal in (American) football until 1906.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:22 PM
  #22
MajorMinotaur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk8haggard9 View Post
While I generally have a hard time agreeing with WGR, I feel Howard Simon's solution this morning was great. Rather than doling out a plethora of penalties (which would be difficult to enforce), why not just allow the team on offense to ice/dump the puck in from any point on the ice if the opposing team is trapping.

Think about it. If the opposing team is playing a 1-3-1, a dump in from before the red line would give the forechecking team the advantage, for they could have 2 guys headed into the offensive zone, against the single guy from the trapping team.

This would mean rather than having to enforce some type of penalty based rule which would cause a ton of drama due to personal discretion, line changes, etc, you would have a rule that would basically deter teams from trapping, even though it is still technically allowed.
What about changing icing to only when shot within your defensive zone? It would give them more room without making inconsistent rules or making the refs use 'judgement'.

MajorMinotaur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:23 PM
  #23
sk8haggard9
Registered User
 
sk8haggard9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I would rather see rule changes that encourge creativity and excitement. Countering the trap with icing is hardly a step towards more entertaining hockey.
While I agree with you to a certain extent, I feel that after a while, once trapping teams realize they will get beat to the puck by the forecheckers (2/3 on 1 defender), they will stop trapping, thereby eliminating the problem.

sk8haggard9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:29 PM
  #24
FallsForItEveryYear
Registered User
 
FallsForItEveryYear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,782
vCash: 500
the easy black and white way to minimize the effectiveness is make the near blueline the icing line. get over your own blueline and you can dump it in without getting an icing call.

the entire concept of the 1-3-1 revolves around clogging the choke point of the arena. the space from the redline to the trapping teams own blueline. you double the size of that area and they cant clog up enough space to be effective.

granted the last man back still has a good chance to get to the dump in if a team continues to try to use the 1-3-1 but a "Gunner" and a smart dump in could provide pressure enough to disrupt a quick breakout. (watch some of boston tampa from the playoffs last year. boston would get to the redline and use a slapshot all the way around the boards to eliminate that last man back from being effective or a far corner dump. the slap shot around would make the puck come all the way back up the opposite boards and a player streaking down that wing could get to it quicker or just as quickly as the last man in the 1-3-1.

this is the simple solution. although it would be interesting to see how that would effect play overall with less icing.

FallsForItEveryYear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:31 PM
  #25
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,314
vCash: 500
How about this idea that would merge my initial thoughts with the icing idea.


If a team doesn't have a forechecker at or below the faceoff dots the team looking to break out can ice the puck.

They could even paint a thin red line (thinner than the faceoff circles) across the ice through the faceoff dots to help facilitate this. This way there is as little interpretation as possible needed by the officials.

This would force teams to actively forecheck with at least one player deep or the puck will end up in their zone.


Last edited by joshjull: 11-11-2011 at 01:36 PM.
joshjull 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 11:27 PM.

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.