|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 1, 2005 15:41:47 GMT -5
McKenzie: Extreme Makeover - NHL EditionTSN.ca Staff 7/1/2005 When the NHL resumes play in the fall, and that now looks as though it will happen, the marketing slogan will be, "A Whole New Game." No kidding. Let's call it the NHL equivalent of extreme makeover. Changes are coming, big changes, so let's start with what we know for sure. Goalies will be sporting a new streamlined look. Eleven-inch goal pads. Smaller blockers and catching gloves. Less bulky uppers, pants and new form fitting sweaters. The tag up offside will be re-instituted. The goal line will be moved two feet closer to the end boards, creating more room to operate in front of the net instead of behind it. More penalties will be called. And not just in the neutral zone. The goal is to open things up down low, eliminate stick and pins on non puck carriers, end the defensive zone rodeo. While skepticism is duly noted, that's the plan. Those are the 'for sures,' next come the 'highly probable.' These changes appear virtually certain to be coming in one form or another, and it's just a matter of nailing down the specifics. Shootouts. No more tie games. It's a bone being thrown to the fans, but what remains to be seen is perhaps more noteworthy than the shootout itself. There's also talk of four minutes of four-on-four overtime, followed by three minutes of three-on-three overtime before getting to the shootout. There's talk of three points for a regulation time victory and maybe no point for losing in overtime or the shootout. Aside from trying to make shootouts something special - not a routine occurrence - the goal is to encourage teams to try to win games, win them early, not avoid losing them. Then there are the lines. The blue lines will be made fatter, another effort to increase the size of the offensive zone. The red line? It's going, going, more than likely gone. Either two line passes will be allowed all the time or the red line will disappear once the puck crosses the 'Bowman' or ringette line across the top of the circle. There will be some form of restrictions on goaltenders handling the puck in their own end. Icing will be different. It could be no touch icing. It could be linesmen using discretion on missed passes. It could be no icing allowed on the penalty kill, or no line change for the team that iced the puck. It could be all of the above. Whatever it is, icing will be modified. - www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=129330
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 8, 2005 6:02:38 GMT -5
Posted 7/7/2005 11:29 PM Updated 7/8/2005 1:01 AM NHL considering major rule changesBy Kevin Allen, USA TODAY The NHL is contemplating getting rid of the red line, adding four playoff teams and eliminating tie games, according to a league memo obtained by USA TODAY. In the memo sent from director of hockey operations Colin Campbell to all general managers, he details 13 possible rule changes being discussed by the newly formed rules committee. That group includes players, general managers and one owner. The objectives, according to Campbell's memo, are to "let the skill players play, increase scoring chances, maintain physicality of (the) game, take away defensive team's tools (and) give to offense, (change the) culture (and) entertain." Not all changes will be approved, and history would suggest the expanded playoff pool is one that will meet opposition, but here are some of the proposals: • Allow zero tolerance for interference away from the puck. • Go from 16 to 20 playoff teams by letting the Nos. 7-10 teams in each conference compete in a best-of-three first round. The No. 1 and No. 2 seeds would get byes. Bracketing would be by division. • Eliminate the red line for the purpose of two-line passes, widen the blue line and make it legal for attacking players to enter the zone as soon as the puck touches that blue line. • Reduce the size of the goaltending equipment and put some limitations on goalies handling the puck. • Eliminate tie games by going to 3-on-3 overtime for three minutes after there is 4-on-4 overtime for five minutes. If the score is still tied, a three-man shootout is played. The memo points to two points for a win and no points for an overtime loss, but that might face heavy opposition. • Alter the icing rule to make it a race to the goal line instead of to the puck. If the offensive player gets his stick to the goal line first, the play goes on. If the defender wins, it's icing. This keeps the race in the game but reduces the chances of injury. Teams icing the puck cannot change players on the ensuing faceoff. • Give players who shoot the puck into the stands from the defensive zone a two-minute penalty. Previously, that applied only to goaltenders. • Eject players who get an instigator penalty in the final five minutes of a game. The board of governors has the final say on any proposed change. - www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2005-07-07-rules-changes_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 8, 2005 11:12:25 GMT -5
Allow zero tolerance for interference away from the puck.
I think that one’s already in the rule book, isn’t it? Under “Hooking, 2 minutes for?”
Go from 16 to 20 playoff teams by letting the Nos. 7-10 teams in each conference compete in a best-of-three first round. The No. 1 and No. 2 seeds would get byes. Bracketing would be by division.
Blech. Cause the Regular Season isn’t long and meaningless enough. Last thing I want to see is some CFL-style, sub-500 team win the Stanley Cup.
Eliminate the red line for the purpose of two-line passes.
Still not sure this is a solution. Doesn’t seem to work in the SEL, the Russian Super League, or the Czech Extraliga, so why would it work in the NHL?
Widen the blue line and make it legal for attacking players to enter the zone as soon as the puck touches that blue line.
Sure.
Reduce the size of the goaltending equipment.
Sure.
Put some limitations on goalies handling the puck.
Don’t like this one at all. What are we trying to do here, encourage more dump and chase? Especially with tag up off-sides coming back, what incentive is there to actually carry the puck into the offensive zone? Lets just scrum it out in the corner.
Eliminate tie games by going to 3-on-3 overtime for three minutes after there is 4-on-4 overtime for five minutes. If the score is still tied, a three-man shootout is played. The memo points to two points for a win and no points for an overtime loss, but that might face heavy opposition.
Maybe they could have juggling contests, or a quick round of Texas Hold-em, to decide the winner. Might help the TV ratings.
Gimmicky.
Alter the icing rule to make it a race to the goal line instead of to the puck. If the offensive player gets his stick to the goal line first, the play goes on. If the defender wins, it's icing. This keeps the race in the game but reduces the chances of injury.
Dangerous. Seriously, I thought these guys were supposed to be hockey people. Haven’t they ever played hockey before? So instead of touching the puck, you’ll have guys racing full speed towards a finish line – which oh yeah, we’re going to move closer to the boards – stretching out with their sticks and bodies in order to “touch” the line first. Anybody else see players going head first into the boards under this plan? What if one player crosses the line in the opposite corner from the puck? Does he win?
Make it no-touch, and penalize multiple icings.
Teams icing the puck cannot change players on the ensuing faceoff.
A little gimmicky. Personally, I’d just penalize multiple icings. Go through the game logs of the last couple of years, average out the number of icings a team makes period, then substract one. Say you’re allowed two icings per period, the third icing results in a delay of game penalty.
Instead of not letting icing teams change their players, make it so that neither team can at ANY stoppage of play (except after goals and penalties). Make line changes possible on the fly only. Aside from Lacrosse, I think hockey is the only sport where players can jump on and off in the middle of the play. That’s unique, and should be played up for fans. Also gives the home team an advantage as their bench is closer to their own zone for two periods, and they can change easier. If you get stuck on the ice, and you’re tired, then tough. Will lead to more scoring chances. Also speeds up the play, as we aren’t treated to the spectacle of each coach waiting to see who the other guy puts out, before sending out his guys. And if he gets the wrong match up, the goalie just freezes the puck, and they change again. BORING.
This would also reduce the amount of time the fourth-line scrubs get. No coach wants to see his non-skating goon stuck on the ice for 3 minutes because he can’t get off. So he won’t play, meaning more skilled players will get more ice time. Fans wants to see the players play. They don’t want to watch coaches trying to out-coach each other at every faceoff.
Give players who shoot the puck into the stands from the defensive zone a two-minute penalty. Previously, that applied only to goaltenders.
I’d personally go the other way, and try to raise the glass or something, to keep more pucks in play. How many pucks go over the boards every game? 10? Figure out a way to raise the glass without obstructing views, and you could cut down on the number of whistles by 6 or 7 per game. That would be good, no?
Eject players who get an instigator penalty in the final five minutes of a game.
Pointless. You get an instigator penalty, it means you also have a 5 minute fighting penalty. Which means you weren’t going to the play the rest of the game anyways. Unless the game goes into overtime. But come on. How many times has their been a fight with less than five minutes in a tie game that resulted in a player who isn’t a goon and who would have ordinarily played in the overtime getting an instigator penalty? Once? Twice? Its rare that there are fights in the last five minutes, rarer still that they would be in tie games, even rarer still that they would involve non-goon, skilled-enough-to-play-four-on-four-players and even more rarer that an instigator penalty would be called in that fight.
This sounds like PR.
You want a real rule? Instigator penalty in the last 5 minutes results in a 10 game suspension. Instigator penalty in the last 10 minutes results in a 5 game suspension. Instigator penalty in the third period results in a 3 game suspension.
No more “the game is a blow-out lets ‘send a message’ by starting 5 or 6 pointless fights.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jul 8, 2005 13:26:55 GMT -5
Agree with most of your points, BC.
I say scrap the 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 overtimes entirely and go straight to a shootout after regulation. It's what the fans want to see.
It's a bit confusing in the standings but I would go with 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss.
The whole red line thing is worth a try. What the heck - you can always change it back.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 8, 2005 13:37:41 GMT -5
No points for losing. Ever. Thanks for playing—better luck next time.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 8, 2005 14:34:00 GMT -5
I say scrap the 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 overtimes entirely and go straight to a shootout after regulation. It's what the fans want to see. Heck, in order to speed up the game and avoid injuries, cancel the first three period and any semblance of OT and go straight to the shoot-out. Side benefit: lower player rosters. I hate the idea of a shoot-out. Team game, team game, team game . . . ah, forget it, lets just get the game over with and go home. As to the ever-eloquent Mr. B. put it brilliantly: No points for losing. Ever. Thanks for playing—better luck next time.I say What he says.2 points for a win, in regulation or OT; 0 points for a loss. This is not the federal government -- no reward for incompetence. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 8, 2005 23:13:47 GMT -5
Allow zero tolerance for interference away from the puck. But interference on the puck-carrier is OK ? Even with the puck, a player shouldn't be subject to hooking, slashing or holding. Get in his way, hit him cleanly , or steal the puck, otherwise AFAIC if he goes down it's 2 minutes. I'd be OK with it if they shortened the season to around 72 games, but I doubt the owners would agree (not making the playoffs would really hurt financially then). Maybe this proposal is a way to generate more playoff revenue, which might not counted in the 54% that will determine the cap level ? Well, something has to be done about the goalies skating all over their zone to clear dump-ins. I'd favor letting the goalies get pounded.... hum, hit cleanly, if they have the puck outside the goalie area, and call instigators on anyone who comes in to defend the goalie (unless the hit on the goalie was abusive) Agreed. I'd rather a system where there could be some judgment as to the intent, then again, in this league, I want something where the incompetence of the officials can't affect the game more than it already can (and does). Hmmm.... I like the idea of favoring home teams (makes games more fun for fans when their teams do better) but I dislike the idea of having goals scored just because a team got tired and made mistakes. As to eliminating the goons, it would place a premium on the Arron Asham-type of player who can play yet can fight too. I knew it was a mistake trading him. I don't see as that being a problem, so why try to solve it? Yup, but great PR. "The New NHL is taking a stand against fights!" Automatic suspensions - something a lot of people on here want, but the league always hesitates about, I guess because they like being able to make judgment calls about special cases. I prefer cut and dried rules - imperfect perhaps, but no one can wonder why the calls were one way in one case and made otherwise elsewhere. Media lobbying, strong GMs, a fan fuss, etc, simply shouldn't have an impact. I'd even like to see the crease rule come back. I could tell for myself if a goal should be allowed, whereas the rest of the time......  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jul 11, 2005 18:41:11 GMT -5
Allow zero tolerance for interference away from the puck.I think that one’s already in the rule book, isn’t it? Under “Hooking, 2 minutes for?” yeah... what's zero tolerance anyway? There is a rule, apply it, point finale. Go from 16 to 20 playoff teams by letting the Nos. 7-10 teams in each conference compete in a best-of-three first round. The No. 1 and No. 2 seeds would get byes. Bracketing would be by division.Blech. Cause the Regular Season isn’t long and meaningless enough. Last thing I want to see is some CFL-style, sub-500 team win the Stanley Cup. Anyway, right now, you have teams like Carolina, Anaheim and Minnessota making it almost all the way to the cup... adding a team or 2 that were a point away from the 8th place doesn't change much in terms of leaving out teams that shouldn’t be in the playoffs. But giving the top teams some time to prepare and cure injuries while the lesser team battle it out, could be beneficial. As well, true rivalry develop in the playoffs so maybe if some teams that rarely make it could get in more often, it would be good not only for their fan base but for others. Then again these same top teams will end up playing less and therefore getting less playoff money so in some odd way, top teams would be penalized revenue wise for having a good season... Eliminate the red line for the purpose of two-line passes.Still not sure this is a solution. Doesn’t seem to work in the SEL, the Russian Super League, or the Czech Extraliga, so why would it work in the NHL? While, as you point out, it may not bring much change in terms of eliminating the trap, it would at least standardize the NHL with the majority of leagues that do use that no-red-line design, including their own development league and every International tournaments. In other words, I'm at point where I wonder what's the use of keeping it anyway... Widen the blue line and make it legal for attacking players to enter the zone as soon as the puck touches that blue line.Sure. Ok. Reduce the size of the goaltending equipment.Sure. I still think this is taking the problem from the most complicated side. Now the league will have the problem of continually measuring goalie gears to see if such and such parts wouldn't be half an inch too big... Bigger goals would do the same work without the fuss... But I would agree that most fans might not be ready for such drastic changes yet. So sure, shrink that equipment but be ready for a game of cats and mice... Put some limitations on goalies handling the puck.Don’t like this one at all. What are we trying to do here, encourage more dump and chase? Especially with tag up off-sides coming back, what incentive is there to actually carry the puck into the offensive zone? Lets just scrum it out in the corner. I agree. Dump and chase game is a very close second to the trap on the dull-o-meter. Not sure what this change will accomplish show-enhancement wise Eliminate tie games by going to 3-on-3 overtime for three minutes after there is 4-on-4 overtime for five minutes. If the score is still tied, a three-man shootout is played. The memo points to two points for a win and no points for an overtime loss, but that might face heavy opposition. Maybe they could have juggling contests, or a quick round of Texas Hold-em, to decide the winner. Might help the TV ratings. Gimmicky. Agreed. A 4 on 4 and a shootout is more than enough. Alter the icing rule to make it a race to the goal line instead of to the puck. If the offensive player gets his stick to the goal line first, the play goes on. If the defender wins, it's icing. This keeps the race in the game but reduces the chances of injury.Dangerous. Seriously, I thought these guys were supposed to be hockey people. Haven’t they ever played hockey before? So instead of touching the puck, you’ll have guys racing full speed towards a finish line – which oh yeah, we’re going to move closer to the boards – stretching out with their sticks and bodies in order to “touch” the line first. Anybody else see players going head first into the boards under this plan? What if one player crosses the line in the opposite corner from the puck? Does he win? Make it no-touch, and penalize multiple icings. Right on. The point of the no-touch icing is to avoid these dangerous races and speed up the game. What's the point of making it a drill-like race to the line instead of a race to the puck? It's one way or the other, this half-way proposal is ridicule IMO. Teams icing the puck cannot change players on the ensuing faceoff.A little gimmicky. Personally, I’d just penalize multiple icings. Go through the game logs of the last couple of years, average out the number of icings a team makes period, then substract one. Say you’re allowed two icings per period, the third icing results in a delay of game penalty. Instead of not letting icing teams change their players, make it so that neither team can at ANY stoppage of play (except after goals and penalties). Make line changes possible on the fly only. Aside from Lacrosse, I think hockey is the only sport where players can jump on and off in the middle of the play. That’s unique, and should be played up for fans. Also gives the home team an advantage as their bench is closer to their own zone for two periods, and they can change easier. If you get stuck on the ice, and you’re tired, then tough. Will lead to more scoring chances. Also speeds up the play, as we aren’t treated to the spectacle of each coach waiting to see who the other guy puts out, before sending out his guys. And if he gets the wrong match up, the goalie just freezes the puck, and they change again. BORING. This would also reduce the amount of time the fourth-line scrubs get. No coach wants to see his non-skating goon stuck on the ice for 3 minutes because he can’t get off. So he won’t play, meaning more skilled players will get more ice time. Fans wants to see the players play. They don’t want to watch coaches trying to out-coach each other at every faceoff. I don't agree with the penalty for icing part but I do like your idea of making line changes on the fly the only acceptable way for changing players. Creative thinking. Give players who shoot the puck into the stands from the defensive zone a two-minute penalty. Previously, that applied only to goaltenders.I’d personally go the other way, and try to raise the glass or something, to keep more pucks in play. How many pucks go over the boards every game? 10? Figure out a way to raise the glass without obstructing views, and you could cut down on the number of whistles by 6 or 7 per game. That would be good, no? No. Not in my opinion. Players don't shoot the puck in the stands because boards are too low; at the skill set they are, they shoot the puck in the stands because that's what they want to do... Raising the glass instigates another game of cats and mice, raise it, I'll adapt, raise it again, I'll find the way again... If you do not want it to happen just make it illegal. Eject players who get an instigator penalty in the final five minutes of a game.Pointless. You get an instigator penalty, it means you also have a 5 minute fighting penalty. Which means you weren’t going to the play the rest of the game anyways. Unless the game goes into overtime. But come on. How many times has their been a fight with less than five minutes in a tie game that resulted in a player who isn’t a goon and who would have ordinarily played in the overtime getting an instigator penalty? Once? Twice? Its rare that there are fights in the last five minutes, rarer still that they would be in tie games, even rarer still that they would involve non-goon, skilled-enough-to-play-four-on-four-players and even more rarer that an instigator penalty would be called in that fight. This sounds like PR. That sounds like Bobby Mac dreaming up some odd rules from his own Bobby Mac world. I can’t believe the NHL is truly considering a rule that has the glaring, obvious hole that you pointed out. You want a real rule? Instigator penalty in the last 5 minutes results in a 10 game suspension. Instigator penalty in the last 10 minutes results in a 5 game suspension. Instigator penalty in the third period results in a 3 game suspension. No more “the game is a blow-out lets ‘send a message’ by starting 5 or 6 pointless fights.” Yessire and Don Cherry would have whining material for at least a dozen Coache’s Corner. "See kids, what did'I tell ya, what did'I tell ya… Happens every time… Tell ya one tink right now what’s the use of playing the 3rd period if we can’t use it to injure an opponent’s best players…" |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 11, 2005 20:44:34 GMT -5
Join Peabody and Sherman in the wayback machine and return to the rules of the 60's. They worked. Call the interference penalties and resize the goaltender equipment.
Other than that don't mess with a great game. Bettman inferring that the problem with the NHL is the rules is like J-Lo saying the problem in her marriages was the men.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 13, 2005 3:47:50 GMT -5
July 11, 2005 Mash the Accelerator, Slam the Brakes Better players spread across more teams makes for tighter competition, which creates more interest, which draws more fans, which increases revenue, which increases salaries. See how it works? - Bucky Gleason, Buffalo News No, Bucky, I don't see how it works. I'm confused. I know this has been the GBHL mantra for quite some time, but I don't get it. Better players spread across more teams will mean tighter competition, but the tightness of the competition under the old rules was such a problem that a quarter of the games ended in ties. The league is even introducing a crazy apples formula to break them! Tighter competition does not draw more fans. Winning draws more fans and the league won't have any more wins to spread around. If the home team is not a winner, fans do not come out to see the team play another loser, but they will come out to see an attractive opponent. Finally, tighter competition always leads to less scoring and less action. Always. To get the game opened up again, the league needs more disparity, not less. The league is trying to open up the game by revamping the rules at the same time the economic system is creating the conditions that assure even tighter hockey. Can anyone get anywhere by mashing on the accelerator while slamming on the brakes? We're going to find out. - www.canuckscorner.com/weblog/nhllog/archives/2005/07/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 13, 2005 3:59:19 GMT -5
Jul. 13, 2005. 01:00 AM NHL can expect fight on rule change proposalsGM: Red line, point system won't work
Players' union says it was never polledKEN CAMPBELL SPORTS REPORTER One NHL GM said he doubts that the league will remove the red line — or give teams zero points for losing in overtime or a shootout — without an enormous fight. The two proposals are part of a league memo, made public yesterday, sent to GMs from Colin Campbell, the NHL's director of hockey operations. After early support for removing the red line, many hockey people are growing opposed to the concept and will make their feelings known before any rule changes are implemented, said the GM, who did not wish to be named. "These recommendations are not a package and they'll each have to be voted upon separately," the GM said. "And I know there is a lot of opposition to the points system and the red line being taken out." Considering that both the Czech Republic and Finland will be putting the red line back in next season has a number of people in the industry wondering whether it would help by eliminating the neutral zone or hurt because teams would simply create a wall on their own blue line the way national teams from the Czech Republic and Sweden have done in international competitions in recent years. "There is no evidence whatsoever that says taking the red line out creates more offence," said an NHL executive. "I have empirical evidence, written evidence and there's none. "And know they're talking about taking out the red line and they won't listen to the players." Campbell, meanwhile, stressed yesterday that assuming the recommendations would become reality was premature. "None of it has been even close to ratified," Campbell said. "It hasn't even been ratified from within yet. The managers haven't ratified it, the players haven't ratified it and it hasn't been given to the board of governors yet to ratify — which is always the final step. So people are jumping the gun." Some of the other recommendations include expanding the playoffs to include 20 teams — 10 from each conference — with teams No.7 though 10 playing a best-of-three preliminary round to determine which two would join the top six teams in each conference. Another recommendation was having 4-on-4 for five minutes, followed by 3-on-3 for three minutes, then a shootout. But instead of awarding teams a point for losing in overtime or a shootout, Campbell recommends losing teams receive nothing. "So now teams will figure if they can just play it tighter than tight and get to a shootout, they can have a chance to get two points," said an NHL executive. "Isn't that great?" In a separate memo to the GMs, Campbell said that the rule changes were considered after, "we analyzed player, coaches and fan polls." The NHL Players' Association said yesterday its players have never been formally polled concerning changes to the game and one NHL coach said he's not aware of any poll of coaches on the same issues. Meanwhile, the lockout reached its 300th day yesterday with a deal imminent. - tinyurl.com/9z7n3 |
|
|
|
Post by Yeti on Jul 13, 2005 6:30:12 GMT -5
Bob Mackenzie on TSN suggests that the NHL may still go for bigger nets this coming season if some some of the other changes are not ratified. The NHL is still looking around for companies that could produce enough of those bigger nets for October.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 17, 2005 9:22:48 GMT -5
Robinson plays Devil's advocate
OTTAWA—Larry Robinson is anxious for the National Hockey League to return, but he doesn't think much of proposed rule changes to the game.
"You're going to need a Harvard law degree to figure out what is a penalty and what isn't," the hall of famer said.
Robinson, named head coach of the New Jersey Devils on Thursday added, "If they bring in most of the stuff they say they're going to, I don't know if I want to come back and coach."
When the league's players and governors ratify the new collective agreement next week, they are also expected to unveil rule changes designed to create more scoring.
Some changes could allow for a two-line pass through the neutral zone; the addition of three-on-three overtime and shootout to break ties, and penalties for goaltenders who play the puck inside a restricted area.
"I'm a fan of leaving the game alone," Robinson told the Ottawa Citizen. "The game has survived since, what, the early 1800s and it has been played a certain way. Now, all of a sudden, you've got all these changes coming in?"
Canadian Press
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 17, 2005 9:44:31 GMT -5
Bob Mackenzie on TSN suggests that the NHL may still go for bigger nets this coming season if some some of the other changes are not ratified. The NHL is still looking around for companies that could produce enough of those bigger nets for October. I'm all for those soccer nets in hockey. Heck, I bet I can even score on Cujo if I could stand up long enough...... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 17, 2005 9:56:15 GMT -5
Create a limit as to how far a goaltender can go to play the puck. Easy thing to do.
This will force teams to play their defenseman back and create more space between the players. Dump ins will be more successfull and the weak teams better create a strategy to move out the puck.
Make sure that MThead is not coaching any NHL team and brings back "trough hockey".
~~~~~~~~~~~
Limit goalies equipment. Easy thing to do.
Results are self explanatory.
~~~~~~~~~~
No touch icing. Easy thing to do.
Reduces injuries and gives more time back to the game. At least two minutes more can be saved in each game for more productive things like clutching and grabbing.
~~~~~~~~~
Call the rules that are on the book. Not so easy thing to do because it seems that referees like to be liked.
~~~~~~~~~
Get Bob Geldof to organize a "ScoreMore" concert in Pittsburg and Anaheim for undertalented teams.
Leave the game alone for ONE YEAR and drop the freaken puck already!
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 17, 2005 10:01:23 GMT -5
Create a limit as to how far a goaltender can go to play the puck. Easy thing to do. Especially if they are made fair game when they escape from their cages. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 17, 2005 10:12:49 GMT -5
Create a limit as to how far a goaltender can go to play the puck. Easy thing to do. Especially if they are made fair game when they escape from their cages. Heck, have some lions at the ready! I alway thought it would add a touch of excitement in the game if the had some lions on chains. Ten guys wearing clown suits can hold the lions to the boards and let them lose at the appropiate time. Imagine the excitement it would create when Ribs ponders down the ice only to be confronted by Leo the lion? Falling on the ice would NOT be an option. Bahh....It would give a new meaning to Gladiators on Ice. |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Jul 18, 2005 6:58:09 GMT -5
from www.iihf.comCOLUMN: Goals aren't everything - the game isIf someone loses his job, he can't just go out and start robbing stores to replenish his bank account. That might provide a quick fix, but it's not a sustainable solution. Instead, he needs to start looking for a job, and eventually money will start coming in.
Hockey is in a somewhat similar situation as the debate about how to make the game a more entertaining one is right now at the center of attention in North America. The same kind of debate was raging in Europe a year ago.
In both cases, there is a fundamental misconception. The widespread doctrine is that the game needs more goals, the same way as our friend above needs the money.
Wrong. So utterly wrong.
What the game needs is a better game. The game needs to present players with an environment where the fans clearly can distinguish between a star and a grinder. The game needs federations, associations and leagues that empower the referees to call obstruction. The game doesn't need any more major rule changes beyond the one that international hockey pushed through seven years ago – getting rid of the red line and allowing the two-line pass. Above all, the game also needs coaches and visionaries like soccer's Rinus Michels. (More about Michels further down.)
Those simple adjustments are all you need to make the game a better one. If this happens, goals will happen naturally because high quality hockey usually generates a fair amount of goals.
Just increased scoring doesn't make the game better. If it was that simple, all would have been solved by putting soccer goals at each end of the rink. Players would shoot like madmen from centre ice and hockey scores would read like basketball results. Does that really sound like fun?
Let's for a moment recall the happy days from the early 80s when the Edmonton Oilers were winning 8-5 and 11-4 and many hockey people were saying that this isn't hockey – too many goals, all offense.
Some of the best games in the history of hockey have been low scoring affairs. The most entertaining game of the arguably best tournament ever played (Olympics in Salt Lake City 2002) was a breathtaking 2-2-tie between USA and Russia in the preliminary round. One of the best games ever played was the classic 3-3-deadlock between the Montreal Canadiens and CSKA Moscow on New Year's Eve 1975. Czechoslovakia's epic 1-0-win over Team Canada was probably the best performance of the inaugural 1976 Canada Cup. There haven't been many more thrilling encounters than Czechoslovakia's emotional 2-0-victory over the Soviet Union the 1969 IIHF World Championship in Sweden.
The list can go on and on.
Would anyone leave the arena unhappy if behind a 2-1 home win were splendid attacking back-and-forth action, magnificent goaltending that thwarted most chances despite a shot-on-goal stat of 39-37 and three beautiful goals scored off the rush?
Would anyone on his way home say: "Gee, it was a nice game, but it would have been truly great had it ended 7-5"?
So let's all agree on this: It's not the amount of goals that make a good game. It's the way the game is played that determines the entertainment level.
The people who advocate some of the most comical rule changes – including making goals bigger and make them look like balloons – have wrongly analyzed hockey's problems. The problems are not in the slot area and the problems do not start once the shot is fired.
Hockey's problems are to be found in the neutral zone. If a skilful defenseman can quickly start a fast break with a 20-meter outlet pass (over the redline) to a hard skating winger who is allowed to gather speed between the blue lines (without being hooked, interfered, slashed, or grabbed) and who rushes over the blue line and is able make a nice drop pass to the trailing center who has full speed when he darts into the attacking zone – you'll see goals – or, at least, great scoring chances – in abundance.
It is that kind of game, with flow and motion, end-to-end action that can make hockey the superior sports entertainment. When a team creates a scoring chance after swiftly staging a counter attack or when a skillful forward line makes a couple of tic-tac-toe passes and finishes off with an accurate shot, the goalie – even with today's oversized padding – doesn't stand a chance.
To make the goals bigger would be as much cheating as robbing a bank or addressing a sluggish national economy by printing new money as Germany did in the 1920s. It would be devastating to the integrity of the game if poorly aimed shots would suddenly count as goals just because of an enlarged frame.
Many observers – among them The Hockey News – have argued lately that enlarged nets are justified because the Martin Brodeurs of today cover so much more of the mesh than the Roy Worters of the 30s. Advocates of this theory forget mentioning that today's players are without comparison more skilled and much better shooters than Worters' contemporaries.
Others argue that all sports have made significant rule changes to increase the entertainment value. That's correct, but there is no team sport that has enlarged the size of the nets, baskets, goals, end zones or home plates. Basketball's introduction of the three-point line corresponds to international hockey's doing away with the redline. Both those changes added a needed element of excitement to their games.
Hockey's fundamental problems cannot be addressed superficially, by changing the size of goals, equipment, adding "Bowman-lines" or "Sinden-hashmarks", deleting or adding paragraphs in the rulebook.
Hockey's problem is spelled C-O-A-C-H-E-S.
It was sometime in the late 1980s and early 1990s that coaches kidnapped the game away from the players and fans. The overemphasis on defensive systems mainly designed to clog the neutral zone area started in Sweden where some spiritual leaders spread the gospel that the best way to hockey heaven was applying a static, basketball-style zone defense.
The trap.
Swedish coach Lars Falk made Djurgarden Stockholm the best – and most boring – team in Europe in 1991 and 1992 by almost scientifically perfecting what became a virtually impenetrable 1-3-1 neutral-zone trap. The late Roger Neilson had similar success with similar tactics with NHL-teams of very limited talent.
This started to spread as a disease and was, among others, picked up by Red Wings' assistant coach Barry Smith who coached in Sweden at that time. What the Swedes called 1-3-1, Smith perfected to the "Left Wing Lock" and from there, NHL-hockey became contaminated.
Coaches love this because it's relatively easy to have success with destructive systems than with creative ones. You don't have to have stars – you can get away with mediocrity as long mediocrity it is prepared to work hard. It also makes the coaches feel that they control the game – with devastating results.
(This is by the way not at all to be viewed as criticism pointed towards the NHL. This is a global issue. The most defensive club team in hockey today is Russia's Lada Togliatti, who has recorded 16 scoreless ties since 1997 and plays in the Russian Super League which is the most defensive minded among the top leagues in the world today. During the 2004-05 season the RSL saw 12 games end with a 0-0 score.)
Today's hockey is in similar dire straits as soccer was in the late 1960s. Soccer's equivalent of the mid-zone-trap was named "catenaccio", a very strict and defensive system that was perfected by fundamentalist Helenio Herrera, coach of the famous Italian club Inter Milan.
The majority of games during that dark period ended in 0-0 ties or outrageously boring 1-0-wins and soccer was on its way to self-destruction.
This is where Rinus Michels returns to our story. The Dutchman Michels, coach of the Ajax Amsterdam team, resented what he saw and counterattacked with what later became known as "Total Soccer". Michels, from a country that previously had virtually no success on the international scene, inserted creative players at every position and he told all of his ten field players to join in the attack.
Michels allowed his midfield genius and "war general" Johann Cruyff to have total freedom and the games that Ajax played in the early 70s is still the best club soccer even seen. If the opponents scored a goal, Ajax replied with two. If the other team scored two goals, the Amsterdam side usually punished the other team with three. This was the way Ajax triumphed to three consecutive European Cups (today's Champions League), the biggest prize in European club soccer.
Michels' tactics also proved successful on national team level. Netherlands made it to the World Cup finals in 1974 as well as in 1978. It is no exaggeration to say that Michels saved soccer. He did it by changing a stereotype mindset among the global soccer community and especially his coaching peers, not by enlarging soccer nets, diminishing the gloves of the goalies or in other way overhauling the rulebook.
Hockey needs a Rinus Michels. A visionary and a trendsetter who understands that the game belongs to the fans and to the players and that a coach's job is to keep the players in decent physical condition and in a good mood and to give them a pat on their backs on they way out to the ice. Once out there, they need very little guidance.
Who is the hockey coach out there who has the courage to step forward and be the Michels of our game?
Szymon Szemberg
IIHF Information and Media Relations Manager
The views of the writer do not necessarily reflect the official view of the IIHF.
PS. There is, by the way, nothing wrong with ties after a regular-season game. A good, hard-fought encounter that ends 3-3 after regulation and a five-minute overtime, doesn't need an artificially produced "winner" with a penalty shootout gimmick. The Swedish league tried it, hated it and dropped it.R. |
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Jul 18, 2005 7:50:12 GMT -5
Thanks Rimmer. It's a great article and my thoughts exactly (I guess that is why it is great  . |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Jul 18, 2005 8:20:39 GMT -5
don't mention it. seriously  ;D R. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 18, 2005 9:36:33 GMT -5
I echo Tattac's thoughts.
Should I make my cheque out to you (Rimmer) or to Szemberg? Or are you one and the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 18, 2005 12:27:01 GMT -5
Hockey is a great game the way it is. Changing it to make it more attractive to US television viewers is shortsighted.
Yes:
1. Smaller goaltending equipment.
2. Call the interference rules that are currently on the books.
No:
Shootouts
(If they want to make it more attractive to TV, instead of a shootout, pick three players on each team to play Texas Holdum Poker, winner take all!)
It's hockey. It's played in countries around the world, amateur and professional. It's not a television show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jul 18, 2005 13:22:23 GMT -5
No points for losing. Ever. Thanks for playing—better luck next time. Yes!! The OTL point was a joke. Which other league in the world rewards teams for losing? Two points for a win and no points for a loss please. I don't really buy the argument that teams will play defensively for 60 minutes just so they can take their chances in the shootout and earn two points. The argument can go both ways. If teams are given a point for simply going into OT, then they can trap for 60 minutes knowing full well that they're guaranteed a point anyways. In other words, why go for the win against a superior opponent when you know that you can get a point if you "play for the tie"? Allowing no points for losing will encourage teams to go for it all during regulation. |
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Jul 18, 2005 13:38:57 GMT -5
No touch icing = Good, is there anyone that doesn't see this as a good thing? Removing the red line = Bad, I don't like it. It encourages floating and even further defensive play. Restricting goalie equipment back to reasonable levels = Good Widening the blue line = Good, can't hurt. Making the nets bigger = Bad, silliest idea i have ever heard period! Full two minute powerplays = Good, wanna see penalties go down? Shootouts = To be honest i could care less either way aslong as they leave it out of the playoff's. A 3 points for a win system would have to be set up to make it work. Restricting goalie's ability to handle the puck = Tough one to call as in reality it only really affects a select group of the tenders around the league. For every good puck handling goalie there is a really bad one, some teams and their d-men would be thankfull their goalie isn't allowed to venture heh Delay of game penalty for shooting the puck over the glass in your own end = I like it but imo it shouldn't be a set rule, it should be up to the ref's judgement. Did I miss anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Jul 19, 2005 1:42:54 GMT -5
I echo Tattac's thoughts. Should I make my cheque out to you (Rimmer) or to Szemberg? Or are you one and the same? no, we're not one and the same. no offense to Szymon, but i would write under a much cooler name  . besides, can't you tell the difference between my posts and this article?!  as for the cheque, you can use it to bribe the board of governors to dismiss all those silly rule change proposals. i'm sure Szymon won't mind... R. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 19, 2005 9:48:32 GMT -5
I echo Tattac's thoughts. Should I make my cheque out to you (Rimmer) or to Szemberg? Or are you one and the same? no, we're not one and the same. no offense to Szymon, but i would write under a much cooler name . besides, can't you tell the difference between my posts and this article?! A good writer can use many different voices, and I always took you for one. Well, that would not be money well wasted—after all, we have seen the results of money that has been sucked up by the NHL to this point in time. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jul 19, 2005 11:56:03 GMT -5
Allow zero tolerance for interference away from the puck.
This seems to be a no-brainer
Go from 16 to 20 playoff teams by letting the Nos. 7-10 teams in each conference compete in a best-of-three first round. The No. 1 and No. 2 seeds would get byes. Bracketing would be by division.
Dumb idea. Completely ruins the importance of the regular season. The playoff format is fine the way it is, with the almost 50/50 split between playoff and non-playoff teams.
Eliminate the red line for the purpose of two-line passes.
I say leave it in. Taking it out would just force teams to line up the trap on their blueline.
Widen the blue line and make it legal for attacking players to enter the zone as soon as the puck touches that blue line.
Yup.
Reduce the size of the goaltending equipment.
Another no-brainer.
Put some limitations on goalies handling the puck.
Not too optimistic that this is going to make any huge difference in the course of a game. But I'm indifferent on this one. Doesn't matter too much to me if they put it in or not.
Eliminate tie games by going to 3-on-3 overtime for three minutes after there is 4-on-4 overtime for five minutes. If the score is still tied, a three-man shootout is played. The memo points to two points for a win and no points for an overtime loss, but that might face heavy opposition.
I like the fact that teams won't get points for losing, but I would prefer if they just stuck to one four-on-four period of OT. There is no need to drop to a three-on-three if the game is still tied. Have the four-on-four and then go straight to the shootout (with five shooters instead of the proposed three). Two points for a win and no points for a loss. Nice, neat and simple.
Alter the icing rule to make it a race to the goal line instead of to the puck. If the offensive player gets his stick to the goal line first, the play goes on. If the defender wins, it's icing. This keeps the race in the game but reduces the chances of injury.
This seems almost as dangerous as the traditional icing rule. I agree with BC on this one. Make it no-touch and penalize teams for multiple icings.
Teams icing the puck cannot change players on the ensuing faceoff.
I like this rule. It discourages teams from icing the puck. But similar to BC, I too would like the NHL to change on the fly more often. It's an exciting aspect of hockey that is unique to sports and the NHL should exploit it.
Give players who shoot the puck into the stands from the defensive zone a two-minute penalty. Previously, that applied only to goaltenders.
I like it.
Eject players who get an instigator penalty in the final five minutes of a game.
Not sure where I read this, but I think that along with the ejection, a suspension is also given to the player. If this is the case, then I don't mind the rule, but if it's just an ejection then I don't see how this rule makes any sense at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Jul 20, 2005 2:17:23 GMT -5
Eliminate tie games by going to 3-on-3 overtime for three minutes after there is 4-on-4 overtime for five minutes. If the score is still tied, a three-man shootout is played. The memo points to two points for a win and no points for an overtime loss, but that might face heavy opposition.
I don't think the players are going to like this rule very much. the schedule is long as it is, and with the playoffs, all star games, Olympics, World Championships and World Cups, it doesn't leave much time for the best players to rest. and on top of it all, they are required to play possibly as much as 8 minutes of OT during the regular season games. and for what? so that they can lose in a shootout and go home with no points?
personally, I have no problem with tied games and I would seriously consider eliminating OT during the regular season. and if a shootout is a must, then have it right after 60 minutes are played.
Forum Ghost, i also read the same thing somewhere. if there is indeed a 1 game suspension for those players, then, like you, I'm all for it.
R.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Jul 20, 2005 2:21:44 GMT -5
A good writer can use many different voices, and I always took you for one. thanks, Mr. B., but I doubt i could write something that long and in english that good R. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 20, 2005 5:07:25 GMT -5
"We have these excerpts:" ...Among the possible rule changes still being hotly debated: removal of the centre line; discontinuing the awarding of a point to a team that loses in overtime; prohibiting a line change by a team that ices the puck. The committee is also teetering on commissioner Gary Bettman's suggestion that the playoff format be altered to include 20 teams instead of 16. Here is a summary of the committee's proposals: Obstruction (interference/hooking/holding): The committee wants zero tolerance away from the puck, down low around the goal, and a crackdown on slashing and cross-checking. Goaltenders: Their equipment will be shrunk. Handling of the puck will be limited to behind the goal, and there will be a concerted effort to penalize goalies for unnecessary freezing of the puck, as outlined in the rule book.... ... Diving: The league will warn a player for the first incident. There will be a $1,000 fine for a second incident, $2,000 for a third, and a one-game suspension for a fourth. In the playoffs, a third- and fourth-time offender will be fined $5,000, but if one these multiple offenders is nailed two or more times, it's a one-game suspension. Complaints: Players, coaches and general managers are subject to fines of as much as $100,000 for derogatory comments about the officiating.... ...Officiating: Officials will be geographically located to work in divisions and work in two-referee teams as well as meet with team captains and coaches before each game. - tinyurl.com/dcwfk |
|
. 
;D
. besides, can't you tell the difference between my posts and this article?! 