|
|
Post by blny on Jan 6, 2015 11:47:45 GMT -5
6 skaters versus 5. I think the folks out there defending against 6 skaters might beg to differ on whether it feels like a PK or not. As I said in my previous post - because a team "chooses" not to have 6 skaters doesn't make it a power play for the other team. Pull your own goalie and go with 6 vs. 6 if you're concerned with being out-manned outside of the crease. I don't imagine too many teams would make that choice, but it's still a choice. Why effectively penalize a team for pulling their goalie (and take a little excitement out of the game)? Fewer whistles, make teams think more about the risks of an empty net (especially for 2-3 minutes which is now the trend). They've still got plenty of advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 6, 2015 11:58:45 GMT -5
As I said in my previous post - because a team "chooses" not to have 6 skaters doesn't make it a power play for the other team. Pull your own goalie and go with 6 vs. 6 if you're concerned with being out-manned outside of the crease. I don't imagine too many teams would make that choice, but it's still a choice. Why effectively penalize a team for pulling their goalie (and take a little excitement out of the game)? Fewer whistles, make teams think more about the risks of an empty net (especially for 2-3 minutes which is now the trend). They've still got plenty of advantage. I think there'd be more firing the puck at the net from the goal line and hoping for the best -- no reason not to try, or to finesse the puck "mostly there". the risk-reward scenario changes -- more risk for the "attacking" team; more reward for the "defending" team. icings from the wrong side of the blue line will help alleviate that though -- if you get the puck over the blue line, fire away. that curved glass idea will cut down on the stupid puck over the glass penalty too. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jan 6, 2015 12:40:09 GMT -5
I always look forward to this tournament as it is a short event that features (for the most part) the best on best U20 players. Sure, Canada always misses a few top end studs that are NHL fixtures, but so do a few of the other teams. These are kids that play their hearts out during this event, and it shows. A great hockey spectacle once you weed out a few of those games against the few teams that end up competing in the relegation round.
CAN-RUS does not seem to disappoint these days at the WJC, as big-time in-game momentum swings seem to be the norm when these two nations play.
Wonderful hockey all tournament with a great final game. It fits wonderfully into a period of the NHL schedule where the doldrums start to set in and games become even less dynamic and exciting, only to peak again as the playoff races start to get serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Jan 6, 2015 13:30:25 GMT -5
* Faster face-offs. Just drop the puck already! The only way I see this working is if you can get the guys to stop cheating. I don't think we want an instant penalty for it, so I don't see a way around it. * If the puck hits the netting, keep playing. What is the difference between hitting the top of the glass and bouncing into play, and hitting the net and bouncing into play? The puck is on the ice, keep playing! I like that idea, except on dump-ins. Guys would blast it high to get the trampoline bounce into the slot. * Widen the blueline, to cut down on the number of off-sides. How many off-sides do we see where the puck just inches out? Widen the blueline a little and you can cut some of those out, AND keep offensive plays going. Sure. * Allow hand passes in the neutral zone (or maybe just on the defensive neutral zone). Why only in the defensive zone? For that matter, why not allow hand-passes everywhere? You still can't close your hand on the puck, but batting it to somebody? Why not? Agree. * Change the icing rule so that it’s from your own blueline, and not center ice. How many icings are there per game where the player is like 6 inches away from center ice? The icing rule is supposed to punish teams who are in trouble in their own zone and who just dump it out to save a goal – that’s not the case when you are icing it from center ice. If you are in your own zone (i.e., behind your own blueline) then yes. But if you get it out of your zone, then the danger has passed (for the most part) and most icings from that area are on lead passes, or on dump-ins designed to create offense. Keep those plays going. Don't like this one. * See if there is a way to raise the glass by a few inches. Or maybe have it curved in at the top, so those “ring-arounds” don’t fly out. Or both. Curve it or a slanted overhang, sure. How about this one? Change the way offsides are called. On the attack, once puck possession has passed the center red line no offside. From your side of center it's like a 2 line pass, or just a regular offside as it is now. Offensive puck zone exit it's the same as it is now, everyone has to clear the zone, play resets, new entry rule takes effect. This would really speed things up. It might be too much, they might have to pad the end boards  . Goalies might get killed too. More goals would be scored off the rush though, much less grinding/cycling. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 6, 2015 14:05:12 GMT -5
* Faster face-offs. Just drop the puck already! The only way I see this working is if you can get the guys to stop cheating. I don't think we want an instant penalty for it, so I don't see a way around it. After 15 seconds, the puck moves to the offside face off spot. After 30, it moves to center ice. After 1 min, it moves to the other end. First time a team stalls and loses tactical position, they'll learn. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 6, 2015 14:24:01 GMT -5
our coach would hate it |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 6, 2015 15:38:19 GMT -5
Better yet, get rid of goalies entirely. The end of the Ben Bishops of the world. If you have to, make the goal smaller and don't allow any players in the crease, offensive or defensive. See, we can change this game so you won't recognize it.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 6, 2015 15:43:50 GMT -5
Better yet, get rid of goalies entirely. The end of the Ben Bishops of the world. If you have to, make the goal smaller and don't allow any players in the crease, offensive or defensive. See, we can change this game so you won't recognize it. Buttman's already trying |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 6, 2015 16:50:52 GMT -5
BC, lay out 'the plan' for us!  I'm not sure you can have that sort of pace over the long haul in a league. Lesser competition has its psychological affect. The grind of a long season, and travel. These short tournaments where once you're in the venue you're there, makes it a lot easier. Then there's youthful exuberance. 25 might seem young to most of us now, but if you're 25, with a wife and a baby ... well you know. The grind of the road, and the odd sleepless night at home add up. 18 year old kids think they have distractions (like homework), but they really don't. Heck even last night, the pace of the first 5 minutes of the game couldn't be maintained. There was a slow down in the second as well, before the Russians found momentum. Do or die brought out the energy found in the third, and you're only going to find that when your back is truly against the wall. Playoffs, elimination staring at you, etc; the regular season just doesn't press you like that. You’ll never get a Nashville-Arizona game to match the intensity of a World Junior Championship game, but I do think you can still speed up the game. Not necessarily by making the players faster, but by making the game go by faster… We’re in the Twitter/Instagram world now. People don’t want to watch two minute line changes, or faceoffs every 30 seconds. They want to see end-to-end action. Or at the very least, action. They don't want to see whistles and line changes and coaching matchups. So change the rules to cut down on the number of whistles. If you can get the players skating for 2 minutes before a whistle, instead of only 45 seconds, then not only will the game be more fun by default, but you’ll also have to get rid of the specialists, because you’re not going to want a Manny Malhotra on the ice for over a minute, even if he does win faceoffs. The coaching strategies will have to incorporate better line changes (you don't want anybody on the ice for 2 minutes straight), and the better coaches will figure out ways to exploit that, to have designed plays that catch teams trying to change. Again, you’re not going to be at a World Junior excitement level, but I think they could do a better job of speeding up the flow of the game, which to me is more important than figuring out a way to have more goals scored. Nobody likes the 10-8 All-Star games because there is no flow to those games either. I think they could make some subtle changes though that might help. Like: * Faster face-offs. Just drop the puck already! * If the puck hits the netting, keep playing. What is the difference between hitting the top of the glass and bouncing into play, and hitting the net and bouncing into play? The puck is on the ice, keep playing! * Widen the blueline, to cut down on the number of off-sides. How many off-sides do we see where the puck just inches out? Widen the blueline a little and you can cut some of those out, AND keep offensive plays going. * Allow hand passes in the neutral zone (or maybe just on the defensive neutral zone). Why only in the defensive zone? For that matter, why not allow hand-passes everywhere? You still can't close your hand on the puck, but batting it to somebody? Why not? * Change the icing rule so that it’s from your own blueline, and not center ice. How many icings are there per game where the player is like 6 inches away from center ice? The icing rule is supposed to punish teams who are in trouble in their own zone and who just dump it out to save a goal – that’s not the case when you are icing it from center ice. If you are in your own zone (i.e., behind your own blueline) then yes. But if you get it out of your zone, then the danger has passed (for the most part) and most icings from that area are on lead passes, or on dump-ins designed to create offense. Keep those plays going. * See if there is a way to raise the glass by a few inches. Or maybe have it curved in at the top, so those “ring-arounds” don’t fly out. Or both. Lots of little, subtle changes that would speed up the game, in my opinion. Again, we're talking about speeding up in terms of there being more hockey actually played, not necessarily the speed of the players. How much time is there from a whistle to the drop of the puck? 30 seconds? That's dead time that would be better spent and more entertaining if the players were actually doing something. The wider blueline was tried in the AHL. I think they determined it doesn't work. You still have the players trying to just beat the line, and it's still determined by the very edge of a blueline vs the very edge of the puck. It may cut down on puck that just clear the zone though. I think they also determined that it closed down the neutral zone. It's only inches , but it is a game of inches. I wonder if there is an article on the Internet explaining why they didn't stick with it. I do like the icing rule you put forth I'm not advocating it, but you could also implement ball hockey off-sides rules if you want to keep the game flowing. To gain access to to the offensive zone the blueline is the offsides line, but the defending team has to then clear the puck past the red line becfore the attacking team must get back onsides. It'll give teams more room it the offensive zone to wheel around Another rule that I've seen floated around to increase scoring is to not allow short handed teams to ice the puck. This will increase whistles though and go against what you want to accomplish |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 6, 2015 17:14:34 GMT -5
Widening the blueline was tried in the NHL for 8 games in 2003 / 04. The AHL did seem to like it. If so, I'm not sure why the NHL did not adopt it ...
Sun, December 28, 2003
One small creative step
Positive reaction to first of eight experimental AHL games with new-line structure
By MIKE KOREEN, TORONTO SUN
HAMILTON -- The American Hockey League staged a line dance last night at Copps Coliseum and the invited guests seemed to enjoy the outing. After the the first of eight AHL games -- requested by the NHL -- with the blue lines and red line widened by two feet apiece, members of the Hamilton Bulldogs and St. John's Maple Leafs and AHL president/CEO David Andrews said they noticed a few positive changes.
Eye-popping changes they were not, but some long passes stayed onside and it was easier for players to exit the attacking zone when the puck came out with the blue line expanded. The impact of the bigger neutral zone wasn't huge during the Bulldogs' 5-1 win before a curious season-high crowd of 6,774, but it's a concept worth examining.
"I don't think it will revolutionize hockey, but there were certainly six or seven plays that would have been blown down as two-line passes with the regular lines," Andrews said. "It's a little difficult to evaluate on one game when you have two teams that are normally pretty offensive minded (the two highest-scoring teams in the AHL) and don't trap a lot ... One thing I will say is I didn't see any negatives about it. I thought it created a few good things."
Designed to create a larger neutral zone (the changes did not increase the size of the offensive zone) and to help break the trap, the new line structure did not lead directly to any goals. In time, however, Bulldogs veteran defenceman Karl Dykhuis thinks the best offensive players will adapt.
"More offence means the better players are going to have an advantage," Dykhuis said. "You're not talking a major advantage, just a small, small advantage. But any advantage is good because there are fewer and fewer goals."
.
.
.
Widening the blueline was originally proposed by Bobby Smith, but in his version each blue line would be expanded to six feet, and the blue lines would be expanded in both directions, making both the offensive and neutral zones bigger when the puck moved into them.
1. The experiment in the AHL shrunk Smith's proposed size, thus limiting the impact of the whole system.
2. The blueline was not extended into the neutral zone, so the offensive zone saw no benefit.
Bettman's own statement on the experiment: "No. I think as a practical matter in terms of the aesthetics of the rink, at some point it wouldn't make sense."
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 6, 2015 17:33:13 GMT -5
If you'd like to improve the game try widening the rink ... Steve Buffery likes the idea, but so do a lot of NHLers ... if I find a reference to this I'll post it, but most NHLers will tell you this might be the way of improving the game ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
WJC 2015
Jan 6, 2015 17:39:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Disp on Jan 6, 2015 17:39:04 GMT -5
* Faster face-offs. Just drop the puck already! The only way I see this working is if you can get the guys to stop cheating. I don't think we want an instant penalty for it, so I don't see a way around it. After 15 seconds, the puck moves to the offside face off spot. After 30, it moves to center ice. After 1 min, it moves to the other end. First time a team stalls and loses tactical position, they'll learn. Thats fine for the attacking team, what about the defending? |
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Jan 6, 2015 23:19:17 GMT -5
I agree on Fucale. To me, he is very similar to Grant Fuhr. He gives up plenty, but doesn't give up the game deciding goal. Too bad the Habs are nowhere close to being Fuhr's Oilers. I'm very open to Fucale being this trade deadline's Collberg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Jan 7, 2015 7:00:35 GMT -5
If you'd like to improve the game try widening the rink ... Steve Buffery likes the idea, but so do a lot of NHLers ... if I find a reference to this I'll post it, but most NHLers will tell you this might be the way of improving the game ... Cheers. Is there any actual proof that a bigger rink makes for a faster more exciting game? I don't think scoring is any higher on the other side of the ocean. The puck is further from the net. I think we get a skewed view of it mostly. During the Olympics or world juniors the stakes are high. It amps up the importance and makes the games more dramatic. I don't think it would stand up during an nhl season. I do think there would be less injuries however. Maybe that's why nhl players are all for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 7, 2015 7:44:44 GMT -5
If you'd like to improve the game try widening the rink ... Steve Buffery likes the idea, but so do a lot of NHLers ... if I find a reference to this I'll post it, but most NHLers will tell you this might be the way of improving the game ... Cheers. Is there any actual proof that a bigger rink makes for a faster more exciting game? I don't think scoring is any higher on the other side of the ocean. The puck is further from the net. I think we get a skewed view of it mostly. During the Olympics or world juniors the stakes are high. It amps up the importance and makes the games more dramatic. I don't think it would stand up during an nhl season. I do think there would be less injuries however. Maybe that's why nhl players are all for it. I don't know about proof, Disp ... I might suggest emailing Steve Buffery ... I first heard of this years ago on, sorry to say, Coach's Corner ... I remember Cherry saying that if you talk to the players, most of them will tell you that widening the rink would do a lot to improving the game ... I could try to find that, too, but I'm strapped for time and, honestly, I wouldn't know where to start looking ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Jan 7, 2015 8:48:38 GMT -5
I've heard that widening the ice makes it easier for Defenders to keep the forwards on the outside. It makes sense, but I can't say for sure that this would happen in the NHL.
I like Skilly's idea about ball hockey offsides.
Another simple one that I like is: no blue-line offside if the puck is carried across the blue line, but you cannot pass the puck across the blue-line to a player already in the offensive zone. There's tons of benefit to this change: teams will be more encouraged to carry the puck into the zone instead of dump and chase. Once a team is established in the offensive zone, the puck can exit the zone as long as it is carried back over the line. There would likely be fewer whistles and more puck possession, which I think would improve the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 7, 2015 9:48:37 GMT -5
Widening the blueline was tried in the NHL for 8 games in 2003 / 04. The AHL did seem to like it. If so, I'm not sure why the NHL did not adopt it ... Like, I don't know one way or the other Skilly, but I'm thinking revenues ... would widening existing rinks take away seating ... if it did, would that push the prices up for the remaining tickets so as to recover lost revenues ... I don't know man ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 7, 2015 10:00:41 GMT -5
Widening the rink would not only remove some primo seating….but it would also involve ripping up the floor to add more coolant pipes…and moving the main feeder pipes back….moving the benches, timekeeper back. Then re-pouring the concrete. That's a pretty big/costly renovation. I'm sure it's priced out somewhere.
Extended corner boards and glass would also be needed…but that would be pocket change in the scope of it all.
To make up for lost revenue due to the seating, don't raise ticket prices….just add two more home games for each team. An 86-game season….Stanley Cup Finals in July. Ha!
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 7, 2015 10:08:33 GMT -5
Wide To make up for lost revenue due to the seating, don't raise ticket prices….just add two more home games for each team. An 86-game season….Stanley Cup Finals in July. Ha! don't suggest it . . . they've probably been thinking of doing that (while making the ice surface smaller so they can fit more seats in). |
|
. Goalies might get killed too. More goals would be scored off the rush though, much less grinding/cycling.
