HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Remove Offsides

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-13-2003, 08:13 AM
  #1
Markov79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canuckastan
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,390
vCash: 500
Remove Offsides

I've been thinking about this for awhile (ok like ten minutes). Why not remove the offsides rule? 90% of the time it is called it is for someone being 3 inches across the line on the rush, or a defenceman being a tenth of a second too late in catching a pass. Why should there be a stoppage in play and a waste of offensive oppurtunities over a few inches.

The only counter argument I've faced so far is that people will start cherry picking. I have two counter arguments to this.

1. Under the current rules a player can hang around at centre ice and wait for a pass. It might not be waiting infront of the net but it results in the same thing, an unobstructed chance at scoring. If it isn't being done now then why would it be done without the offsides rule?

2. If someone does cherry pick, this would leave the other team with two options. Either play 5-4 in the offensive zone, or play 4-4 while leaving a d-man back. Eitherway it opens the game up to more offence.

What do you think?

Markov79 is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 08:22 AM
  #2
Freudian
calmer than you are
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,873
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markov79
I've been thinking about this for awhile (ok like ten minutes). Why not remove the offsides rule? 90% of the time it is called it is for someone being 3 inches across the line on the rush, or a defenceman being a tenth of a second too late in catching a pass. Why should there be a stoppage in play and a waste of offensive oppurtunities over a few inches.

The only counter argument I've faced so far is that people will start cherry picking. I have two counter arguments to this.

1. Under the current rules a player can hang around at centre ice and wait for a pass. It might not be waiting infront of the net but it results in the same thing, an unobstructed chance at scoring. If it isn't being done now then why would it be done without the offsides rule?

2. If someone does cherry pick, this would leave the other team with two options. Either play 5-4 in the offensive zone, or play 4-4 while leaving a d-man back. Eitherway it opens the game up to more offence.

What do you think?
With no offside the game would be very boring. There would be one way to play it, just throw long pucks to 1-2 players camping out in the offensive zone.

I would like to see red line offside go though. Here in Sweden is has opened up the game and made trapping a bit less effective and there are slightly more breakaways. No huge difference but slightly more open.

Freudian is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 10:11 AM
  #3
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,239
vCash: 500
Or they could just start calling the rules as they should be. That way the star players could play, and wouldn't be dragged down and injured as often.

Guest is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 10:12 AM
  #4
andora
Registered User
 
andora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illuminating Prince
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,020
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to andora
bring back tag up.. taking off sides out completely is just numb

andora is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 10:50 AM
  #5
JDB3939
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Natrona Heights, PA
Posts: 3,452
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to JDB3939
Without offsides, hockey becomes a cramped up version of soccer on ice. Instead of having a 2 defenseman, you'll have a sweeper and stopper with a 2 midfielders and a striker.

Why not get rid of the 2 line pass rule instead?

JDB3939 is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 02:32 PM
  #6
Hold the Pickles
Registered User
 
Hold the Pickles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 03-K64
Country: United States
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by andora's box
bring back tag up.. taking off sides out completely is just numb
I couldn't agree more. and anyway whats more boreing then watching a team dinkle around in their own zone to waste time just cause someone was off-sides 10 seconds ago. I've heard arguements suggesting that the tag rule promotes dumping and uncreative play, but personally I appreciate a spirited forecheck enough that for me it counters those points.

Hold the Pickles is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 05:52 PM
  #7
Jericho
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 555
vCash: 500
I have no problem with hockey's offside rule. I do have a problem with soccer, where it encourages players to draw people offsides by simply running forward an not playing D.

I would fully endore getting rid of the two-line pass rule, as I see no reason to keep it. It certainly couldn't hurt the offense

Jericho is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 06:48 PM
  #8
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
Or they could just start calling the rules as they should be. That way the star players could play, and wouldn't be dragged down and injured as often.
Fat chance of it actually happening (something more than just cursory lipservice) but if it was truly implemented, scoring chances would go up dramatically. And, as such, so would scoring.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 06:50 PM
  #9
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
Or they could just start calling the rules as they should be. That way the star players could play, and wouldn't be dragged down and injured as often.
What does this have to do with the offside rule?

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 06:54 PM
  #10
Histrion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Fortified City
Posts: 3,338
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Histrion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
What does this have to do with the offside rule?
It has to do with the reason for which the guy first wanted to change the offside rule: the lack of production. By having the star players in the game, you can help the offensive production throughout the league.


BTW, I'm all for taking out the two-line offside pass.

Histrion is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 07:24 PM
  #11
Bring_Bak_Damphousse
Classless User
 
Bring_Bak_Damphousse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,144
vCash: 500
I`d be happy to see them get rid of the 2 line pass rule aswell. But since like you say all the offsides are because of a matter of inches couldn`t they widen the blue lines slightly maybe half a foot??? This way it gives the players another 6 inches to work with.

Bring_Bak_Damphousse is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 08:06 PM
  #12
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
What does this have to do with the offside rule?
As was pointed out, he was challenging the solution, which was the removal of offsides. He just posed his solution to the issue at hand: lack of offensive production.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 08:57 PM
  #13
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
In short no, quit making major changes to the game leave it alone. just my two cents.

c-carp is offline  
Old
10-13-2003, 10:36 PM
  #14
oildrop
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,486
vCash: 500
I don't agree with taking out the Offside Rule but I do agree that they NEED to bring back Tag-up Offside. Delayed offsides are ridiculous and it slows down the game waaaaaaaaaay too much.

oildrop is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 08:55 AM
  #15
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Tag-up offsides don't really speed up the game on the ice in terms of increased offense, it usually just means fewer faceoffs. Two-line off side I really don't have a problem with actually, but it certainly does speed the game up a bit if the Canadian University games I've been watching are any indication.

I have long believed that if the icing rule was modified so that icing would only be called if the puck left the players stick before his own BLUE line, it would open up the neutral zone considerably.

Example: How many times a game do you see a defenceman cross his own blueline, try to pass to a forward on the other side of the red line, the forward misses the pass? The result: Icing. Stop the game go all the way back and start all over again.

Move icing back to the defensive blueline and you will start to see those kinds of passes again that really stretch the neutral zone out. And of course fewer face-offs. Even if the forward misses the pass the worst that could happen is a dump in with at least two guys already going hard into the zone.

Malefic74 is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 09:11 AM
  #16
MotownMadman
Registered User
 
MotownMadman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 5,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74
Tag-up offsides don't really speed up the game on the ice in terms of increased offense, it usually just means fewer faceoffs. Two-line off side I really don't have a problem with actually, but it certainly does speed the game up a bit if the Canadian University games I've been watching are any indication.

I have long believed that if the icing rule was modified so that icing would only be called if the puck left the players stick before his own BLUE line, it would open up the neutral zone considerably.

Example: How many times a game do you see a defenceman cross his own blueline, try to pass to a forward on the other side of the red line, the forward misses the pass? The result: Icing. Stop the game go all the way back and start all over again.

Move icing back to the defensive blueline and you will start to see those kinds of passes again that really stretch the neutral zone out. And of course fewer face-offs. Even if the forward misses the pass the worst that could happen is a dump in with at least two guys already going hard into the zone.
I like that idea. I'll also throw in my support for the tag up rule. I don't think that tagging up would change the game dramatically, but it did seem to keep the action going a little more and allowed teams a little more chance to create some offense.

MotownMadman is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:46 PM
  #17
Yayo
 
Yayo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,938
vCash: 500
Excuse my ignorance, but what is tag-up offside??

Yayo is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 06:41 PM
  #18
Hockeycrazed07
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buena Vista, VA
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Hockeycrazed07 Send a message via AIM to Hockeycrazed07 Send a message via Yahoo to Hockeycrazed07
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Get rid of a few teams. Florida, Nashville, Anaheim and Phoenix could all go. This will bunch some talent on every team.
Jason~
I don't mean to nitpick, but if a team is dissolved, it'll be New Jersey first and foremost, Cups notwithstanding. They can't even sell out a playoff game, sadly. Anaheim was rocking during the Finals.

It might be nice and happy to shove all Sun Belt teams under the rug, but the fact of the matter is that they show up for winning teams (obviously, those you listed aren't exactly winners, but...), which is something that New Jersey (among others) can't claim.

Furthermore, with those teams having already paid an entrance fee (and salaries, and in some cases, new arenas, etc.) to get into the league, who will repay them for the forced closure of the teams and any other losses (which will be major in term) incurred?

It's an easy thing to just say you'll dissolve a team or two (or more, in this case), but in reality, it's far, far more complicated than it would seem.

~Crazed.

Hockeycrazed07 is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 06:49 PM
  #19
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Get rid of a few teams. Florida, Nashville, Anaheim and Phoenix could all go. This will bunch some talent on every team.
Might as well get rid of New Jersey too. I mean, if they weren't a good team, why would they exist? They aren't a non-traditional market so they won't be expanding the sport. They don't have a good fanbase or really anything of note, other than a great GM. Why not put them on the chopping block before you eliminate teams that will grow the sport into necessary markets (read: the south). In fact, let's just do what should have been done years ago and move Lamariello to Nashville along with Elias, Madden and Neidermeyer (would take Broduer but he makes too much compared to Vokoun). That would be better for hockey. It eliminates a needless team, helps produce a winner in a non-traditional market which will help the sport grow in Nashville. After years of successful hockey, Nashville will eventually become a hockey town and New Jersey will be an afterthought.


SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 07:09 PM
  #20
VirginiaMtlExpat
All ice is home ice.
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
I have no problem with hockey's offside rule. I do have a problem with soccer, where it encourages players to draw people offsides by simply running forward an not playing D.

I would fully endore getting rid of the two-line pass rule, as I see no reason to keep it. It certainly couldn't hurt the offense
I'm with Jericho. I find that kind of defending ridiculous, particularly when botched offside calls cost legitimate goals, and it's an example of how a rule has denatured a game. Make defenders defend. If they're too slow to keep up with skilled forwards, then put some faster and more skilled players on defense.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with forcing a team on the defensive to defend the whole ice surface at once. So yes, given how the game is played now, I would do away with offsides, as the trap has denatured the flowing game that I remember as a kid. Furthermore, I would give 3 points for a win, and 1 point for a tie, as a disincentive to trapping.

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 07:57 PM
  #21
lux_interior
Registered User
 
lux_interior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 8,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man
Excuse my ignorance, but what is tag-up offside??
Tag-up offsides means that if the puck leaves the offensive zone, the puck can be dumped back into the zone (while attacking players are inside the zone), provided all of the attacking players exit the offensive zone (or "tag up") before any of them re-enter the zone, or touch the puck inside the zone. Hope that makes sense.

The way the rule is now, the puck cannot be dumped back into the zone until all of the players have "tagged up" or in other words exited the zone.

lux_interior is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 08:58 AM
  #22
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
NJ had one of the better attendance records up untill last year when Bursn came in. They are now a storied franchise and you can't move those types of teams. Hockey shouldn't be in Florida, Phoenix or parts of California. If they ever did get a salary cap on the league then cities like Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hamilton should have teams. I know that won't happen due to the bussiness side of hockey but thats the way it should be.
I agree, lets get rid of them, I mean it's not even cold enough there for snow and you know how many outdoor games the NHL plays. Or let's get rid of them because their attendance isn't like it should be, you know like the Islanders, the Penguins, the Sabres, the Bruins, the Blackhawks or the Devils. Really look at the Predators the Bruins averaged a whopping 1700 more fans a night, and we all know why, it's because the Bruins have a rich tradition in hockey, it had nothing to do with Nashville having a disappointing season.

triggrman is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 05:32 PM
  #23
Robert Paulson*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Happy Valley
Country: United States
Posts: 5,880
vCash: 500
I would like to see the 2 line pass gone, it would make defenders drop back more, thus opening more room in the neutral zone, thus making less clutching and hooking, thus making the game more exciting, thus.. ah let's end it there.

Robert Paulson* is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 05:40 PM
  #24
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Want a tissue.... Hockey was born in Canada and it should be here, all those franchises I named before don't support the game and hockey will never expand into their minds. I don't like the thought of expanding into the south. I would rather a franchise in Moscow then in Nashville. If you people living in the south have a problem with what I am saying.....wait I dont care.
You're a class act, Jason

When you can't adequately support your argument with anything other than rash generalizations and absurd conclusions, flame and run...flame and run.

You bring pride to all hockey fans. Why don't you keep your thoughts, however ignorant, to yourself next time. Because, guess what? We don't care either

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 08:24 PM
  #25
Hockeycrazed07
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buena Vista, VA
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Hockeycrazed07 Send a message via AIM to Hockeycrazed07 Send a message via Yahoo to Hockeycrazed07
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Want a tissue.... Hockey was born in Canada and it should be here, all those franchises I named before don't support the game and hockey will never expand into their minds. I don't like the thought of expanding into the south. I would rather a franchise in Moscow then in Nashville. If you people living in the south have a problem with what I am saying.....wait I dont care.
In that case, Colorado will give Quebec their team back, and NJ can give the Devils back to Colorado, and then everyone will be happy, eh?

Calgary should move back to Atlanta, by that thesis, as well, since that's where the Flames were born. Good idea!

For that matter, let's just bar all teams from moving, and move those that have moved back to their origional homes. That means the Stars would be back in Oakland, creating a heck of a rivalry in the Bay Area, thus drawing even more fans!

I'm all for it. Can we change the names of teams back to what they were, originally, too?

~Crazed.

Hockeycrazed07 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:11 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.