=CH= Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 So, what do you all think of these proposed rule changes? http://www.canada.com/sports/hockey/story....37-F05B98021A6B - Goalies can no longer handle the puck behind the back-end red line (behind the net). If the goalie touches it, it's a two minute penalty - The width of goalie pads will be reduced to 10 inches from the current limit of 12 inches; - The nets will be brought back to 10 feet from the back boards from the current 13 feet; - The tag-up offsides will be brought back; - AHL will try out three points being awarded for a victory in regulation time with NHL possibly going to that format in 2005-06 if it works well in the minors; that would also include two points for an overtime win, it may also include two points for a penalty shootout win. - The AHL will also be asked to try out the so-called "fat lines" of both blue-lines and the centre red line next season. But they will be 24 inches instead of the 36 inches tried out this year in the AHL. They're currently 12 inches wide in the NHL. There are also two changes that will go into effect as soon as this week, a clarification of the rule for the penalty shot and a clarification of the rule regarding goals scored when the net is slightly off - those goals will now count. I like everything except 3 points for a win and the goalie not playing the puck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 The NHL is taking a step in the right direction with these proposed changes. Although, 3 points for a win? I don't like that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs77 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Originally posted by =CH=I like everything except 3 points for a win and the goalie not playing the puck. LOL... those are the two I like best since those are the ones that will actually have a significant impact on the game, the others are just cosmetic and won't change much. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - The most important change has to be the one that prevents the goalies from playing the puck behind the goal line. Today's goalies are getting the puck out before the forecheck gets there... therefore it is almost impossible to apply pressure in the offensive zone, create turnovers and add more offense. The real problem that I had with it is that not only can goalies play the puck, but nobody is allowed to touch them... which simply isn't a fair situation. As for the D men getting pounded more, that's part of the job... as a D man myself I know it won't be fun, but it will add offense and that's what the game needs desperately. - My biggest disappointment is that the icing rule won't be changed, I don't get how stupid these guys are not make that change. It's a no brainer. - I like the the 3 points for a win, because I want teams who WIN games to be on top... not those who collect a million ties and OT losses. - The smaller pads will give the players a little more net to shoot at, I have no problem with that. I'm just glad they didn't change the nets. - Moving the net back is also good, more of the ice is now in front of the net.. less of the game will be spent behind the net. Ribs will still have enough room to make his from behind the net, as Gretzky did in his day. The angles will change a little, but the creative players will adapt. - The tag up rule is a no brainer, never got why they changed it years ago. Changes that weren't kept, I thought the complete 2 minute PP no matter how goals are scored would have been interesting... it would have been a return to the way it used to be. Bigger ice surface would a helped a lot, but it would be such a headache to modify the new buildings there was no chance of tht hapenning. In the end if they call all the hooking, holding, interference penalties offense will grow by leaps and bounds. I don't see the big deal about wider lines, I thought the red line removed would be one of the rule changes that would make it through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck7x Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I am so glad that the tag-up offside is back. I love that rule , games are much more enjoyable to watch with the rule applied , lots more flow... less whistles. Smaller goalie pads is a great rule. Large goalie equipment is the major reason why goal scoring is down in the "new" NHL. I am uncertain about the "no goalie play behind net" rule. Think about it... Lets say the offensive team shots the puck into the zone ... the D-man on the other team goes to make a play for the puck... And BAMN! A forechecking forward lays him out with a huge hit. You just know thats going to happen , going to be alot of charges , and injuries. Why not just use Scotty Bowmans idea of goalies not being allowed to play the puck forward but only laterally and backwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck7x Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Ohhh yeah... I'm very upset that the instigator rule was not part of the changes? They need to get rid of it! Worst rule ever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs77 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Originally posted by puck7xI am uncertain about the "no goalie play behind net" rule. Think about it... Lets say the offensive team shots the puck into the zone ... the D-man on the other team goes to make a play for the puck... And BAMN! A forechecking forward lays him out with a huge hit. You just know thats going to happen , going to be alot of charges , and injuries. Why not just use Scotty Bowmans idea of goalies not being allowed to play the puck forward but only laterally and backwards. I don't subsribe to the "doomsday" theory that D men will start dropping like flies because goalies can't go behind the net. Goalies don't stop the puck for D men 100% now, and have any D men died when they don't?... no The D men are used to slowing down and bracing for the hit instead of going for the puck, they'll keep doing that and it'll lead to more turnovers... perfect. You want to spare serious injuries for D men, elminate touch icing... that's much more dangerous. And yes, the instigator rule wasn't changed... that sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck7x Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Well I'll counter what you said Habs77 by saying that goalies usually play the puck behind the net when they see that their d-man is vulnerable to a big hit. The goalie plays the puck , saves his D's ass. Thats why you never see big crushing injury-causing hits on d-men these days, because the goalies are smart. I've seen that happen alot of times. Plus of course , half the time when goalies go behind the net to play the puck its because they want to jump start an offensive rush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I agree with Habs77 on this one. For a while, I've wished that goalies weren't allowed to play the puck for the exact same reason: They aren't fair game when they leave the crease. They end up playing like a defenseman, yet no opposing players are allowed to touch them at all without getting a penalty. People are boo-hooing about how this will hurt Turco and Brodeur. Good. Goalies need to play their position. They aren't defenseman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch_nl Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I just can't understand why NHL won't listen to europeans in this issue. The biggest problem NHL has is the red-line offside. When we took it away in Sweden hockey became so more fun. More goals and more people at the games. In Elitserien there is 12 teams. 8 teams has a new arena or are building one right now... Take a look at SM-Liiga in Finland. More chances in both directions. (Maybe a bit to much in my opinion) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs77 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Originally posted by ch_nlI just can't understand why NHL won't listen to europeans in this issue. The biggest problem NHL has is the red-line offside. Yeah as I said that's the rule I'm most surprised didn't go through... along with touch icing which seems like a no-brainer. But my favorite change that I was hoping but NEVER believed would be implemented went through... so I can't help but be happy. (no goalies playing the puck) Not only is it good for the game IMO, but Theo just sucks at it so I'm glad he won't have to do it anymore. Btw the goalie helped bail out a lot of slow D men out there... I curious to see what impact it will have on the D men in the game. Will Quintal-like D men be able to hack it, and will Bouillon/Markov type D men who have wheels be more at a premium? Perhaps not, but if it did lead to a move towards smaller more mobile D men in the East... that would help the flow of the game as well. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- And although the red line won't disappear, the neutral zone is getting 6 feet longer (that's where the 3 feet behind each net are going)... so those "blue line to blue line passes" will act as "semi" bomb pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs77 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/shownews.js...ontent=h021143A One GM who wasn't in favour of barring goalies from playing the puck behind the net, not surprisingly, was New Jersey's Lou Lamoriello. Sources indicate he was furious at the idea. And who can blame him? The new rule severely handicaps his MVP. Lamoriello didn't attend the last day of meetings. His colleagues stood by their controversial decision. "Goalies have one or two privileges that other players don't have," said Montreal Canadiens GM Bob Gainey, such as being able to glove the puck and also avoid being bodychecked. "They use those privileges to advantage for their team and for themselves individually. "The options are to try to in some form, whether it's the ones that are recommended or to direct or limit them, or whether to leave them vulnerable where we take away their privileges and they'd be treated like regular players." In other words, unless goalies would prefer getting smashed into the boards when they try to play the puck, they shouldn't grumble about the proposed changes. In the minds of many GMs, the goalies have had too much negative impact on the offensive side of the game in the last decade or so and it's time to correct it. And the goalies' tremendous ability to puck-handle was seen as an unwanted part of the modern evolution of the game. "That was a real philosophical question that a lot of managers asked themselves and asked the group," Campbell. "Is it a skill that developed over time that we have to acknowledge or accept, is it one that we want in our game? Or do we have to accept and look at the position of the goalie and say he was meant to be in the net to stop shots, not block shots, and he has a stick meant to stop shots, not play shots." The point being, the goalie's job is to stop pucks - period. -------------------------------------------- Lou is pissed, well good!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Habs77- Moving the net back is also good, more of the ice is now in front of the net.. less of the game will be spent behind the net. Ribs will still have enough room to make his from behind the net, as Gretzky did in his day. The angles will change a little, but the creative players will adapt. the angles wont really change at all... the offensive zones will still be the same size, they will just be farther apart. Thus the distance from blue line to net and the resultant angles are the same.... I understand that i am getting a technical to the point of being anal.. but i agree with your point... one is hard pressed to make an argument as the detrimental affect of that rule change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=CH= Posted February 15, 2004 Author Share Posted February 15, 2004 I agree with what puck7x said. Also, other than Brodeur and Turco, who else handles the puck well? Not many. Most of them give it away through out the season and it leads to scoring chances. I also like seeing goalies starting the rush, catching a team on a change, for example. I'll agree that goalies should be fair game outside of their crease. If this rule goes through, then I hope they at least give Dmen break with no touch icing. 3 points for a win is crazy. This isn't European soccer. How about no points for a tie or OT loss? Not enough points for wins isn't the problem, points for not winning is the problem. And how about doing something about weak division leaders being seeded in the top 3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs77 Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Originally posted by simonus Originally posted by Habs77- Moving the net back is also good, more of the ice is now in front of the net.. less of the game will be spent behind the net. Ribs will still have enough room to make his from behind the net, as Gretzky did in his day. The angles will change a little, but the creative players will adapt. the angles wont really change at all... the offensive zones will still be the same size, they will just be farther apart. Thus the distance from blue line to net and the resultant angles are the same.... I understand that i am getting a technical to the point of being anal.. but i agree with your point... one is hard pressed to make an argument as the detrimental affect of that rule change. What I meant about the angles changing were for the angles for passes from behind the net. That's why I mentionned Ribeiro, and Gretzky in his day. I agree the angles in front of the net won't change since the extra room is going into the neutral zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs77 Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Originally posted by =CH=I agree with what puck7x said. Also, other than Brodeur and Turco, who else handles the puck well? Not many. Most of them give it away through out the season and it leads to scoring chances. Even the bad ones negate the forecheck significantly... I also like seeing goalies starting the rush, catching a team on a change, for example. Normally when a goalie does that it's when he intercept the clearing attempt before the goal line and plays it back out right away... they'll still be able to do that. I'll agree that goalies should be fair game outside of their crease. In theory that would be nice, but it will never happen. If this rule goes through, then I hope they at least give Dmen break with no touch icing. I can't believe they didn't, don't understand that one. 3 points for a win is crazy. This isn't European soccer. How about no points for a tie or OT loss? Not enough points for wins isn't the problem, points for not winning is the problem. And how about doing something about weak division leaders being seeded in the top 3? How about no points for a tie?... hehe As stupid as that sounded to me at first it's actually brilliant... give the teams an incentive to go all out until the end. I mean it's no dumber that giving a point for a loss, when you look at it that way. But the way they're talking it seems they're moving towards a shootout in the near future... because quite simply they're desperate to put asses in seats, especially in the States where you won't find as many purists who will be outraged by the unfairness of it all. If the shootouts are coming, then 3 points for a win is a good thing. I rather have a shootout win be worth 2/3 of a real win than the same as a real win. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. This is a little out there, but I don't think a shootout win should be 2 points, only 1 point compared to 3 for a regulation win. How could we do that?... If you go to a shootout, the team who wins gets to keep it's point, the loser LOSES his point. That'll give them a hell of an incentive to go for it during OT, no? It would be very unconventional, but it accomplish a few things: - the shootout obviously eliminates all ties, which the fans will love - rewards teams that win in regulation further - give teams a major incentive to go all out in OT - and as a last resort the fans get to see a shootout which they love to see Ok so it's kinda crazy, but let me know what you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazer Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 My 2 cents: Only removing red line and moving back the goal line will have any impact, the first speeds up the game and increases scoring chance and the second reduces those silly, endless and mostly aimless cycles down low 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.