HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Here's what's being discussed at the GM meetings...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-10-2004, 09:59 AM
  #1
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Here's what's being discussed at the GM meetings...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1731335

Basically, there were four issues debated, and here they are:

ice surface and the lines, including eliminating the red line, creating passing lanes to open room in the neutral zone, and widening the blue lines.

Keep the red line. And widen the blue line? Does that shorten-up the PP? If so, nope.

width of their pads should be further reduced -- maybe even back to the 10-inch standard that was raised to 12 in the 1989-90 season.

I'd go back to 1989-1990 standards, why not?

no-touch icing

If this eliminates the ability for a player on the 'icing' team to baet-out the defenseman/forward to the puck, the, I'd say no to no-touch icing. Why take hard-work out of the game?

reinstating the tag-up offsides rule

All for this one. Not sure why it was done-away with. Keeps the defensemen on their toes and there's always that possibilty of a turnover. It may support more aggressive forechecking and less trapping as a result.

Finally...three points for a win and a shootout instead of a tie...still dead-against a shootout. I really hate the idea of hanging a goalie out like that, intentionally, and leaving the game up to five individuals, 'shooters' to decide the game. Play the friggin' game.

Fletch is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 10:51 AM
  #2
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
no-touch icing

If this eliminates the ability for a player on the 'icing' team to baet-out the defenseman/forward to the puck, the, I'd say no to no-touch icing. Why take hard-work out of the game?
Because that race for the puck and the 1/100 chance that the forward beats out the icing has resulted in some very nasty injuries over the years, and ended a few careers.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 10:59 AM
  #3
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Yeah...I've heard that argument...

might as well take sticks out of the game too...they've been known to hurt a guy or two.

Fletch is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:03 AM
  #4
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
ice surface and the lines, including eliminating the red line, creating passing lanes to open room in the neutral zone, and widening the blue lines.
I didn't read this article, but the TSN version ( http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=71497 ) was full of quotes from European players saying how removing the red line will not increase scoring. Many of these guys grew up playing without a red line, and they don't see a difference in terms of offensive production.

Quote:
I don't think that's the key," the Ottawa Senators captain said. "Maybe short term it would open up the game but teams would adjust. In Europe you just move the trap back and you still have problems scoring."
The AHL is currently using the wider blue lines, but I have yet to see an AHL game yet this year. Anyone else? I guess it makes all 3 zones a few inches larger.

Personally, I think all these discussions are a waste of time. I'm with Luongo....

Quote:
Forget the goalies, said Florida Panthers netminder Roberto Luongo, just call the game by the book.

"The main thing is the trap and the clutch and grabbing," Luongo said. "That slows the game down and brings down scoring."

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:07 AM
  #5
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
no-touch icing

If this eliminates the ability for a player on the 'icing' team to baet-out the defenseman/forward to the puck, the, I'd say no to no-touch icing. Why take hard-work out of the game?

reinstating the tag-up offsides rule

All for this one. Not sure why it was done-away with. Keeps the defensemen on their toes and there's always that possibilty of a turnover. It may support more aggressive forechecking and less trapping as a result.

Finally...three points for a win and a shootout instead of a tie...still dead-against a shootout. I really hate the idea of hanging a goalie out like that, intentionally, and leaving the game up to five individuals, 'shooters' to decide the game. Play the friggin' game.[/QUOTE]

Why reward a team for icing the puck? I support no-touch icing to reduce injuries and to take the thought of icing the puck away totally.

You can thank your GM for eliminating the tag up offside rule. This was totally his idea and was changed because Glen thought D would handle the puck more. This hasn't happened and has resulted in many unnecessary whistles, contributed to trapping and has slowed the game down.

eye is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:12 AM
  #6
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Funny, Melrose...

how that doesn't seem to be a topic of discussion at the meetings. Of course, I'm totally with you and Luongo and the many in here that have talked about the clutching and grabbing (not so much the trap, but what happens when someone beats the trap).

Fletch is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:12 AM
  #7
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1731335

Basically, there were four issues debated, and here they are:

ice surface and the lines, including eliminating the red line, creating passing lanes to open room in the neutral zone, and widening the blue lines.

Keep the red line. And widen the blue line? Does that shorten-up the PP? If so, nope.

width of their pads should be further reduced -- maybe even back to the 10-inch standard that was raised to 12 in the 1989-90 season.

I'd go back to 1989-1990 standards, why not?

no-touch icing

If this eliminates the ability for a player on the 'icing' team to baet-out the defenseman/forward to the puck, the, I'd say no to no-touch icing. Why take hard-work out of the game?

reinstating the tag-up offsides rule

All for this one. Not sure why it was done-away with. Keeps the defensemen on their toes and there's always that possibilty of a turnover. It may support more aggressive forechecking and less trapping as a result.

Finally...three points for a win and a shootout instead of a tie...still dead-against a shootout. I really hate the idea of hanging a goalie out like that, intentionally, and leaving the game up to five individuals, 'shooters' to decide the game. Play the friggin' game.
Mostly all window dressing and non-controversial stuff, IMO. Sounds like they're all afraid of addressing any of the more sensitive issues.

What does creating passing lanes in the neutral zone mean? And what would be the point of widening the blue lines? Players will still try to make the play onside by the barest of margins regardless of the width of the line.

kazo is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:18 AM
  #8
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazo
what would be the point of widening the blue lines?
You essentially increase the ice surface in all 3 zones. I think we're talking about like 12" blue lines, so if the current line is 3" (?), then the offensive zone has grown by 9". (all theoretical numbers)

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:23 AM
  #9
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Ahh...

and here I am thinking that they were going to widen the distance between the blue line and the red line. Now I get it... While many PP plays get to the point and go an inch over the line, and theoretically that would not happen in those instances if the lines were wider, wouldn't point guys move back a little and the same thing will happen? Ah, doesn't sound like anything that would be harmful.

Fletch is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:24 AM
  #10
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,014
vCash: 500
Awards:
ice surface and the lines, including eliminating the red line, creating passing lanes to open room in the neutral zone, and widening the blue lines.

Keep the red line.

width of their pads should be further reduced -- maybe even back to the 10-inch standard that was raised to 12 in the 1989-90 season.

There needs to be some standards. Enough to protect the goalies, not enough to protect the net.

no-touch icing

Awful. It negating icing makes for an exciting play and creates scoring chances

reinstating the tag-up offsides rule

Should have been done away with in the first place.

I would get rid of OT totally during the regular season.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:33 AM
  #11
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
While many PP plays get to the point and go an inch over the line, and theoretically that would not happen in those instances if the lines were wider, wouldn't point guys move back a little and the same thing will happen?
You can still go offsides just as easily, but when you're in the zone, you've got that extra space (9" ?) to play with. If a defender has to move out a little more to cover the point guy, that would theoretically open up the passing lanes.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:34 AM
  #12
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
You essentially increase the ice surface in all 3 zones. I think we're talking about like 12" blue lines, so if the current line is 3" (?), then the offensive zone has grown by 9". (all theoretical numbers)
OK, I see. Still sounds more cosmetic than anything else.

What's the deal on creating neutral zone passing lanes? What's that all about?

kazo is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:43 AM
  #13
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazo
What's the deal on creating neutral zone passing lanes? What's that all about?
Not totally sure. Reading it again, I don't think the author is saying widening the blue lines has anything to do with those neutral zone passing lanes.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:55 AM
  #14
JR#9*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
As one of the columnist in Toronto said either go all the way with the wider lines isea or don't go at all and he's 100% right.

Bobby Smith's idea was to have each line 3 ft wide which would add 6 more feet to the nuetral zone and make passes in this extra room eligible as oppossed to being blown dead for a 2 line pass.

It also adds the extra 1ft to the blueline when your in the attacking zone and that could be a significant factor with guys on the point on the PP like Leetch.

To me it is the best idea I've seen yet to improve the flow of the game.It doesn't require any renovations to arena's and it adds space without changing the dimensions of the ice surface.There is no downside to it other than getting used to it's appearance.

This coupled with the reinstitution of the tag up rule as well as a new point system with 3 for a win, 2 for OT win and 1 for a tie would go a long ways to changing the deathgrip that coaches strategies have currently placed on the way the game is played.

These are the 3 biggest ideas I like to see in the game next year and I think these 3 whings will brings alot more skating and skill back into this great game and with that the entertainment value would skyrocket as oppossed to what we see in todays NHL.

JR#9* is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:55 AM
  #15
Servo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
and here I am thinking that they were going to widen the distance between the blue line and the red line. Now I get it... While many PP plays get to the point and go an inch over the line, and theoretically that would not happen in those instances if the lines were wider, wouldn't point guys move back a little and the same thing will happen? Ah, doesn't sound like anything that would be harmful.
They've been trying this out in Canadian juniors, but I'm not sure what degree of success they've had. I saw one clip and it sure made the rink look weird!

As for automatic icing, I'm all for it. As Don Cherry says, eventually someone is going to get killed or paralyzed racing for the puck. They have automatic icing in the college game and it doesn't hurt the game at all.

Also, in college there is no two-line pass (the red line is used only for icing) and it often leads to some exciting offensive plays that would be whistled dead in the NHL. They also use the old tag up icing rule. These days, I find the college game much more fun and exciting to watch, so these two changes wouldn't bother me at all.

Servo is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 11:58 AM
  #16
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
I don't see how eliminating the red line would do anything other than bog the game down even more. You could never have four or five guys in the offensive zone. It would be too easy to complete the homerun pass so there would always be guys staying back guarding against it. The result would be slower play and less goals. It's the main reason the red line was created in the first place.

kazo is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 12:29 PM
  #17
JR#9*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazo
I don't see how eliminating the red line would do anything other than bog the game down even more. You could never have four or five guys in the offensive zone. It would be too easy to complete the homerun pass so there would always be guys staying back guarding against it. The result would be slower play and less goals. It's the main reason the red line was created in the first place.
But what you have to figure in is that even if defenders don't go deep into the attacking zone the forwards would still go deep to attack thus leaving a major gap between the 5 man unit.


Todays NHL has all 5 guys moving as one with NO GAP between the forwads and the defense to complete a pass or skate through.With this you have a TON more skating and if you had the 3 forwards going to the net on a scoring chance even if the 2 defenders stayed back all you'd have to do is have the defending centerman to get a jump on the 3 deep forwards and you'd have a 3 on 2 going the other way forcing the defenders to back in facing an oddman rush that actually would allow for speed to be generated coming through the neutral zone.

You'd see alot more up and down hockey and 3 on 2's and 4 on 3's.

JR#9* is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 12:33 PM
  #18
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
How does a race for the puck add excitement to the game? It is so infrequent that the offensive player actually gets there first to negate the icing, and even when that does happen, the puck usually gets moved to the other d-man and quickly out of the zone. And I agree with Servo, why should the team that just iced the puck be helped by the rule? Plus, no-touch icing would give teams down by a goal late in the game more of a chance to come back. How much time is wasted in the final minutes of a tight game because a d-man had to skate all the way back to touch up for the icing? I don't see how the touch-up icing rule adds much of anything besides some bad and unnecessary injuries.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 12:40 PM
  #19
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR#9
But what you have to figure in is that even if defenders don't go deep into the attacking zone the forwards would still go deep to attack thus leaving a major gap between the 5 man unit.


Todays NHL has all 5 guys moving as one with NO GAP between the forwads and the defense to complete a pass or skate through.With this you have a TON more skating and if you had the 3 forwards going to the net on a scoring chance even if the 2 defenders stayed back all you'd have to do is have the defending centerman to get a jump on the 3 deep forwards and you'd have a 3 on 2 going the other way forcing the defenders to back in facing an oddman rush that actually would allow for speed to be generated coming through the neutral zone.

You'd see alot more up and down hockey and 3 on 2's and 4 on 3's.
I have to disagree, JR. I think you would see the opposite. I think you would see a single forechecker in the offensive zone. What you're saying is fine as long as the attacking team has the puck. Otherwise there would be just a single forechecker with the rest of the unit peeling back on defense. Again, you won't see forwards going deep in the zone unless they have clear puck possession.

It's all pretty much irrelevant anyway because, at the end of the day, as long as the game is dominated by clutching, grabbing, and interference not much will change no matter what rule changes are made.

kazo is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 12:41 PM
  #20
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
Many of these guys grew up playing without a red line, and they don't see a difference in terms of offensive production.

I'm with Luongo....
Agreed. Back when myself and JR were arguing about this, I said that my problem w/ removing the redline was that teams would just keep the players on their own blueline and that would be that. And agreed w/ Louongo, just call the inteference that goes on ALL THE TIME away from the puck and the game will open up. However, goalie equipment does have to be better regulated.
Actually, Kazo illustrates my point:

"I have to disagree, JR. I think you would see the opposite. I think you would see a single forechecker in the offensive zone. What you're saying is fine as long as the attacking team has the puck. Otherwise there would be just a single forechecker with the rest of the unit peeling back on defense. Again, you won't see forwards going deep in the zone unless they have clear puck possession.

It's all pretty much irrelevant anyway because, at the end of the day, as long as the game is dominated by clutching, grabbing, and interference not much will change no matter what rule changes are made."

The Euros play A LOT of the 1-3-1 to combat the effects of not having a redline. One forchecker and everyone else hanging back until the lone guy has a clear possession of the puck. What you are suggesting, JR, is the way that the Rangers would play. They would send in everyone on attack and then promptly meet w/ 3 or 4 players from the other team. Result? A turnover and scoring chance on the other team.
Again, just call the inteference AWAY from the puck and the game improves by itself.


Last edited by True Blue: 02-10-2004 at 12:47 PM.
True Blue is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 12:57 PM
  #21
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Tweak the instigator rule, get rid of the two refs and call penalties that should be called and, voila! You've got the game you had 12 years ago. Which is to say you've got a pretty decent product.

Oh, yeah. And forget all the gimmicks.

kazo is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 01:20 PM
  #22
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,665
vCash: 500
I can pretty much guarantee that the elimination of the current off-sides rule

and re-institution of the tag up will force the defenceman to move the puck quicker, and the forwards won't be forced to sit in the neutral zones any longer.

Quick teams that play the trap can now use their quicness to force turnovers in the offensive zones as opposed to the neutral zone and will be able to create more offence and hence won't have to rely on a stifling defensive system to get by.

As for the no touch-icing issues? Rarely have there been any major injuries that i can remember but it's not a big deal either. Personally I think it should be subjective, if the defending player has clear accesss to the puck, but gives up because he know's it's going to be an icing then it should be waived off. Can't have teams taking advantage of the expected whistle.

As for widening the lines, I saw a diagram that the lines would be 24-36 inches wide 24 - red-line and 36 for the Bluelines. I like this as it widens each zone.

If the blueline is extended 14 inches on each side of the current one (8 inches I believe) then the neutral zone has just been extended 2+ feet. The Offensive/defensive zone has also been extended over a foot. Move the goalies net back 15 inches and now we have an offensive/defensive zone (in frone of the goalie) enlarged almost 30 inches. This would allow talented teams more room to show their talent.

But I really believe that the Tag-up rule is the key. The drop in scoring started with the elimination of that rule and the trap grew from it. Bring the tag-up rule back and kill the trap.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 01:21 PM
  #23
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Servo..

as Melrose quoted Alfredsson, they will adjust. Meaning, if you get rid of the two-line pass, you may get more cherry-picking. If there's more cherry-picking, you may have a defenseman hanging back a bit more to compensate. Not sure if I'm for that one.

Kodiak...disagree on the 'race for the puck'. It's not always the most exciting play in the game, but when the offensive player does get there first, it does often result in a scoring opportunity. If you're worried about icing at the end of the game, have the no touch-up in place during the last two minutes, or 1:30 of the game.

Fletch is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 01:32 PM
  #24
JR#9*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazo
I have to disagree, JR. I think you would see the opposite. I think you would see a single forechecker in the offensive zone. What you're saying is fine as long as the attacking team has the puck. Otherwise there would be just a single forechecker with the rest of the unit peeling back on defense. Again, you won't see forwards going deep in the zone unless they have clear puck possession.

It's all pretty much irrelevant anyway because, at the end of the day, as long as the game is dominated by clutching, grabbing, and interference not much will change no matter what rule changes are made.
That is why I said this change COUPLED with a new point system that would encourage more aggressive style by awarding regulation wins 3pts would be the answer.

The problems that face the game are to great that one single move would be able to address all that needs to be addressed.

And while my point was made by having the other 3 guys forwards trying to score and going deep into the attacking zone yours is based on teams just throwing it in and backing off which would happen at points in the game but that team would have to have forwards go deep at some point otherwise they'll never apply any pressure and never score and if the new point system is implemented as I think it will be, winning games in regulation will mean so much more then now that the result would be more aggressive styles of play as the extra points for this type of win would be so significantly more that W's in regulation would be the primary objective.

To me the bottom line is there would be significantly more eligible space to make a legal pass to and the added eligible space in the neutral zone would make the all important gap, that is the vital part of effectively clogging center ice, and opening up these holes beteween the 5 man unit all of the sudden opens things up and the defenders are spread thinner and as a result passes can be made successfully at center ice and speed can be generated by puck carriers once again.

The spacing of the dfenders are the key to the trap and these rules throwing that up in disarray along with a point system that really would reward teams going for the wins in regulation would go a long way in improving this game IMO.

JR#9* is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 01:37 PM
  #25
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,665
vCash: 500
There was actually a championship game played without the redline

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR#9
That is why I said this change COUPLED with a new point system that would encourage more aggressive style by awarding regulation wins 3pts would be the answer.

The problems that face the game are to great that one single move would be able to address all that needs to be addressed.

And while my point was made by having the other 3 guys forwards trying to score and going deep into the attacking zone yours is based on teams just throwing it in and backing off which would happen at points in the game but that team would have to have forwards go deep at some point otherwise they'll never apply any pressure and never score and if the new point system is implemented as I think it will be, winning games in regulation will mean so much more then now that the result would be more aggressive styles of play as the extra points for this type of win would be so significantly more that W's in regulation would be the primary objective.

To me the bottom line is there would be significantly more eligible space to make a legal pass to and the added eligible space in the neutral zone would make the all important gap, that is the vital part of effectively clogging center ice, and opening up these holes beteween the 5 man unit all of the sudden opens things up and the defenders are spread thinner and as a result passes can be made successfully at center ice and speed can be generated by puck carriers once again.

The spacing of the dfenders are the key to the trap and these rules throwing that up in disarray along with a point system that really would reward teams going for the wins in regulation would go a long way in improving this game IMO.

and the final score was a 1-0 snooze fest, no one went in deep and the neutral zone was a clusterf*&k. An ugly game all around.

pld459666 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 10:31 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.