Rules will be broken

[Rock]

Rules will be broken

Goalies won't be pleased

By AL STRACHAN -- Toronto Sun

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/...958660-sun.html

No one knows what rule changes the general managers might approve at their meeting at Detroit in early April, but this much is clear: Nothing is off limits. For the first time, the National Hockey League is in a wide-open mode when it comes to altering its game. It had been a leaning in that direction when the GMs met in Nevada last February, but now the trickle has become a torrent.

Most GMs want to protect the integrity of the game. But even so, just by reverting to rules that were legislated out of the game, positive steps can be made to restoring offence.

For instance, many GMs want to kill the rule that allows a short-handed team to ice the puck. That one was brought in when the Montreal Canadiens dynasty of the 1950s became too potent for the liking of other teams in the league.

Also, the GMs could kill the other rule that came in at that time: Limiting a team to one goal per power play.

While the GMs are in this metamorphic mood, they will bring back the tag-up rule. That's the one that allows a delayed offside while encroaching players clear the zone.

NO INPUT FROM PLAYERS

The tag-up rule's reinstatement was approved last year, but the NHL Players' Association filed a grievance against the GMs' laundry list of modifications on a matter of principle -- the principle being that their members had no input.

As a result, the Nevada changes were never implemented. Not that it mattered much, since the season was cancelled. However, the GMs' intention now is to bring back the long-lost offensive aspect of the NHL game.

The most sensible route, of course, would be to make the ice surfaces a bit larger, but the governors won't go for that one because it would mean a significant expense.

So, the GMs will offer other suggestions, such as the one that says if you ice the puck, you can't make a personnel change. Many teams are taught to resort to intentional icing when they're tired and under pressure. If the GMs approve the changed concept, the offending team would have to keep those tired players out there, while the opposition would be free to send out fresh bodies.

There will be shootouts to determine the outcome if the game is still tied after overtime. The GMs will use the Detroit meeting to try to reach accord on the format involved.

There will be limitations on the size of goalie pads. Already the 10-inch leg pad is accepted as reasonable, but what about all the upper-body padding?

If the league were run by reasonable people, the GMs simply would approve a rule that says: "All padding must be of a reasonable size with the principle being that it is there to prevent injury, not stop pucks." Rulings would then be made on a case-by-case basis, just like suspensions.

UNREASONABLE

But the league isn't run by reasonable people. It's run by lawyers, so a common-sense rule has no chance. The GMs will have to try to find a rule that works for all body sizes, something that's not easy to do.

Goalies' movement will also be under scrutiny. A Nevada proposal required goalies to stay in front of the goal line at all times, but passage of that one was not smooth.

The concept may face serious opposition this time, now that the GMs have seen it in use in the American Hockey League. On the other hand, the mood for change is so strong that the goalies may find their movements limited even further.

It's also quite possible that the limit on stick curvature might be radically eased -- or dropped altogether. If a convoluted stick can make the puck dip or swerve, why not let it go? If batters in baseball can be required to face sliders, then so should goalies in hockey.

One thing is certain about the GMs' intentions: They won't make goalies happy.

But fans won't care. In their minds, the goalies have had it too good for too long.

['7']

ugh, I still hate shootouts. Once again the league is trying to reach out to people that aren't there. Educated hockey fans know ties have been a part of the sport forever and can accept them. Nobody feels cheated leaving a 5-5 tie.

and let the goalies roam, most not name Brodeur don't know what the hell they're doing anyway and there puckhandling will lead to more goals.

get rid of the fast faceoff rule, players get too winded that way. Brodeur mentioned this a year ago in an interview. play grinds to a halt in the 3rd period because of this.

thicker blue lines look too weird, but if it loosens up play in the neutral zone then it's worth experimenting with in the NHL.

Edited March 13, 2005 by '7'

[Don]

I want the hurry up face-offs to stay. Long breaks in play are one of the reasons I gave up on baseball. I get so bored while the coaches are talking to the guys and they are taking their good ole time getting off the ice and guys are taking long skates around the rink rather than going to the face-off circle that I just end up changing the channel.

Call it ADD if you will, but I'm tuning in to see HOCKEY not guys skating around the ice with no destination in mind.

[Triumph]

Keep the fast face-off rule, maybe add a few seconds to it. I was watching some old games on TV over break and was amazed at how long the players would stall at times.

If icing is no longer allowed during power plays, no touch icing has to be implemented.

['7']

I'm not saying give teams 2 minutes between every stoppage, it's just a rule they adopted quickly after the olympics without really thinking what they were doing

was anybody complaining about stoppages in play back in 1993 when the flow of the game was good? no. Now when there is poor play, they try to fix this by less time between stoppages, but how does this address the play on the ice? it doesn't, now we have less time between traps and players get more winded. but they're still clutching and grabbing, and the game is shorter. the pacing of games seems off nowadays.

adding seconds to it would be good then, I think we can trust officials to know when to get things going or when to slow things down a little.

we also have to be careful not to make these games too quick, especially to fans who go to games. restrooms, concessions, etc. you can't really get up and get anything anymore since it means missing more of a game than you did back then. so everybody holds it in, there's a big line in between periods....

Edited March 13, 2005 by '7'

['7']

If icing is no longer allowed during power plays, no touch icing has to be implemented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no touch only on power plays?

[Mitico12]

Hey everyone, interesting forum as I just joined. Great to see Devs fans and hockey fans alike throwing the banter around! Good stuff.

As for the shootout proposition, although it is exciting to have a shootout, I think it will eventually lose its appeal if you have many, many overtime games played out during the season.

In additon, the shootout may become an NHLPA tool to drive up player salaries if indeed it becomes a fan favorite...

All remains to be seen...

[Triumph]

Maybe 7, but that seems too confusing. I don't like no-touch icing that much, though I admit I haven't seen many games with it. What i'm concerned about is breaking the flow of the game. I think teams would still ice the puck on the power play and take the faceoff in a lot of situations.

[LizDevil30]

I like the hurry-up face-off, except when it costs the Devils goals.

It seems that the goalies are going to be the sacrificial lambs in this new and imporoved NHL. Not only are they going to stripped down, but they may be prevented from making plays away from the net. And if the shootouts come to pass, the outcome of the game will be laid at their crease.

I like the multiple goals during PPs. I think that will greatly reduce obstruction in the game more than anything else ever will.

Icing belongs on cakes. I go back and forth on icing rules. I think no icing on PP and leave touch icing other times. My son plays with no touch icing rules and he thinks it ruins the flow of the game and slows the game down.

[PeteyNice]

I'm not saying give teams 2 minutes between every stoppage, it's just a rule they adopted quickly after the olympics without really thinking what they were doing

was anybody complaining about stoppages in play back in 1993 when the flow of the game was good? no. Now when there is poor play, they try to fix this by less time between stoppages, but how does this address the play on the ice? it doesn't, now we have less time between traps and players get more winded. but they're still clutching and grabbing, and the game is shorter. the pacing of games seems off nowadays.

adding seconds to it would be good then, I think we can trust officials to know when to get things going or when to slow things down a little.

we also have to be careful not to make these games too quick, especially to fans who go to games. restrooms, concessions, etc. you can't really get up and get anything anymore since it means missing more of a game than you did back then. so everybody holds it in, there's a big line in between periods....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The hurry up faceoffs counter balance the excruciatingly long TV timeouts. In 1993 TV timeouts were much shorter (or non-existent). If you got rid of hurry up face offs the way they keep extending TV timeouts and intermissions (intermissions are 18 minutes in the AHL this year, they will probably be as long or longer when the NHL comes back) you are start getting into regulation games that take three hours. That is crazy.

[LizDevil30]

Good point Petey. Can we get rid of commercials?

[Don]

If it wasn't for the hurry-up faceoff, Ken Daneyko wouldn't hold the Devils record for face-off win percentage.

[RowdyFan42]

Why don't they split up the TV timeouts? Instead of a few long blocks, have a lot of really quick timeouts.

[vadvlfan]

I think the elimination of the red line would open it up considerably. Although no team is prepared to do this, I'm sure teams would have to retool rosters. It might even be the single most important change. Imagine the posabilities! The icing rules came as a result of a team scoring the 1st goal & icing it the rest of the game. Was needed. Playing 5 on 5 after 2 guys took simultameous penalties was a result of the "Edmondton advantage" in the 80's. When did two line pass originate? Think about it, it is a stupid rule. Why was it implimeted? I coach youth hockey, and maybe Don would have to answer this, cause he is the trivia genius.

['7']

banning seamless glass and going back to more lively, bouncy boards might help reduce injuries for guys going after loose pucks on icing. I know some arenas did get rid of the seamless, but not all of them.

[Don]

I think the elimination of the red line would open it up considerably. Although no team is prepared to do this, I'm sure teams would have to retool rosters.  It might even be the single most important change.  Imagine the posabilities! The icing rules came as a result of a team scoring the 1st goal & icing it the rest of the game.  Was needed.  Playing 5 on 5 after 2 guys took simultameous penalties was a result of the "Edmondton advantage" in the 80's.  When did two line pass originate?  Think about it, it is a stupid rule. Why was it implimeted?  I coach youth hockey, and maybe Don would have to answer this, cause he is the trivia genius.

Well, actually Zero and Petey and Derek are the trivia geniuses. I don't think I even got 1 nomintion for knowledgeable poster this year.... But I do I know this one.

In 1943, the rules were that you were not allowed to pass the puck out of the defending zone. Which meant that you had to skate the puck out of your end. But against 5 opponents, that was near impossible.

So the NHL instituted the rule saying that you could pass the puck out of the defending zone but only as far as the red line. Which is where the rule is today.

The issue was that hockey was supposed to be a skating game. It's supposed to be about speed, maneuverabilty, and finesse. So the NHL has been slow to adopt rules that make the game more and more about hail mary passes.

So, yeah, it would be easy to think that the NHL put in the red line to STOP outlet passes. Fact is, they added to the red line to START outlet passes.

EDIT: BTW - I'm against removal of the red line. I've seen way too many hail mary passes that get missed and end up going down for icing. Maybe at the NHL level where there are guys that can hit the streaking guy up the middle it will be less of a problem. But at lower levels, I see way too often the modus operundi of teams is to try to hit their leading scorer sitting out at the other teams blue line. Two hail mary's that work gets two goals and the other 20 hail mary's failed to connect. Still got two goals out of it.

Worse still, is that teams counter-act the floater by sticking a D out with him, so you have 4-on-4 down low and you can't keep the puck in at the point and you lose contained pressure.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Don

[BlueSkirt]

So, the GMs will offer other suggestions, such as the one that says if you ice the puck, you can't make a personnel change. Many teams are taught to resort to intentional icing when they're tired and under pressure. If the GMs approve the changed concept, the offending team would have to keep those tired players out there, while the opposition would be free to send out fresh bodies.

I like this idea. And any other idea that is subtle, that can possibly penalize the defending team.

I say allow the 2-line pass, no-icing on the PK, as many goals as you can get in the minor, no touch-icing, I'm not in favor of the tag-up offside rule though.

I also thought that icing could be treated like NBA-fouls. There are 5 team fouls and after that limit is hit you automatically get a free-throw.

So, how about after 5 icings in a game, you get a minor ?

[Swede]

I also thought that icing could be treated like NBA-fouls. There are 5 team fouls and after that limit is hit you automatically get a free-throw.

So, how about after 5 icings in a game, you get a minor ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't the complaints that hockey is too complicated for the casual fan... this would make it even more so

[BlueSkirt]

Swede yo are 100% right. I thought about that but since a similar process was used in another sport I figured the "American-public" would be able to understand it.