Mathew Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I say leave the game alone, but I am a hockey coach and purest so all I support is widening the rink a tad. Love to hear the feedback, espcially the American hockey fan! GM meetings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I say leave the game alone, but I am a hockey coach and purest so all I support is widening the rink a tad. Love to hear the feedback, espcially the American hockey fan! GM meetings I think the new overtime format they have with each team getting a point then the winner getting a point was cool but they shouldn't tinker with the rules too much just to satisfy a few casual fans who really care nothing about the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I would be fine with the tag-up offsides coming back, and the no-touch icing. The race for an iced puck is not interesting to me, and very seldom results in any real scoring opportunity anyway. I'm not that much of a purist, really, so the idea of eliminating the red line ( or the two-line pass ) is okay with me, as is the idea of 4-on-4 all the time. The players today are giants compared to the "old days", and it's much more feasible to go 4-on-4 than it is to enlarge the rinks and reconfigure the seating areas of every NHL building ( and AHL, ECHL, etc. by trickle-down ). I also think there has to be some control over the mattresses today's goalies wear on their legs. If you're not going to enlarge the nets, then you have to set a limit on goaltenders' equipment AND enforce it strictly. Did you see those huge yellow atrocities on Robert Luongo's legs at the All-Star Skills Competition?? YIKES!! I enjoy watching wide-open hockey, with end-to-end rushes and lots of scoring opportunities. In my eyes, that's the way the game ought to be played. Attack, hit, forecheck aggressively and I WILL pay to watch you. I appreciate a good defensive battle, and in my opinion the playoffs will still deliver those in droves, but I do NOT enjoy the logjam strategies of teams like the Devils and Wild. That, over the 82-game regular season, is some BORING hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I totally agree with making regulation wins worth 3 points. I am sick of seeing wrestling on ice for the 3rd period's of close games. I want to see the Nash's and Kovalchuk's of the world do their things, not the Domi's. And with that extra point out there the motivation is to win, and not to tie. Hockey is the most beautiful sport in the world when it is played right. And it is ruined by the clutching and grabbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I just posted about that at inthecrease.com and I will sum up that post here with one smiley: :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I say leave the game alone, but I am a hockey coach and purest so all I support is widening the rink a tad. Love to hear the feedback, espcially the American hockey fan! GM meetings i'd be up for widening the blue lines and i fully support elimination of the instigator penalty. I could live with the elimination of the red line, although i'd prefer if it was still there. All the other possible changes are bulls*** in my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted February 10, 2004 Author Share Posted February 10, 2004 Touch icing if the puck is shot from the neutral zone only. Even then it's not nesscessary, but if you have to have it, that's how it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Expand the rinks so they can play more olympic style hockey. Seems like their is so much better flow, creativity and excitement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan99 Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Expand the rinks so they can play more olympic style hockey. Seems like their is so much better flow, creativity and excitement. I think this is due to the fact that the talent level at the olympics is higher than the average talent in the NHL. Get rid of some teams and you will increase the level of play in the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 First off, the no touch icing is BS. When players bust their ass and get back to eliminate the icing and it does result in a scoring chance, there is usually not a better play. The guy eliminiating the icing doesn't ever score but the trailer has a shot, and it's one of the best "hustle" plays in hockey. No-touch icing creates a lull and laziness in the game. And yes, I've attended both styles of games and I hate it. Instigator. I understand the intent, but if they would just call the damn games the way the rules are written half the crap that goes on out there wouldn't happen. I can tell you that the players hate it; but they adbide by it because of the harshness of it. They are more if the problem gets taken care of by calling the game as the rules are written, they're ok with it, but if things aren't taken care of they would rather take care of it themselves. Hatcher's hit on Roenick (remember Hatch breaking JR's jaw) 5 years back is PERFECT illustration of this, and JR knew it was coming because the league's referees f'ed up the game that made retaliation necessary. The net was moved out from the end boards about 10 years or so ago. Put it back. That in and of itself would generate more scoring chances and create less of a grinders, dump and chase, game. The pucks would come out front quicker and not get tied up behind the net so quick. Leave the red line. Cherry picking is lazy. It would help with the traps in the nuetral zone to eliminate the red line, but I guarantee you they will find a way to trap the red-lineless zone anyway. I tend to think that leaving the red line helps keep teams more honest - but you'd see a few more odd man rushes without the red line and folks like that. I really think that the bottom line to the whole argument is call the damn hooks, holds, interferences, etc like they are supposed to be and you'd see scoring up because it would create the flow that everyone's looking for and don't tinker with the rules. Grabbing and crap sucks, slows down the game, and that's not what's meant to happen in a game. Free flowing, hard checking hockey ("playoff" hockey) is what everyone likes best - with the occasional rough and tumble to keep everyone honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted February 11, 2004 Author Share Posted February 11, 2004 First off, the no touch icing is BS. When players bust their ass and get back to eliminate the icing and it does result in a scoring chance, there is usually not a better play. The guy eliminiating the icing doesn't ever score but the trailer has a shot, and it's one of the best "hustle" plays in hockey. No-touch icing creates a lull and laziness in the game. And yes, I've attended both styles of games and I hate it. How about the suggestion I made of no touch if you shoot from behind your own blue line and touch otherwise, it'd be an easy call for the refs theirs already one checking for the two line pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 That would cover most scenarios I guess. If they decide to do that, it wouldn't be so bad because 99.9% of the plays that get beat out by the team committing the icing infraction the play develops starting in the nuetral zone anyway. What do you think about the goaltender not allowed to touch the puck behind the red line? Now that's BS. So we're going to penalize a guy who can play back there so the forwards have free reign to forecheck? BS. BS. BS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted February 11, 2004 Author Share Posted February 11, 2004 That would cover most scenarios I guess. If they decide to do that, it wouldn't be so bad because 99.9% of the plays that get beat out by the team committing the icing infraction the play develops starting in the nuetral zone anyway. What do you think about the goaltender not allowed to touch the puck behind the red line? Now that's BS. So we're going to penalize a guy who can play back there so the forwards have free reign to forecheck? BS. BS. BS!!! That's silly, I don't know if it would have the desired effect either. I remember the players complaing to move the nets out to creat room and offense and now we need to move em' back to create offense. They continue to make rules punishing players for making the right plays. Some people want hockey scores to look like a Lacrosse game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Here are the Gm's recommendations. Nothing has changed yet as they all need league approval. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1732154 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 they'd better not change that rule about goalie's playing the puck. I, for one, think that would be an absolutley horrible rule change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I don't care what rule changes short of making the nets bigger will increase scoring overall compared to 10-15 years ago. The players, every one of them, are more athletic, more skilled etc. Even Wayne Gretzky would not have scored near as much against the defenses of today, the guys out there are twice as big as they used to be. Also with the advent of dvd's and tape made literally minutes after a game is over being jetisonned throughout the league, it's easier to adapt from game to game to shut down a certain line, which on certain nights is all it takes. Regarding everyone b****ing about the pads on goaltenders. Being 12 inches wide or 10 inches wide won't make that much difference. The only difference will be that there will probably be a few more rebounds but goaltenders will adapt. They always do. And furthermore this will put the rule where it was pre 1990. Goaltenders are MUCH bigger then they used to be, and THAT's why the equipment is bigger, no other significant reason. Think about it. Luongo, who people think has pillows on his legs, is 50% bigger then most goalies pre 1985. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I don't care what rule changes short of making the nets bigger will increase scoring overall compared to 10-15 years ago. The players, every one of them, are more athletic, more skilled etc. Even Wayne Gretzky would not have scored near as much against the defenses of today, the guys out there are twice as big as they used to be. Also with the advent of dvd's and tape made literally minutes after a game is over being jetisonned throughout the league, it's easier to adapt from game to game to shut down a certain line, which on certain nights is all it takes. Regarding everyone b****ing about the pads on goaltenders. Being 12 inches wide or 10 inches wide won't make that much difference. The only difference will be that there will probably be a few more rebounds but goaltenders will adapt. They always do. And furthermore this will put the rule where it was pre 1990. Goaltenders are MUCH bigger then they used to be, and THAT's why the equipment is bigger, no other significant reason. Think about it. Luongo, who people think has pillows on his legs, is 50% bigger then most goalies pre 1985. All I know is that it would be sad if they made the nets bigger, just sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I've kind of drifted away from hockey since I moved to Kentucky, so maybe you guys can help me out with something. Please explain the offsides tag up rule they are talking about reimplementing. Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I've kind of drifted away from hockey since I moved to Kentucky, so maybe you guys can help me out with something. Please explain the offsides tag up rule they are talking about reimplementing. Thanks in advance. When the puck goes into the offensive zone and someone is offsides the puck physically has to come out of the zone, as do all of the players, and then it gets reentered. Where as if it is just tag up, the player(s) that were offsides only have to exit the zone, (tag up in effect) and then reenter the zone for the play to be considered onsides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 When the puck goes into the offensive zone and someone is offsides the puck physically has to come out of the zone, as do all of the players, and then it gets reentered. Where as if it is just tag up, the player(s) that were offsides only have to exit the zone, (tag up in effect) and then reenter the zone for the play to be considered onsides. Thank you. That seems to make sense to me. By tagging up, the player would certainly be following the puck into the zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 they'd better not change that rule about goalie's playing the puck. I, for one, think that would be an absolutley horrible rule change That was one that intrigues me. The problem as I see it is they are trying to make hockey a made for TV sport and of the big 4 it is the worst on tv. I would argue that Football is better on tv than in person, basketball is marginally better on tv, baseball is a draw, and hockey has to be seen in person. First off good hockey has no natural breaks in the action for tv timeouts. No NBA style scoring No deep strategy like baseball No huddles like football With the helmets and hard to pronounce names not enough "stars" Not enough kids play due to cost of equipment and ice time. Do whatever they like. I'm not certain making rules changes that result in more 8-5 games is necessarily going to help unless 13 goals pools become popular. I love the game. I wish it was more popular. May I also add it doesn't help that the most pathetic, worthless, bumpling, mother f***ers in all of sports are the owner and GM of the Hawks. Reinsdork would be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 I love the game. I wish it was more popular. May I also add it doesn't help that the most pathetic, worthless, bumpling, mother f***ers in all of sports are the owner and GM of the Hawks. Reinsdork would be better. Pulford and Wirtz arent satisfied having destroyed hockey in Chicago for money, now they want to destroy the NHL for money. These two are way out of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.