HFBoards

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

Why not larger blue lines? ( boost offense )

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-05-2003, 02:57 PM
  #1
F. Duchemin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Hilaire
Country: Canada
Posts: 776
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to F. Duchemin
Why not larger blue lines? ( boost offense )

i was listening TSN waiting for canucks game and Bobby Smith said something interesting to boost offense.

I dont know if this is new or no... i never heard of this and i found it really nice.

He said to make the 2 blue lines larger...this way there is more space in the 3 zone WITHOUT changing the surface of theses zone. Defenseman would have more time to be on the puck before it leave the zone...player would be able to make longer pass in neutral zone etc.. Im not that good in explaining things in english

It seriously open space to player without making RULES CHANGES and make major change to the old good hockey game.

What you guys think about this? ( and if someone can explain it better or have others arguments please tell us )

F. Duchemin is offline  
Old
11-05-2003, 03:33 PM
  #2
Crow
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I never thought about that but...

that's a damn interesting idea!!

 
Old
11-05-2003, 03:48 PM
  #3
The n00b King *
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Scatbox-less :(
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Duchemin
i was listening TSN waiting for canucks game and Bobby Smith said something interesting to boost offense.

I dont know if this is new or no... i never heard of this and i found it really nice.

He said to make the 2 blue lines larger...this way there is more space in the 3 zone WITHOUT changing the surface of theses zone. Defenseman would have more time to be on the puck before it leave the zone...player would be able to make longer pass in neutral zone etc.. Im not that good in explaining things in english

It seriously open space to player without making RULES CHANGES and make major change to the old good hockey game.

What you guys think about this? ( and if someone can explain it better or have others arguments please tell us )

i dont know dood, i dont think this solves much of the problems there is in the league...sure, it's cost effective, but do u really think it will make that much of a difference? unless of course were talking about a MAJOR size change, like a foot wide to like 5 feet, then that's a whole other story..but that would just we weird...

The n00b King * is offline  
Old
11-05-2003, 04:46 PM
  #4
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,459
vCash: 500
Do that and allow one guy into the offensive zone ahead of the puck?

The player has to wait until the puck crosses his own blueline before he can enter the offensive zone...?


tinyzombies is offline  
Old
11-05-2003, 05:25 PM
  #5
F. Duchemin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Hilaire
Country: Canada
Posts: 776
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to F. Duchemin
well shaolin in is little picture it was a major change... like 3x bigger. That make sense.

F. Duchemin is offline  
Old
11-05-2003, 05:40 PM
  #6
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Duchemin
i was listening TSN waiting for canucks game and Bobby Smith said something interesting to boost offense.

I dont know if this is new or no... i never heard of this and i found it really nice.

He said to make the 2 blue lines larger...this way there is more space in the 3 zone WITHOUT changing the surface of theses zone. Defenseman would have more time to be on the puck before it leave the zone...player would be able to make longer pass in neutral zone etc.. Im not that good in explaining things in english

It seriously open space to player without making RULES CHANGES and make major change to the old good hockey game.

What you guys think about this? ( and if someone can explain it better or have others arguments please tell us )
This is a bit like the floating center-ice line in my ball hockey league. We play on a small surface, so once you enter the blue line, the zone opens up all the way back to the red line. i think this is done in many ball hockey leagues.

The thicker blue line basically does the same thing.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 05:23 AM
  #7
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,903
vCash: 500
If I'm not mistaken, Smith's proposal (anyway, what he brought up) is that the blue lines be made 6 feet wide, centered on where it is now. Personally, I think it's an interesting proposition

Gros Bill is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 05:35 AM
  #8
Habber
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saskatoon, Sask.
Posts: 2,030
vCash: 500
I heard this idea floating around last year and it sounds interesting. I don't know why the NHL doesn't at least try ideas like this, either in preseason or the minors.

Also, I don't know if it was part of Smith's plan or not but the one I heard was to have two solid blue six inch lines or whatever and the middle shaded kind of like the crease so there isn't a huge dark blue stripe across the ice.

Habber is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 05:37 AM
  #9
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,422
vCash: 500
i still don't understand why the league just doesn't make the net an inch or two wider and an inch higher. I mean the goalies have gotten bigger, the goalie equipment is way bigger, why not increase the size of the nets a bit. It would increase offense, and force teams to play a more offensive style.
I'm sure if you took your average goalie in average equipment in 1982 put him in front of a net the area of net not covered by the goalie is A LOT more than if you take the average goalie today in todays equipment and put him in front of the same net.

Darz is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 05:52 AM
  #10
Bob Bastards
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
My idea about all this rule change?
Go back to the dimension it was in the 80's. 6 more feet in the neutral zone, remove some space behind the net (only Gretzky was able to do wonder there anyway...) and APPLY ALL THE RULE ABOUT CLUTCHING, GRABBING AND OBSTRUCTION! This way it will be a more skater friendly environement and you should see more turn around and more goal. If this does not work, make people spend the whole 2 minute for a penalty. After that, grow the net, but make it a last resort thing...

Bob Bastards is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 06:09 AM
  #11
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,903
vCash: 500
I'm not sure about making the net bigger. On the one hand, doesn't that invalidate all previous scoring or goaltending records ? Granted, the changes in equipment (not just goalie pads, but sticks, skates, etc.) might have already done that.

More importantly, does it mean that players that used to shoot wide will now be scoring threats ? I mean, does it make more exciting because the score is 7 - 5 instead of 2 - 1 : same players, same "boring" play, just more goals than before. I'm not sure it's the answer.

Also, other sports have had to deal with changes in the size of players and equipment. Look at football. Players are much bigger now than just a few years ago. Have we had to change the size of the field, tho ? They've moved the goalposts (because the kickers are ssss much better than before), but they kept them the same size)

I think the biggest improvement would be to simply enforce the rules as they are presently written and cut down on interference, hooking, etc. (Here again, football, where officiating has "kept up with the times", is a good example. Questionable hits on QBs are now severely punished, as they should be.).

The NHL should also be much more strict about suspensions and severely penalize attempts to injure (some of which are successful : look at Zetterberg, whose "assailant" got 2 - yup, count 'em - 2 games suspension. It's ridiculous.

Hockey is a game of speed and skill, and if referees just applied the rule book, it would give the speedier and more skillful players a chance to shine and you would see much more exciting hockey, even if the score still ends up 2 - 1.

Just my thought.

Gros Bill is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 06:19 AM
  #12
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,422
vCash: 500
Bill, totally agree with you about the 'simply enforce the rules as they are presently written and cut down on interference, hooking, etc.', but in all honesty do you ever see that happening?????
It's one of those things that really irks me, but I've gotten to the point where I figure it will never happen, so....

Darz is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 06:40 AM
  #13
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,903
vCash: 500
Year after year, the NHL brings it up ; the refs will be stricter , etc. Year after year, nothing changes. That is true.

Enforce the rules: the simplest way to put zingggg back into hockey, and they won't do it. My question is why ? Why ? WHYYYYY? I'm not blaming the refs, BTW, they are just doing what their bosses want them to.

The answer probably lies in checking this : who benefits from lax enforcement of the rules? ( qui profite le crime?)
Owners ? I doubt it; after all, seats are empty because games are boring (or so they say).
Slow, non-skillful players? I doubt that they have enough pull for that.
The NHLPA ? Wether a player is small and fast or big and slow should make no difference to them (as long as he pays his union dues!).
Could it be that the NHL is worried not enough Canadian kids would make the grade if the game were based on speed and skill? Is that even true ?

So I dunno why they won't do it, but I do know they should. Anyone have an idea about that ?

One last note : imagine if other major sports were officiated like hockey. Imagine a baseball umpire in the World series. "Well, that ball was low, but the pitcher is struggling and his team is down by 5. What the hell, I'll call it a strike". He would be fired on the spot.

Gros Bill is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 06:43 AM
  #14
Habber
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saskatoon, Sask.
Posts: 2,030
vCash: 500
I remember a while back when I was reffing we were always told that if a player had to reach to tug another player from behind, it was a penalty. Or if you grabbed a guy from the side or behind, penalty.

This is how it was back in the 70's and 80's. You could only defend a player from the front. If you were behind him, you had to skate your ass off and catch him.

It's brutal in the NHL how far they've gotten away from this. IMO, a players backside is totally 100%off limits in the neutral zone. If you even touch a guy from behind, call a penalty..and make him sit the full two minutes.

Habber is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 07:02 AM
  #15
GilleZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habber
I remember a while back when I was reffing we were always told that if a player had to reach to tug another player from behind, it was a penalty. Or if you grabbed a guy from the side or behind, penalty.

This is how it was back in the 70's and 80's. You could only defend a player from the front. If you were behind him, you had to skate your ass off and catch him.

It's brutal in the NHL how far they've gotten away from this. IMO, a players backside is totally 100%off limits in the neutral zone. If you even touch a guy from behind, call a penalty..and make him sit the full two minutes.
Your right, but in my mind its to late. There has been to much stanley cup won with this kind of hockey, that we will never be able to go back... The players are all trained in that system from AAA to Junior to AHL and to finaly the NHL.

GilleZ is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 07:32 AM
  #16
Breenger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: St. Henri
Country: Canada
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habber
I remember a while back when I was reffing we were always told that if a player had to reach to tug another player from behind, it was a penalty. Or if you grabbed a guy from the side or behind, penalty.

This is how it was back in the 70's and 80's. You could only defend a player from the front. If you were behind him, you had to skate your ass off and catch him.

It's brutal in the NHL how far they've gotten away from this. IMO, a players backside is totally 100%off limits in the neutral zone. If you even touch a guy from behind, call a penalty..and make him sit the full two minutes.
Too true, if the refs started calling the game like this you might actually get something a little more entertaining out there. I'd forget about calling all of the pick plays and calling them "obstruction", this does not help the game as it only makes the game softer (less hitting). Do this, make the nets a little wider, and presto! entertaining hockey. Making the blue lines just doesn't seem like it will make much of a difference, how about not calling the blue line offside, and keeping the 2 line offside? That way it might make the trap a little more risky to implement, and cut down on the whole dump&chase stratagy.

Breenger is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 01:05 PM
  #17
Garnet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 774
vCash: 500
Bobby Smiths Idea

Has been around for about a year now. I played golf I think in September with Steve Larmer (NHLPA Rep) and we chatted about it. He said the players ass. who probably try it in some preseason games. But we figured the 2 blue lines and the center line all should be 6 feet. And the goal line moved back since The Great One isn't playing anymore. This would open an additional 5 feet in the offensive zones. Neutral zone gains 6 feet and the long pass gets and addition 3 feet. I think this is a great idea.

I ve also been thinking about icing. Instead of have to get over center ice you have to get over your own blue line.(In this new system) Once the puck crosses the goal line its fair game for the team who shot it in the zone. If touched before it crosses the goal line by the team that shot it in its a two line pass. These changes would pretty much kill the trap and open the games up.

Garnet is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 01:42 PM
  #18
Wildbeliefs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 447
vCash: 500
Even if all penalities were being called, I don't think it would solve anything. I think it was the beginning of last year that the refs went crazy-nazi and called everything for a little while. Sure it created a whole lot of powerplays, but the fact remains that:

#1: The refs will never consistently follow these rules, especially not in playoffs

#2: It'll take quite some time for players to change their ways and actually stop hooking; hooking has been ingrained in them. Heck, there is such a lack of general talent in the NHL that hooking has become a must.

#3: Even with the increase in powerplays, the games are still boring. And having a game where there's more 5 on 4 action that 5 on 5 isn't that great.

I think, as I believe it was Red Fisher that said this sometime ago, the NHL should go back to the way it was before: the defending team is NOT allowed to ice the puck during a penalty. This will make the play at least somewhat more interesting; defenders have to actually try harder than just lob the puck out a couple of times.

And of course, there's the idea which IMO will solve almost all problems in the NHL: international rink sizes... this won't happen soon, but I do think it will eventually happen.

Wildbeliefs is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 01:45 PM
  #19
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,290
vCash: 500
Make it a penalty, for the goaltender, to leave his crease unless for an extra attacker.

Imagine if the goalie couldn't play the puck, stop the shoot in.. help clear the zone...

All of a sudden, the D would have to come all the way back, along with the forwards. The trap would be.. rather ineffective.

Habs is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 03:31 PM
  #20
Breenger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: St. Henri
Country: Canada
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildbeliefs
Even if all penalities were being called, I don't think it would solve anything. I think it was the beginning of last year that the refs went crazy-nazi and called everything for a little while. Sure it created a whole lot of powerplays, but the fact remains that:

#1: The refs will never consistently follow these rules, especially not in playoffs

#2: It'll take quite some time for players to change their ways and actually stop hooking; hooking has been ingrained in them. Heck, there is such a lack of general talent in the NHL that hooking has become a must.

#3: Even with the increase in powerplays, the games are still boring. And having a game where there's more 5 on 4 action that 5 on 5 isn't that great.

I think, as I believe it was Red Fisher that said this sometime ago, the NHL should go back to the way it was before: the defending team is NOT allowed to ice the puck during a penalty. This will make the play at least somewhat more interesting; defenders have to actually try harder than just lob the puck out a couple of times.

And of course, there's the idea which IMO will solve almost all problems in the NHL: international rink sizes... this won't happen soon, but I do think it will eventually happen.
I was thinking the same thing about icing during a penalty, it would definately increase scoring on the PP.
Though I generally dislike hockey on the big rink, I wouldn't be against hockey allowing different ice surfaces in diferent cities. Then, when an owner decides to build a new arena, he can build it to whatever type of team he'd want build. The arena then can realy shape the team, much like a stadium can shape a baseball team, and you'd be able to see a much more varied product on the ice during the season. Think of it, big bad Philly will stay with the small rink while Montreal would more likely go for the big rink to ice their smurfs. That way you will have the extra bonus of also seeing much more of a home ice advantage (and happier fans).

Breenger is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 04:54 PM
  #21
Wildbeliefs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breenger
I was thinking the same thing about icing during a penalty, it would definately increase scoring on the PP.
Though I generally dislike hockey on the big rink, I wouldn't be against hockey allowing different ice surfaces in diferent cities. Then, when an owner decides to build a new arena, he can build it to whatever type of team he'd want build. The arena then can realy shape the team, much like a stadium can shape a baseball team, and you'd be able to see a much more varied product on the ice during the season. Think of it, big bad Philly will stay with the small rink while Montreal would more likely go for the big rink to ice their smurfs. That way you will have the extra bonus of also seeing much more of a home ice advantage (and happier fans).
You know, that actually sounds REALLY cool. Allowing owners to customize arenas based on the type of team they want... It will definitely make home ice advantage meaningful...

Of course, seeing how conformity is pretty popular, I don't think this will ever happen. None the less, it's a freakin' cool idea.

Wildbeliefs 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 12:01 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.