GM meetings in Florida

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Why would any coach be stupid enough to take risks in a tied game when he can just tell his players to trap away till the clock runs out, and still have an even-money chance of getting two points? But if going to OT meant losing out on the chance of three points, it would take away the incentive to drag the game out.

Well losing in regulation would still get you zero points so I feel like the coaches would still have incentive to leave the game tied until OT unless they absolutely have to have the 3 points which is going to be a relatively rare situation IMO.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Well losing in regulation would still get you zero points so I feel like the coaches would still have incentive to leave the game tied until OT unless they absolutely have to have the 3 points which is going to be a relatively rare situation IMO.

But that already exists. The change would be to reward teams with a third point for winning in regulation. That adds an incentive that does not exist at present.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by getbak

I really don't understand the people running this game sometimes. This seems like the easiest "no brainer" type of decision they could have made.

I hope this is a temporary decision and they just didn't want to change a rule partway through a season. I hope they re-visit it during the off-season.

Just out of curiosity, if you make the blue line a vertical plane, would you be on side if it's just a skate in the air or any part of the body? How about a stick, arm or the tail flap on a jersey?

[ernie]

Originally Posted by getbak

I really don't understand the people running this game sometimes. This seems like the easiest "no brainer" type of decision they could have made.

I hope this is a temporary decision and they just didn't want to change a rule partway through a season. I hope they re-visit it during the off-season.

They need to get rid of the coaches challenge on offside altogether. It's a one sided thing. You don't get to challenge and reset a play that gets blown dead because the linesman made the wrong call. I realize scoring on an offside is technically outside the rules but so is scoring after you just pushed off a guy in the slot or got away with a hook etc.

Goaltender interference I understand...you can call it either way on review. It's "fair".

[Fire]

Originally Posted by getbak

I really don't understand the people running this game sometimes. This seems like the easiest "no brainer" type of decision they could have made.

I hope this is a temporary decision and they just didn't want to change a rule partway through a season. I hope they re-visit it during the off-season.

If they allow the skate to be in the air it would result in players occasionally lifting their leg up 90 degrees in the air to avoid an off side call. It's a safety issue and it would look ridiculous when players do it. I would change the off-side rule so as long as the puck is fully on the blue line it is considered onside.

[Geeoff]

The league probably wants to keep things a grind, so they can protect Gretzky's records.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There's no doubt players are far better today. But how does that improve the NHL as an entertainment option if it makes the games less exciting to watch? People don't turn off Netflix and go out to the bar for the evening to marvel at defencemen closing gaps.

The players aren't going to get worse. The coaches aren't going to get worse. So if the NHL wants to game to be more exciting to watch, it's the rules that need to change.

My point is that to solve a problem, you first need to properly define it. I don't see the NHL doing that, because their main issue is defensive play has improved by orders of magnitude. Short of forbidding defenders to contact offensive players, there isn't much left that they can do.

And as you said, the players aren't going to get worse. And in that respect, it's silly to long for the run-and-gun days because, implicitly, you're longing for a regression in player quality.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Just out of curiosity, if you make the blue line a vertical plane, would you be on side if it's just a skate in the air or any part of the body? How about a stick, arm or the tail flap on a jersey?

I don't know how the rule should be written exactly, but what I do know is that this play shouldn't have been reviewed for 10 minutes while the linesmen tried to determine the exact moment that Wheeler's back skate was no longer in contact with the ice...




That review should have taken 10 seconds for the linesmen to take one look at this still frame and say, "Yup, he's clearly on side. Good goal."


If they're worried about players kicking their skates high in the air to remain onside, then just amend the existing rule to say that if any portion of the player's torso (from his shoulders to his hips) is above the blue line, he is considered on-side regardless of whether or not his trailing skate is in contact with the ice. That would solve the problem without giving a player any incentive to kick his leg up high.

[powderjunkie]

Agree - although it would need to be written that skate still on ice doesn't need torso...And the torso thing would probably be tougher to call in real time.

[Calgary4LIfe]

In thinking about how to make the regular season feel more like the playoffs, how about this idea? It doesn't sound so crazy in my head, but neither do the 8 or 9 voices (the ones I know about) that live there:

To start the season, get all the Eastern vs Western conference games out of the way. All of them. I guess this may mean extended road trips - no idea how the logistics side of this goes, but play those games first.

The next bulk of the season is focused on playing outside your division, but within the conference.

Finally, the grind to the post season involves playing divisional opponents only.

I am sure this is too difficult to do logistically, and I also do think that perhaps it may be a little boring for casual fans not wanting to see a bunch of games like Vancouver versus Arizona at the end of the season, but this would make teams play a more 'playoff-like' game, I think.

It will more than likely never happen, and I am sure there are many challenges that I haven't thought about, but there are definitely some benefits. Increased hatred and rivalry between teams is something that has waned in the past years, and I think it is specifically because of not having rivals impact you as often in your success.

For me as a fan, there are no better games than two teams that are bitter rivals and really hate each other. Those are the most fun games to watch. Probably not feasible - and probably has other drawbacks that I am not thinking of - but boy would the end of the season be really interesting as teams can catch one another and flip-flop places, and teams have to ramp up their play to make the playoffs when they keep facing the same sets of rivals.

[sureLoss]

Summary of today:

Swedish Hockey to NHL - keep prospects in Sweden
Pierre LeBrun‏ @Real_ESPNLeBrun
Swedish officials had a polite but clear message for GMs today: leave their young players in Sweden to develop. They don't want them in AHL

Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun
There are some 50 or so Swedish players in the AHL and what the Swedish officials told GMs is that they're better off developing at home


GMs want to keep expansion protection lists private (no surprise)
Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun
The NHL also discussed with GMs whether or not they would reveal each team's protected list ahead of expansion draft. GMs said No. (con't)

Pierre LeBrun‏ @Real_ESPNLeBrun
So unless it changes, appears league won't make public each team's protected list in June.

Pierre LeBrun‏Verified account @Real_ESPNLeBrun
@Real_ESPNLeBrun but again, no final decision on this, although certainly league got the GMs stated feedback on it


Daly provides a salary cap update, but really it all depends on whether the NHLPA uses the escalator
Frank Seravallit @frank_seravalli
Update given to #NHL GMs on salary cap was possibility of a $2-3 million increase for 2017-18, depending inflator negotiation with #NHLPA.

Frank Seravalli‏ @frank_seravalli
Of course, that's all dependent on revenue generated. Most GMs are still operating under assumption of a flat cap for next year to be safe.

GMs recommend to eliminate the ability for a coach to call a timeout after icing
Frank Seravalli‏t @frank_seravalli
#NHL GMs are recommending to Competition Committee to remove the ability for a coach to call a timeout following an icing.

[Locke]

The Union is going to use their escalator again? No way!

[powderjunkie]

No timeout after icing is interesting. I'm sure we'll just see more broken sticks and sudden skate issues to stall...they should also get the linesman to just drop the puck when that gets pulled.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

GMs want to keep expansion protection lists private (no surprise)
Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun
The NHL also discussed with GMs whether or not they would reveal each team's protected list ahead of expansion draft. GMs said No. (con't)

Pierre LeBrun‏ @Real_ESPNLeBrun
So unless it changes, appears league won't make public each team's protected list in June.

Pierre LeBrun‏Verified account @Real_ESPNLeBrun
@Real_ESPNLeBrun but again, no final decision on this, although certainly league got the GMs stated feedback on it

Is the idea that the GM's don't want their protection lists to ever be made public or that they don't want them public until the off season?

I suppose some GMs wouldn't certain players to know they weren't protected. Maybe never knowing who was and wasn't protected (except for the players chosen obviously) might be for the better in the long run?