section 110 Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 He answered my question - pretty well, at that: http://tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=367201 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devs4LIFE Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Good read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 So - bottom line, the rule was created to curtail Marty - but they thought long and hard about how to justify how it wasn't. Maybe it was just Frasier who worked out the justificaiton for himself --- it reads like the crock that it is though . They didn't trust hockey and now the game has suffered a little. No goalie can stand out now - you don't have to be skilled to be a great goalie (for a burst here or there) and it's harmed the game. The game of hockey is always there - one superstar can't crush it. I thought Gretsky was killing the sport - but i still wouldn't advocate a rule change to make his play as dull as everyone elses... duhhh? Glad your question got answered 110 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section 110 Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 thanks, PK. I get frustrated at the league with their desire to punish excellent play and skill. In this case, skill is being negated by a rule change. This is not something that has occurred simply recently with the trapezoid. For instance, a minor penalty used to run the full two minutes back in the 50's regardless of PP goals scored, but the Canadiens were so prolific on the PP that the other teams in the league couldn't compete. They changed the rule to what it is today, effectively punishing Montreal for having a skilled PP. Can you imagine the NBA eliminating the 3 point line if a particular team was so good at sinking 3's?? What really irks me is that the trapezoid rule was pushed hard by teams like the Flyers (just google Bobby Clarke trapezoid) and others that didn't have a player with such skill. And this was tolerated by the other league GMs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 What really irks me is that the trapezoid rule was pushed hard by teams like the Flyers (just google Bobby Clarke trapezoid) and others that didn't have a player with such skill. And this was tolerated by the other league GMs. I believe it was initiated by Clarke and was directed at Marty specifically. It is one of the worst rules in the game. I still remember goalies like Hasek, Belfour and Roy making major blunders trying to emulate Marty's puck handling ability. I hope they get rid of it soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I believe it was initiated by Clarke and was directed at Marty specifically. Absolutely correct. I gotta read Fraser's book. What is it called? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Absolutely correct. I gotta read Fraser's book. What is it called? The Final Call I thought it was a good read,a lot of interesting stories. Can't wait for Paul Stewart's book to come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 thanks, PK. I get frustrated at the league with their desire to punish excellent play and skill. In this case, skill is being negated by a rule change. This is not something that has occurred simply recently with the trapezoid. For instance, a minor penalty used to run the full two minutes back in the 50's regardless of PP goals scored, but the Canadiens were so prolific on the PP that the other teams in the league couldn't compete. They changed the rule to what it is today, effectively punishing Montreal for having a skilled PP. Can you imagine the NBA eliminating the 3 point line if a particular team was so good at sinking 3's?? What really irks me is that the trapezoid rule was pushed hard by teams like the Flyers (just google Bobby Clarke trapezoid) and others that didn't have a player with such skill. And this was tolerated by the other league GMs. In the 80s (forget exactly when) the Oilers had become so prolific at scoring on 4-on-4s that the league changed the rule of both teams losing one man each for coincidental minor penaties...so, say, one guy gets a tripping call and another gets a roughing call, on the ice it's still 5-on-5. It reverted back some time ago, but it does seem silly to hurt one team or player because they happen to be better at something than everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 In the 80s (forget exactly when) the Oilers had become so prolific at scoring on 4-on-4s that the league changed the rule of both teams losing one man each for coincidental minor penaties...so, say, one guy gets a tripping call and another gets a roughing call, on the ice it's still 5-on-5. It reverted back some time ago, but it does seem silly to hurt one team or player because they happen to be better at something than everyone else. the problem was that the oilers were exploiting the rule and trying to draw coincidental minors so that their team could go 4 on 4 or even 3 on 3, or at least that's what i've read. 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.