HFBoards

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

Rules Question for HubofHockey

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2004, 11:51 AM
  #1
Terrier
Registered User
 
Terrier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 2,581
vCash: 500
Rules Question for HubofHockey

hoh,

In light of the recent AHL experiment with thicker red and blue lines(I think they're a bit of an eyesore myself), has anyone in authority considered a trial in which shorthanded teams cannot ice the puck? You've been advocating that rule change for as long as I can remember. I'm slightly on the side of keeping the rule as it is, because teams will just ice the puck anyway or jam up the puck somewhere to get a whistle, but I do think it's worth a look.

P.S. I hope you were able to catch some of the two BU-Minnesota games this past weekend. Wild stuff. When was the last time two NHL teams combined for at least 10 goals on consecutive nights?

http://uscho.com/recaps/20032004/m/01/03/bu-umn.php


Last edited by Terrier: 01-06-2004 at 09:02 AM.
Terrier is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:21 AM
  #2
hubofhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrier
hoh,

In light of the recent AHL experiment with thicker red and blue lines(I think they're a bit of an eyesore myself), has anyone in authority considered a trial in which shorthanded teams cannot ice the puck? You've been advocating that rule change for as long as I can remember. I'm slightly on the side of keeping the rule as it is, because teams will just ice the puck anyway or jam up the puck somewhere to get a whistle, but I do think it's worth a look.

P.S. I hope you were able to catch some of the two BU-Minnesota games this past weekend. Wild stuff. When was the last time two NHL teams combined for at least 10 goals on consecutive nights?

http://uscho.com/recaps/20032004/m/01/03/bu-umn.php

T -- Sorry, I didn't see this til now. As far as I know, my icing idea isn't getting a look--which means they're all probably smarter than I believed.

My change to the rule would mitigate many of your concerns--because it would be very harsh. To wit:

When the PK team ices the puck:

-- Immediate whistle. Puck brought back to killing end, with faceoff 10 feet directly in front of goaltender. Of great significance: killing team is not allowed a line change. Make 'em such wind.
-- If PK team ices a second time: well, depends how far you want to go with it. One option: another penalty for delay of game (which it is), and the PK team in now two short. Or, maybe even better--second infraction brings penalty shot (like covering hand over puck in crease).
And if all they do is jam the puck in the corner? Same thing: penlaty for delay of game, or for refusal to engage.

Think how great the pond hockey game is....everyone out there is just trying to score....up and down the ice, chance after chance...all the rule changes should be directed toward flow and offense, and penalize teams that just want to stand around (not unlike old zone defenses in NBA) and do nothing.

kpd/hoh

hubofhockey is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:42 AM
  #3
Mike B.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubofhockey
When the PK team ices the puck:

-- Immediate whistle. Puck brought back to killing end, with faceoff 10 feet directly in front of goaltender. Of great significance: killing team is not allowed a line change. Make 'em such wind.
-- If PK team ices a second time: well, depends how far you want to go with it. One option: another penalty for delay of game (which it is), and the PK team in now two short. Or, maybe even better--second infraction brings penalty shot (like covering hand over puck in crease).
I think this would have the effect of "killing" penalty killing. Why not just award a goal instead of a penalty?

Would penalty killers ever go on the offensive if they knew that, should the be caught in their own end, they would not be allowed to ice the puck for a line change?

I think it would just be a shooting gallery. Teams would be forced to be extremely passive when killing penalties, to conserve energy and avoid costly mistakes.

Anyway, just my opinion.

Mike B. is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:43 AM
  #4
Terrier
Registered User
 
Terrier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 2,581
vCash: 500
Disallowing the line change after a shorthanded icing would be a good start. After all, a lot of power plays feature more line changes than shots. What's the average number of shots on net during a two-minute power play these days?

P.S. Did you see Keith Tkachuk lay out our old friend Wes Walz last night?

Terrier is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:53 AM
  #5
blurbruin
Registered User
 
blurbruin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubofhockey
T -- Sorry, I didn't see this til now. As far as I know, my icing idea isn't getting a look--which means they're all probably smarter than I believed.

My change to the rule would mitigate many of your concerns--because it would be very harsh. To wit:

When the PK team ices the puck:

-- Immediate whistle. Puck brought back to killing end, with faceoff 10 feet directly in front of goaltender. Of great significance: killing team is not allowed a line change. Make 'em such wind.
-- If PK team ices a second time: well, depends how far you want to go with it. One option: another penalty for delay of game (which it is), and the PK team in now two short. Or, maybe even better--second infraction brings penalty shot (like covering hand over puck in crease).
And if all they do is jam the puck in the corner? Same thing: penlaty for delay of game, or for refusal to engage.

Think how great the pond hockey game is....everyone out there is just trying to score....up and down the ice, chance after chance...all the rule changes should be directed toward flow and offense, and penalize teams that just want to stand around (not unlike old zone defenses in NBA) and do nothing.

kpd/hoh
I think a lot of these rule changes are a little too radical and from out of nowhere for the NHL to even consider implementing them.

blurbruin is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 12:04 PM
  #6
neelynugs
Registered User
 
neelynugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vote Quimby!
Posts: 29,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrier
P.S. Did you see Keith Tkachuk lay out our old friend Wes Walz last night?
that was an unbelievable hit
walz didn't see him coming, admired his shot, and got waxed.

neelynugs is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 12:28 PM
  #7
SPV
Zoinks!
 
SPV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 4,836
vCash: 500
After watching the Devils/B's series last year, I came up with the idea that they should institute a number of icings allowed per period rule, once that number is hit, if the offending team ices the puck again they will be assessed a bench minor. It's similar to fouls in college basketball. This would hurt a trapping team that sits on leads and isn't too dramatic of a rule change.

SPV is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 01:10 PM
  #8
Mike B.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 500
The problem with the NHL nowadays isn't the rules... it's the enforcement of the rules. In today's NHL, hooking is LEGAL. Holding is LEGAL. Holding the stick is LEGAL. Interference is LEGAL. It's not doing any of these things that gets a penalty called... it's doing "too much" of them, in the subjective opinions of the officials. (The other day, Dave Scatchard was lying on the ice, and grabbed onto Hal Gill's stick and was pulled along the boards by Gill who was forced to try and play the puck with his feet. In full view of the ref. No penalty. In other words, what Scatchard did is LEGAL, regardless of what the rules might say.)

Watch an NFL game. In the final minutes, do you see all sorts of false starts and offsides and pass interference and roughing the passer and holding go uncalled by officials who want to "let the boys play"? No. And if the officials did start calling games that way, the sport would be a joke, just as NHL hockey has become a joke.

All of the NHL's current on-ice problems can be traced to the piss poor officiating.

Clogging the neutral zone? It wouldn't work, if the attacking players could play dump-and-chase without the forecheckers having to fight through hooking and holding at the blue line. (Dump and chase works when the forecheckers hit the blue line with speed just as the puck is dumped in.) Nowadays, the defense clogs the neutral zone, tries to hold the blue line, and if the attackers dump it they play clutch and grab.

Pace of the game? Hockey should be about speed. But the clutching and grabbing slows it down.

Diving? The only reason diving is an issue is because of the way penalties are called. Some hooking, OK. "Too much" hooking, bad. How does a ref decide how much is too much? One factor is whether or not the player falls down. Players dive because IT WORKS! If any hook was called a penalty, players would stop the diving and flopping.

Cam Neely made an interesting comment last year, while the NHL was in the midst of its fraudulent attempt to fix the officiating. He said that there aren't as many big hits in today's NHL because the game is played slower because of the clutch & grab game.

Bottom line: The problem with the game is not the rules, but the way they are called. This allows teams to effectively slow the game down.

Mike B. is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 01:16 PM
  #9
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 34,137
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
The problem with the NHL nowadays isn't the rules... it's the enforcement of the rules.

Bottom line: The problem with the game is not the rules, but the way they are called. This allows teams to effectively slow the game down.

I agree with this...

The only "changes " I'd make would be :

1 - Absolutely enforce what's in the rule book.

2 - Tougher Regulations on Goalie equipment. All of it.

3 - Move the nets back to there old position nearer the boards and make the neutral zone bigger with the extra footage.

__________________

BOSTON STRONG !!!
Gee Wally is online now  
Old
01-06-2004, 01:17 PM
  #10
hubofhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
I think this would have the effect of "killing" penalty killing. Why not just award a goal instead of a penalty?

Would penalty killers ever go on the offensive if they knew that, should the be caught in their own end, they would not be allowed to ice the puck for a line change?

I think it would just be a shooting gallery. Teams would be forced to be extremely passive when killing penalties, to conserve energy and avoid costly mistakes.

Anyway, just my opinion.

Mike B -- I think your cup is 2/3's empty.

How 'bout this: the PK team actually puts talented, skillfull players ont he ice, and tries to generate plays while shorthanded. How novel. We might even see, hold on....SHORTHANDED GOALS.
Honestly, the PK mentalilty has reached the point where clubs just seek and destroy--heave it 200 feet, get fresh legs every 20 seconds...they're not playing the game...they're just gutting it, like a rotten fish.
Even strength, if teams are afraid to commit a penalty, ALL THE BETTER. Result: open ice, more room to play the game the way it was intended!!!

Just my humble opinion, of course. kpd/hoh

hubofhockey is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 01:19 PM
  #11
hubofhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blurbruin
I think a lot of these rule changes are a little too radical and from out of nowhere for the NHL to even consider implementing them.
Blurbruin -- You're right, game's great, why try a thing?

Sorry, would write more, but have to see if I can strike a fire with this stone and stick.

kpd/hoh

hubofhockey is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 01:41 PM
  #12
Mike B.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubofhockey
Mike B -- I think your cup is 2/3's empty.
No, my Cup is 1/3 full.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubofhockey
How 'bout this: the PK team actually puts talented, skillfull players ont he ice, and tries to generate plays while shorthanded. How novel. We might even see, hold on....SHORTHANDED GOALS.
I agree, this would be a good thing to see. But won't it always come down to the determination of the PK team, no matter what the rules are. The year the Devils lost to Colorado, their usual PK forwards were Sykora, Elias, Madden, and Pandolfo. Three of the four are guys who can score, and the Devils scored a lot of SHGs. Rolston & Axelsson used to do it for the Bruins - two years ago, Rolston scored 31 goals, 9 of them shorthanded. Rolston & Axelsson don't do it anymore, probably because Mike Sullivan is too conservative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubofhockey
Honestly, the PK mentalilty has reached the point where clubs just seek and destroy--heave it 200 feet, get fresh legs every 20 seconds...they're not playing the game...they're just gutting it, like a rotten fish.
But would a PK guy risk going on the offensive if he knew he might not be able to get off the ice afterward? Would a PK guy have the energy left for a breakway after 1:30 of frantic PKing in his own end? Put in your rules and you'd just see the guy dump in from the red line and go for a line change.

The NHL has been dumbed down. Given the choice between playing it safe or going for the jugular, most coaches are going to want to play it safe. (Playing it safe requires less talent. If you are going to go for the jugular, you've got to be GOOD.)

If you tweak the rules to take away one strategy for playing it safe, it will only be a matter of time before coaches figure out a different way to play it even safer.

There's just no way to force a team to play an aggressive attacking style. Sometimes teams even play it safe in OT because they don;t want to risk having the extra point go to a conference rival.

Mike B. is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 01:47 PM
  #13
misterjaggers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Duke City
Country: United States
Posts: 14,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally
I agree with this...

The only "changes " I'd make would be :

1 - Absolutely enforce what's in the rule book.

2 - Tougher Regulations on Goalie equipment. All of it.

3 - Move the nets back to there old position nearer the boards and make the neutral zone bigger with the extra footage.
The game would be more fun if we adopted (or adapted) some of these rules:
http://www.rollerderbypreservationas...GUES/rules.htm


Last edited by misterjaggers: 01-06-2004 at 02:14 PM.
misterjaggers is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 02:44 PM
  #14
DFENS44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Optimism, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubofhockey
Mike B -- I think your cup is 2/3's empty.

How 'bout this: the PK team actually puts talented, skillfull players ont he ice, and tries to generate plays while shorthanded. How novel. We might even see, hold on....SHORTHANDED GOALS.
Honestly, the PK mentalilty has reached the point where clubs just seek and destroy--heave it 200 feet, get fresh legs every 20 seconds...they're not playing the game...they're just gutting it, like a rotten fish.
Even strength, if teams are afraid to commit a penalty, ALL THE BETTER. Result: open ice, more room to play the game the way it was intended!!!

Just my humble opinion, of course. kpd/hoh
"...talented, skillfull players..." great thought, but in the era of the "original 30", and amid a serious dilution of talent throughout, unlikely. Coaches are being forced to make do with players that wouldn't have even been waterboys on the NHL teams of yore.

As for the heave-ho, give it to the trap. THAT's what's killing the game,because that's what is allowing lesser-skilled teams to remain competitive. Speaking of more ice, what happened to the 4on4 when a player from each team gets a penalty? Heck, bring it to 3on3 if the need arises. THEN your skill teams should emerge victorious.

Used to be when you drew a penalty by getting bludgeoned/tripped/hooked whatever, the pain was lessened when your team scored on the ensuing power play. Tell me it doesn't hurt some of these guys MORE when your team can't even muster a shot on a power play that YOUR blood and/or bruise, provided?

DFENS44 is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 02:49 PM
  #15
Mike B.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFENS44
Speaking of more ice, what happened to the 4on4 when a player from each team gets a penalty? Heck, bring it to 3on3 if the need arises. THEN your skill teams should emerge victorious.
Nothing happened to it. In 4-on-4 play, a lot of teams just sit back and don't take risks. Safer that way, you know.

The problem with all of this talk of rule changes is that it amounts to treating the symptoms and not the causes.

Mike B. is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 02:50 PM
  #16
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 34,137
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
The game would be more fun if we adopted (or adapted) some of these rules:
http://www.rollerderbypreservationas...GUES/rules.htm

hey I loved Roller Derby...

Joannie Weston was tougher than 3/4 of the Broons...


Gee Wally is online now  
Old
01-06-2004, 08:30 PM
  #17
blurbruin
Registered User
 
blurbruin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubofhockey
Blurbruin -- You're right, game's great, why try a thing?

Sorry, would write more, but have to see if I can strike a fire with this stone and stick.

kpd/hoh
I don't think the game is fine, but my point is I don't think the NHL would consider the rule changes you suggest. I don't think they're necessarily a bad idea.

What does everyone think about if a team scores a shorthanded goal, then their player gets to come out of the box? I don't know if this would lead to a more offensive minded PK, or just a more conservative PP?

I do think if they just enforced the rules properly, a lot of things would be resolved (wasn't the beginning of last season entertaining? or maybe I'm just biased because the B's were doing so well).

blurbruin is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 09:40 PM
  #18
mmmBeer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,386
vCash: 500
My question regarding the rule change proposed in this thread: Does anyone think the NHL has enough confidence in its referees to implement it?

Often, the difference between a penalized hook and a minor "tug" or something which goes unnoticed is the force with which the player is hooked, or tugged. Or how much he hams it up.

Point being, penalties are sometimes incredibly subjective, so would this rule change give an influence to refs which their performance does not warrant?

Would it make them less willing to call obstruction hooking/holding because it might have an undue influence on the game; or might it make them "ref with marbles," trying to even out the calls so that they don't have an undue infleunce on the game (but which is a self-defeating venture).

These things happen anyways, but if the importance of a power play was increased, they would happen more often, IMO.


Last edited by mmmBeer: 01-06-2004 at 09:43 PM.
mmmBeer 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 02:54 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.