|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 17, 2003 11:58:34 GMT -5
Rules experiment on tap: It seems the NHL is about to use the AHL as another laboratory for rules tinkering. According to a story in the Hamilton Spectator, two AHL games involving the St. John’s Maple Leafs and Hamilton Bulldogs on Dec. 27-28 at Copps Coliseum will likely be used test out several possible rule changes. The Spectator reports that the blue lines, now roughly a foot wide, would be expanded to three feet. The additional two feet would come inside the offensive/defensive zone, effectively making the neutral zone four feet wider, since the lines themselves are onside. The newspaper reported that the goal lines and nets would also be moved back one foot towards the back boards. “I think the idea is to extend the neutral zone so you’ll have a few extra feet to pass the puck and still be onside,” Hamilton coach Doug Jarvis told the Spectator. During the 1998-99 season, the AHL became a proving ground for the 4-on-4 overtime format that was eventually adopted by both leagues the following season. The NHL also used its current two-referee system on an experimental basis in the AHL before it was implemented in 2000-01. - ydr.com/story/bears/16535/ |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 17, 2003 13:08:20 GMT -5
I'm in favor of both proposed changes. A reduction of even 1 foot of space behind the goal would attenuate the ability of the goaltender to control the flow of the attack. Widening the stripes would reduce the number of offsides.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 17, 2003 13:33:37 GMT -5
* Bring the nets back out to where they originally were. The idea was to get more “Gretzky like” plays developing behind the net. Well, news flash, there are no Gretzkys playing. Bring the nets back. * Make the blue lines and red line wider. The Bobby Smith solution. If you double the size of the lines on the ice, it makes it easier to “straddle” the blueline and redline, resulting in less off-sides, less two-line passes, and less icings. Works better with a bigger rink. Well, that's two of them. Come on, penalized icings!! As an aside, I seem to remember the AHL trying out games with no Red Line last year, maybe in the pre-season? Did I imagine that? And if I didn't, does the fact that they aren't doing it anymore suggest the idea didn't work as well as some have thought it would? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 17, 2003 23:25:13 GMT -5
The Spectator reports that the blue lines, now roughly a foot wide, would be expanded to three feet. The additional two feet would come inside the offensive/defensive zone, effectively making the neutral zone four feet wider, since the lines themselves are onside. Pardon my stupidity: I still don't get it. Would you explain why they wouldn't just move the blueline? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 18, 2003 5:05:07 GMT -5
Pardon my stupidity: I still don't get it. Would you explain why they wouldn't just move the blueline? They can't. They're nailed down.  |
|
|
|
Post by cousin nark on Dec 18, 2003 8:50:34 GMT -5
Pardon my stupidity: I still don't get it. Would you explain why they wouldn't just move the blueline? My guess is that since it is only a temporary experiment, the ice will be shaved a bit and painted. Then new ice will be made to cover. In order to just move the entire line (to keep it the same width), the ice would have to be shaved down almost to the concrete. This is because the lines are painted after something like 4-5 mm of ice is built up. I'm sure if the change was adopted on a permanent basis, the line would remain the same width it currently is. Just my thoughts on this. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 18, 2003 10:21:55 GMT -5
My guess is that since it is only a temporary experiment, the ice will be shaved a bit and painted. Then new ice will be made to cover. In order to just move the entire line (to keep it the same width), the ice would have to be shaved down almost to the concrete. This is because the lines are painted after something like 4-5 mm of ice is built up. I'm sure if the change was adopted on a permanent basis, the line would remain the same width it currently is. Just my thoughts on this. Actually, this is an idea that comes from former Canadien Bobby Smith. The lines WON'T be moved, they are in fact, being made wider. The logic is this: If your foot is "on the line" then you are technically onside, either at the blueline, or for a two line pass. So if the line is wider, you have more to straddle, meaning you are less likely to go offside, or to receive a two line pass. How many times do we hear "just off side" or see a player "almost" get that break-away pass, but be called for a two liner? Lots, right? Well, with an extra 2-3 feet to straddle, that gives a player 2-3 more feet to stay in the play... Should result in less offsides, and less two-line passes. Maybe even less icings. |
|
|
|
Post by cousin nark on Dec 18, 2003 10:54:51 GMT -5
From TSN Article
Thanks BC. I posted before i read this article.
What this change does then is effectively make the ice surface bigger without physically making the ice surface bigger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 21, 2003 17:39:18 GMT -5
Hey whatever happened to our great debate??? Anyways I havent been able to log into this site for a few days. I thought for a second I had been banned. Anyways...
|
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on Dec 21, 2003 18:37:12 GMT -5
Should result in less offsides, and less two-line passes. Maybe even less icings. I don't think it will have much affect on two-line passes. A two-line pass originates in the defensive zone, and is received in the neutral zone, past the center red line. The red line isn't being widened in this experiment, so the player receiving the pass still has the same amount of room, i.e. before he crosses the red line. The greatest benefit of widening the blue lines is that it increases the size of the neutral zone without decreasing the size of the defensive zones. The blue lines themselves are effectively part of both zones. A bigger neutral zone will result in less congestion, as trap teams will have more difficulty trying to clog things up. I like the changes, and I hope they get adopted by the NHL next year. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 21, 2003 23:07:41 GMT -5
The explanations are about what I expected. Still not sure if I'll like the looks of the ice; beside which it'll cut down on the amount of ice available for advertisement.  But hey, if it will speed up the game and let skill shine, I'm mostly for it (I hedge my bets until I actually see what happens). I also still think penalties should be called consistently htorughout the game: a penalty in the first period is a penalty in the last minute of a tie game, all the way through the season, not just in the first 20 games. "Too many penalties"? Not once the players adapt to playing by the rules and knowing what will be called by everybody (hear that, Mr. Hair?) |
|
