charger77

NHL OFFSEASON - 2011

Recommended Posts

the only rule change that sounds good is the trapezoid removal. Everything else is just a useless tweak.

Not at all. I'm really intrigued to see full 2 minute powerplays.

I like both of these rules. However, I don't the on-the-fly only line change. Line matching might be a bit annoying to some, but the removal of strategy from the game is a bad thing, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only rule change that sounds good is the trapezoid removal. Everything else is just a useless tweak.

Not at all. I'm really intrigued to see full 2 minute powerplays.

I like both of these rules. However, I don't the on-the-fly only line change. Line matching might be a bit annoying to some, but the removal of strategy from the game is a bad thing, in my opinion.

Completely agree. Line matching should be a part of the game, the in game chess match is fun to watch. But dont mind me, I'm a bit of a purist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Tampa Bay, the Lightning have installed Tesla coils onto their scoreboard for pre-game stuff and for goal celebrations. And I think that is AWESOME!

263297_134590936630797_106513986105159_215802_8160038_n.jpg

Somehow, I see this ending poorly.

It's only mounted over a giant body of frozen water and under a metal ceiling.

Errr....JUMBOTRON used THUNDERSHOCK. It's SUPER EFFECTIVE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Getting rid of line-matching will accomplish nothing but saving Joel Quenneville from himself, so while it's a useless idea in theory, it could be quite useful in practice!

2. No line changes on offsides would be okay but not at the rate that players go offsides today. Obviously, the idea is that making it a greater violation would reduce the incidence, but I'm not totally sold. Besides, if we're getting rid of changing at stoppages altogether, this is redundant.

3. No thanks

4. No thanks

5. I'd rather have a handful of shootouts than 3-on-3 games.

6. Between "no icing on kills" and "goals don't end minor penalties," why don't you just award two goals for tripping.

7. Whatever

8. Yeah, I thought they would've come up with this by now, too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing teams to serve entire penalties puts way too much power into the hands of already poor officials. I hated that idea coming out of the lockout and I hate it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it would make refs more gun shy calling penalties, not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. The amount of obstruction calls being made has dwindled since the year after the lockout. Not sure if thats a result of players not actually committing the infractions (doubtful) or the refs just not putting an emphasis on it since the initial "new NHL" way of calling penalties (more likely).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been calling for "serve the entire penalty" for some time now. It will be THE biggest deterrent to players committing foolish and lazy penalties. It's one way to increase the possibility of goal-scoring without changing the way the game gets played.

I can get on-board with 3-on-3 hockey for three minutes. The game won't be extended that much longer.

The rest of those 8 major tweaks don't sound so appealing, or really don't change things too much. I'm sure we'll eventually get to the point of adding some technology sensors to the puck and nets (sort of like the FoxTrax puck, but not for TV-viewing purposes) that'll sound when the entire puck crosses the goal line. Offsides calls aren't so egregious that they need to be treated like icing plays.

I'd love to see the trapezoid get removed. Why create a rule that prohibits some goalies from using their athletic abilies? It's akin to disallowing wide receivers from providing blocks on a running play.

I'd also be in favor of allowing hand-passes in all the zones. Never understood why that was legal for 1/3rd of the ice and illegal for the other 2/3rd's.

Having a shallower net could be interesting.

Having a communication device for the refs to talk with each other (and maybe the linesmen, too) can only be a good thing, I'd think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been calling for "serve the entire penalty" for some time now. It will be THE biggest deterrent to players committing foolish and lazy penalties.

No, it'll just be a deterrent to calling the penalties in the first place. As long as there's a culture of "let the players play when the game is important," this will allow pivotal games to be determined by clutch-and-grab hijinks. And then it's 2003 again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a good deal, now i'm not that terrified of how terrible our Top 6 will be. Still need to move a stupid contract (Sarich, Stajan and Hagman)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power play teams would eat the league alive if they were allowed to play out the full duration of a penalty. That's just a terrible idea waiting to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure their intentions are to create goals so as to create more excitement, but goal inflation just lessens the excitement of each goal. I know, I know, the NFL has been able to pull off point inflation without making people feel like scores are less important (they are), but even as the NHL picks up more casual fans, its hardcore base who knows better still accounts for more of the market than the NFL's base does, and they're hard to snooker. The NFL could massage the game into yielding triple-digit scores if they told America it would be good for their fantasy teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never get the NHL's obsession with higher scoring. I may be a bit biased here (I am a goalie), but a tightly played 2-1 game is much more exciting than horribly sloppy 5-3 :censored:fests. Even the crowd deadens after a bunch of goals. It's just boring. And as a participant in a 3 on 3 league, it's not as exciting as people may think. The ice is too open. The game gets stretched out and usually ends up with one player always taking it coast to coast. Not my idea of entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, for true hockey fans, it's a lot more exciting to see a 0-0 goalie battle unfolding than a 6-4 game with a pair of sieves. You know that every turnover, every shot could lead to your team winning or losing.

I can't wait for this season though. Really think the Jackets are a playoff team right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think fans of about 13 Western teams really think their respective teams are playoff-bound. Someone has to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think fans of about 13 Western teams really think their respective teams are playoff-bound. Someone has to be wrong.

Nah, it's 12. The Coyotes don't have any fans to think that. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was all fine with the Flames dying off around X-Mas, then they figured out how to win again. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to think the CBJ has a chance, but I believe the league's figured out Mason, and he doesn't know how to adapt. Wrap-a-rounds and low blocker killed the CBJ last year (along with them being, you know, the Blue Jackets).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power play teams would eat the league alive if they were allowed to play out the full duration of a penalty. That's just a terrible idea waiting to happen.

I want that to happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Rypien killed himself. I'm not really surprised, though. He seemed to have a lot of psychological/drug problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.