HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

New rule ideas

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-25-2011, 11:40 AM
  #26
Fitzy
Relative to what?
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,184
vCash: 50
3 on 3 is awful. Most of the people who advocate it haven't been paying close enough attention IMO, or simply have no problem with poor hockey.

Its one of those things that people like the sound of in principle, but believe you me if implemented would be an absolute disaster for the hockey product.

What if they decided to play soccer extra time 7 versus 7? A gimmicky and absurd idea.

What they need to do is extend the 4 v 4 overtime to a 20 minute 5 on 5 extra period. That would solve about 80% of the games in overtime. And get rid of the point for reaching the end of regulation tied.

Lose the trapezoid.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:41 AM
  #27
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
I think bigger nets is a bad idea, it doesn't really "fix" the problem. Feels like the easy way out.
A full 2 minute powerplay "fix"es the problem? Knocking 4 inches off the back of the net "fix"es the problem? (Maybe for Alex Frolov it does.)

The problem, in my opinion, is that it's now a rarity to see a pretty goal. Most of them are scored by mad scrambles with everyone diving headfirst into the crease or shots from a distances that bounce off sticks/butts/teeth. It feels like half the time, I have no idea who even scored the goal.

Make the nets bigger and allow the skill of a good shot back into the game. I can't even really tell you anymore who are the great shots in the league. We dont' get to see Hull/Shanny/Messier,etc. picking corners anymore.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:44 AM
  #28
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 15,217
vCash: 500
I forget who mentioned it, but taller nets, maybe raise the cross bad 3-4 inches?

thought that was cool, it would open up the top shelf on alot of goalies (Hank included) as well as allow for higher deflections from players in the slot.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:47 AM
  #29
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,374
vCash: 500
The NHL won't be satisfied until games are ending 15-10

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:47 AM
  #30
Fitzy
Relative to what?
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,184
vCash: 50
You cannot change the nets, just like you cannot change the pucks.

The NHL does not need to pander. I'm not wholly interested in bringing in a heapload of "casual fans," either.

What does an increase in revenue provide? We pay the same players more money to do what they were doing before. We have a 30 team league, so there is no need for expansion.

We have a league with great parity, great hockey, thatis far and away still the best league in the world. What is the constant desire to change things? The only things that need changing are moves away from poor changes that were made in the first place.

Pretty soon people will be talking about eliminating offsides.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:48 AM
  #31
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Tie games are not the issue, they were never an issue. Style of play that led teams to playing for a tie is an issue.

With most of the clutching and grabbing gone from the game, I'm not convinved that hard earned tie games are not a good thing.
I don't think I agree with this. The style of play was dictated by the tie. Teams played for ties because they knew the risk of opening up and going for a win were too great, when they could just hold on and get a point.

If you want ties in the game, you have to find a way to make the incentives balance out so the tie comes naturally, rather than thru some kind of mutual lack of competition.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:51 AM
  #32
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLU Hockey View Post
You cannot change the nets, just like you cannot change the pucks.

The NHL does not need to pander. I'm not wholly interested in bringing in a heapload of "casual fans," either.

What does an increase in revenue provide? We pay the same players more money to do what they were doing before. We have a 30 team league, so there is no need for expansion.

We have a league with great parity, great hockey, thatis far and away still the best league in the world. What is the constant desire to change things? The only things that need changing are moves away from poor changes that were made in the first place.

Pretty soon people will be talking about eliminating offsides.
I agree. I'd rather just the NHL continue to give the best product in the world to it's fans that deserve it rather than hurt the product to compensate ****ers who don't appreciate it anyway.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:54 AM
  #33
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,412
vCash: 500
I would allow full penalty after goal only if penalty time reduced. 90 sec or even 1 minute should be enough.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:57 AM
  #34
jacko23
KCCO!
 
jacko23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Greensboro, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
with the "no shorthanded icing" and "full penalty served" rules, i feel like you can only have one. if you are dogass tired and not able to ice the puck while killing the penalty, i think scoring would go up TOO MUCH. the excitement and importance of a goal is partly because it doesnt happen as often. not to mention could you imagine a team with a 75% PP% and only kill 25% of their penalties?! wtf.....

jacko23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:59 AM
  #35
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLU Hockey View Post
Pretty soon people will be talking about eliminating offsides.
No, but I'd go for blue line twice as wide or more. Whatever makes sense should be implemented. Conservatives are always wrong.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 11:59 AM
  #36
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 15,217
vCash: 500
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 68MGQR10 View Post
I might be wrong, but does anyone else feel like these rules are to increase scoring?
I'm joking when I say this, but

No shhhiiit sherlock

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:00 PM
  #37
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,374
vCash: 500
No icing on the PP will be the will be the worst thing to ever happen to the NHL. Teams will ice it anyway and take their chances on the faceoff. Every PP will take 20 minutes to complete.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:01 PM
  #38
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
No, but I'd go for blue line twice as wide. Whatever makes sense should be implemented. Conservatives are always wrong.
I've never been conservative with the rules in the NHL but this **** they're trying to do with the powerplays is something out of a mid-90's arcade game.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:05 PM
  #39
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenrubber View Post
Full 2:00 Penalties is not a good idea.

It just further compounds bad/marginal calls.
I disagree. I think it will actually make the game cleaner. There will be less stupid penalties and the refs will probably be more hesitant to call the marginal ones. I see both extremes moving toward the middle and making the game better.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:18 PM
  #40
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
No icing on the PP will be the will be the worst thing to ever happen to the NHL. Teams will ice it anyway and take their chances on the faceoff. Every PP will take 20 minutes to complete.
Yeah, and on that same note, I think that's why hand passes are allowed in the defensive zone. If they weren't allowed, it would be an easy way to stop play when a team needs a break. So it either has to be allowed, or it has to be a penalty, but I can't ever see them making it a penalty.

In the offensive and neutral zones, teams aren't going to use a hand pass to stop play, they would use it to gain an advantage, so having it illegal in those zones makes sense IMO.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:23 PM
  #41
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Yeah, and on that same note, I think that's why hand passes are allowed in the defensive zone. If they weren't allowed, it would be an easy way to stop play when a team needs a break. So it either has to be allowed, or it has to be a penalty, but I can't ever see them making it a penalty.

In the offensive and neutral zones, teams aren't going to use a hand pass to stop play, they would use it to gain an advantage, so having it illegal in those zones makes sense IMO.
My only hope with the icing on PP rule is that I'm right and it's so God damn horrible that they abolish it ASAP.

Agreed on the hand passes. I think that's a perfect precedent the NHL is overlooking.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:30 PM
  #42
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I've never been conservative with the rules in the NHL but this **** they're trying to do with the powerplays is something out of a mid-90's arcade game.
Well, the rule changes are of 3 categories:

1. Make the game going
2. Increase scoring as a major entertainment factor
3. Reverse the old changes that no longer effective.

Elimination of ties ( doesn't fall in any above) was unusual , made the major impact and the rules keep changing with volatility to accommodate it. I think the only change similar in magnitude would be point award change that should be done once SO introduced:

3 points - win in regulation
2 points -win after regulation
1 point - loss after regulation
0 point - loss in regulation

This way there would be 3 points to share any given game. Without such change the teams with good SO record would drag the overtime to SO no matter if it is 3-on-3 or4-on-4 or else.
Allowing full 2 min will make the special teams even more important and 5-on-5 less. If you diminish 5-on-5 there will be no hockey game, there will be struggle instead.
Make penalty 90 sec to start if you want to do it. That would save 5-on-5 somewhat.
Any hit in the head should result in 2(two) players in the box - one who committed infraction and one extra for full 5 (five) minutes regardless of goals scored. No disciplinary hearing would be needed after that rule change. Every one knows what 5 min of 5-on-3 looks like. That is how concussions should be eliminated.


Last edited by 94now: 08-25-2011 at 12:40 PM.
94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:38 PM
  #43
nyrpassion
Vetted.
 
nyrpassion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLU Hockey View Post
3 on 3 is awful. Most of the people who advocate it haven't been paying close enough attention IMO, or simply have no problem with poor hockey.

Its one of those things that people like the sound of in principle, but believe you me if implemented would be an absolute disaster for the hockey product.

What if they decided to play soccer extra time 7 versus 7? A gimmicky and absurd idea.

What they need to do is extend the 4 v 4 overtime to a 20 minute 5 on 5 extra period. That would solve about 80% of the games in overtime. And get rid of the point for reaching the end of regulation tied.

Lose the trapezoid.
i disagree. it would be horrible to add another potential period of play to a game in a sport which already has 82 games as it is. leave the 5 v 5, 20 minutes OT to the playoffs. Imagine if your team plays 2 games in 24 hours and both games go to OT. I think either leave it the way it is, or go with the 4 v4 then 3 v 3 option.

nyrpassion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:40 PM
  #44
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Well, the rule changes are of 3 categories:

1. Make the game going
2. Increase scoring as a major entertainment factor
3. Reverse the old changes that no longer effective.

Elimination of ties made the major impact and rules keep changing with volatility to accommodate it. I think the only change similar in magnitude would be point award change that should be done once SO introduced:

3 points - win in regulation
2 points -win after regulation
1 point - loss after regulation
0 point - loss in regulation

This way there would be 3 points to share any given game. Without such change the teams with good SO record would drag the overtime to SO no matter if it is 3-on-3 or4-on-4 or else.
Allowing full 2 min will make the special teams even more important and 5-on-5 less. If you diminish 5-on-5 there will be no hockey game, there will be struggle instead.
Make penalty 90 sec to start if you want to do it. That would save 5-on-5 somewhat.
Any hit in the head should result in 2(two) players in the box - one who committed infraction and one extra for full 5 (five) minutes regardless of goals scored. No disciplinary hearing would be needed after that rule change. Every one knows what 5 min of 5-on-3 looks like. That is how concussions should be eliminated.
Maybe because of that Mario will actually discipline Matt Cooke for once

Like you said, this PP rule would kill 5 on 5 . That's why I'm not aboard.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:41 PM
  #45
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 12,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini View Post
A full 2 minute powerplay "fix"es the problem? Knocking 4 inches off the back of the net "fix"es the problem? (Maybe for Alex Frolov it does.)

The problem, in my opinion, is that it's now a rarity to see a pretty goal. Most of them are scored by mad scrambles with everyone diving headfirst into the crease or shots from a distances that bounce off sticks/butts/teeth. It feels like half the time, I have no idea who even scored the goal.

Make the nets bigger and allow the skill of a good shot back into the game. I can't even really tell you anymore who are the great shots in the league. We dont' get to see Hull/Shanny/Messier,etc. picking corners anymore.
Don't think I ever said those two suggestions fixed anything.

Weird but I seem to remember quite a few snipes last year. Stamkos didn't score many garbage goals, neither did Ovechkin.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:47 PM
  #46
turcotte8
Registered User
 
turcotte8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,865
vCash: 500
I think they should get rid of high sticking. If you can deflect it in with your stick it should be a goal, or if someone bats it out of the zone then a teammate gets it the play should just continue.

turcotte8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 12:59 PM
  #47
Superstar Carwash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
The NHL won't be satisfied until games are ending 15-10
I saw some interview with Brian Burke who said that he didn't mind if a game ended 2-1 or 2-2 etc, as long as chances were created and stuff on the ice happened. I know it's basically heresy to agree to anything Burke says, but I agree with him 100% here. I think highscoring games in general are pretty boring. I wanna see some insane saves too, where you curse the other team's goalie and go absolute nuts when you finally manage to score.

Highscoring games just turns out to be sort of "meh". But then again, goalies has been bullied since the game was invented so I'm not suprised that the people in charge doesn't give jack**** about what they think.

Superstar Carwash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 01:00 PM
  #48
Jabroni
Moderator
The Corporate Mod
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,271
vCash: 500
The problem is if you allow all high sticking, then there will be more incidents of sticks hitting faces and the Cookes of the NHL might use it to their own gain.

Jabroni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 01:04 PM
  #49
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashiva View Post
I saw some interview with Brian Burke who said that he didn't mind if a game ended 2-1 or 2-2 etc, as long as chances were created and stuff on the ice happened. I know it's basically heresy to agree to anything Burke says, but I agree with him 100% here. I think highscoring games in general are pretty boring. I wanna see some insane saves too, where you curse the other team's goalie and go absolute nuts when you finally manage to score.

Highscoring games just turns out to be sort of "meh". But then again, goalies has been bullied since the game was invented so I'm not suprised that the people in charge doesn't give jack**** about what they think.
I'm with the Burkester on this one too.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2011, 01:11 PM
  #50
turcotte8
Registered User
 
turcotte8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68MGQR10 View Post
The problem is if you allow all high sticking, then there will be more incidents of sticks hitting faces and the Cookes of the NHL might use it to their own gain.
True, but when you watch a game and the pucks in the air does anyone not swing at it? Anyone near it has their stick in the air.

turcotte8 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 03:57 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.