Goalie size is a problem, but I think the bigger issue at hand is still the rules that cause the game to be played in a very boring way. Purposely giving up possession by dumping the puck because the neutral zone is all clogged up with bodies and sticks then have to chase the puck down absolutely kills the entertainment value of this league. Is there any other sport in the world where this type of strategy (dumping and chasing) reigns supreme? Purposely giving up possession in hopes you can create a turnover from the other side and score? What kind of game is this?
It would be the equivalent of an NFL quarterback purposely throwing an interception, then the players of the opposing team chase down the receiver of the ball until it’s turned over so that they can score a touchdown. What an ugly sport NHL hockey can be at times. So much more potential than what it currently is.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Classic_Sniper For This Useful Post:
Goalie size is a problem, but I think the bigger issue at hand is still the rules that cause the game to be played in a very boring way. Purposely giving up possession by dumping the puck because the neutral zone is all clogged up with bodies and sticks then have to chase the puck down absolutely kills the entertainment value of this league. Is there any other sport in the world where this type of strategy (dumping and chasing) reigns supreme? Purposely giving up possession in hopes you can create a turnover from the other side and score? What kind of game is this?
It would be the equivalent of an NFL quarterback purposely throwing an interception, then the players of the opposing team chase down the receiver of the ball until it’s turned over so that they can score a touchdown. What an ugly sport NHL hockey can be at times. So much more potential than what it currently is.
That's a type of change that could help increase the pace and excitement of the game. Eliminating escape options that don't generally lead to any type of event or consequence is on the right page I feel. Dump and chase hockey is boring. If icing is extended to the opposing team blueline, it'll force teams to have to hold on to the puck more, and bring it into the attacking zone, or be pressured enough that it leads to turnovers that result in more odd man rushes.
That's a type of change that could help increase the pace and excitement of the game. Eliminating escape options that don't generally lead to any type of event or consequence is on the right page I feel. Dump and chase hockey is boring. If icing is extended to the opposing team blueline, it'll force teams to have to hold on to the puck more, and bring it into the attacking zone, or be pressured enough that it leads to turnovers that result in more odd man rushes.
I was thinking more so about deleting translational offsides. The current offside rule allows the neutral zone trap to absolutely thrive.
Goalie size is a problem, but I think the bigger issue at hand is still the rules that cause the game to be played in a very boring way. Purposely giving up possession by dumping the puck because the neutral zone is all clogged up with bodies and sticks then have to chase the puck down absolutely kills the entertainment value of this league. Is there any other sport in the world where this type of strategy (dumping and chasing) reigns supreme? Purposely giving up possession in hopes you can create a turnover from the other side and score? What kind of game is this?
It would be the equivalent of an NFL quarterback purposely throwing an interception, then the players of the opposing team chase down the receiver of the ball until it’s turned over so that they can score a touchdown. What an ugly sport NHL hockey can be at times. So much more potential than what it currently is.
For long time the NBA outlawed zone defence.
That said, dump and chase can be pretty exciting if it’s done with vigour and hitting. More so that puck possession into a crowd of players causing you to give the puck away.
Goalie size is a problem, but I think the bigger issue at hand is still the rules that cause the game to be played in a very boring way. Purposely giving up possession by dumping the puck because the neutral zone is all clogged up with bodies and sticks then have to chase the puck down absolutely kills the entertainment value of this league. Is there any other sport in the world where this type of strategy (dumping and chasing) reigns supreme? Purposely giving up possession in hopes you can create a turnover from the other side and score? What kind of game is this?
It would be the equivalent of an NFL quarterback purposely throwing an interception, then the players of the opposing team chase down the receiver of the ball until it’s turned over so that they can score a touchdown. What an ugly sport NHL hockey can be at times. So much more potential than what it currently is.
Sergei Makarov thought this was the dumbest thing ever in hockey.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to redforever For This Useful Post:
I like Scotty's idea of moving the goal line back out to at least 13ft from the end boards...I'd be interested to even see it at 15ft.
For offsides, I'd let one O player be free to enter the zone freely anywhere/anytime, but he only remains onside if a teammate skates the puck in (or the defending team brings it backwards). If the puck gets dumped in, he has to tag up. It would unclog the line a little bit and incentivize possession.
For icing and over the glass, I've always wanted a cumulative penalty system (like basketball). The first 3 (or 4 or 5) in a period are treated as usual (no line-change), but every time over the limit is a penalty.
Of course in my fantasy-commissioner-land I'd have 1, 3, and 5 minute penalties while calling general obstruction far more tightly (1 mins), and penalizing dangerous play/D-zone infractions more harshly (3 mins)
That said, dump and chase can be pretty exciting if it’s done with vigour and hitting. More so that puck possession into a crowd of players causing you to give the puck away.
I don’t mind some dump and chase. But it can’t be your breakfast, lunch and dinner. Some games end up 90% dumping and chasing where one team dumps it in, other team retrieves, then dumps, retrieves, dump, retrieve, dump. It’s basically watching paint dry.
Like watching a football game without passing, just 3 straight run plays, 3 and out. Punt, 3 run plays, punt. Just not exciting if it’s too predictable. Gotta mix it up more. The NHL needs to find a way to kill the trap because there’s more competition for entertainment dollars then ever before and the younger generations aren’t going to be dazzled by 50-60 minutes of dumping and chasing for a 1-0 final score.
They should penalize defending teams that don't attack the puck carrier.
Delay of game.
There was a clip on youtube a few years ago of Philly vs Tampa where Pronger just held the puck in his own zone and Tampa just sat at the blueline and waited. Eventually the ref just blew the play dead and they had a faceoff. It was an embarrassing display.
If you force the defending team to actively attack the puck carrier, you lessen the trap to some extent. It either creates a turnover for the defending team or opens up space for the puck carrying team to make a play.
They should penalize defending teams that don't attack the puck carrier.
Delay of game.
There was a clip on youtube a few years ago of Philly vs Tampa where Pronger just held the puck in his own zone and Tampa just sat at the blueline and waited. Eventually the ref just blew the play dead and they had a faceoff. It was an embarrassing display.
If you force the defending team to actively attack the puck carrier, you lessen the trap to some extent. It either creates a turnover for the defending team or opens up space for the puck carrying team to make a play.
It's not like teams aren't forechecking at all. There's usually always at least on skater on the puck carrier to force them up the ice. But when they are trying to defend the lead in the later stages of the game, then they generally do take a more a more "come to me" approach.
Maybe something as drastic as eliminating offsides once the puck cross centre ice can help in reducing the effect of trap hockey.
Maybe something as drastic as eliminating offsides once the puck cross centre ice can help in reducing the effect of trap hockey.
That's an interesting idea, I'd love to see how it works. I guess one question is whether you have to tag up if the puck exits the blue line or not. I'd be interested to see the effect of treating the red line as the zone exit line...
That's an interesting idea, I'd love to see how it works. I guess one question is whether you have to tag up if the puck exits the blue line or not. I'd be interested to see the effect of treating the red line as the zone exit line...
Guys would get tired and lose their gaps, and teams would capitalize in transition.
You’d still have to gain the blue line, then after that, the defense has to advance it over the red line to clear the zone.
One effect of this would possibly be a reduction in icings, since they have to cross centre to clear the zone anyway.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
That's an interesting idea, I'd love to see how it works. I guess one question is whether you have to tag up if the puck exits the blue line or not. I'd be interested to see the effect of treating the red line as the zone exit line...
How I envision it is once the puck crosses the centre line, then the team has entered the attack zone. This allows for players to be ahead of the puck carrier on the breakout when entering the zone. By having this, it gives players more speed and flexibility with dumping and chasing, and the play can function more like an alley-oop, rather than a desperate attempt to get the puck forward.
Another component of this is that since it expands the attack zone, that the puck attacking team has more of the zone to use, and don't have to be concerned with blueline pressure since it wouldn't be a thing anymore. The centre line is now the new offside line when the puck is in the zone. With this, it'll encourage more skating and puck handling; especially on the power play. The NHL may never want to adopt international size ice due to the loss of seats, but this possibly could open up the ice more than that could. With that happening, it could force the defense to be more aggressive in defense since the attack zone won't be as compact anymore, thus collapsing isn't as effective anymore since they'll be defending against players that can be attacking with movement and speed.
I also thing that in the event of this rule change, offsides should be treated the same as icing. You cannot make a line change if you cause the violation.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
How I envision it is once the puck crosses the centre line, then the team has entered the attack zone. This allows for players to be ahead of the puck carrier on the breakout when entering the zone. By having this, it gives players more speed and flexibility with dumping and chasing, and the play can function more like an alley-oop, rather than a desperate attempt to get the puck forward.
Another component of this is that since it expands the attack zone, that the puck attacking team has more of the zone to use, and don't have to be concerned with blueline pressure since it wouldn't be a thing anymore. The centre line is now the new offside line when the puck is in the zone. With this, it'll encourage more skating and puck handling; especially on the power play. The NHL may never want to adopt international size ice due to the loss of seats, but this possibly could open up the ice more than that could. With that happening, it could force the defense to be more aggressive in defense since the attack zone won't be as compact anymore, thus collapsing isn't as effective anymore since they'll be defending against players that can be attacking with movement and speed.
I also thing that in the event of this rule change, offsides should be treated the same as icing. You cannot make a line change if you cause the violation.
It's not like teams aren't forechecking at all. There's usually always at least on skater on the puck carrier to force them up the ice. But when they are trying to defend the lead in the later stages of the game, then they generally do take a more a more "come to me" approach.
Maybe something as drastic as eliminating offsides once the puck cross centre ice can help in reducing the effect of trap hockey.
There was some experiments done a few years back prior to the new NHL where once a team gained the blue line, the offensive zone would extend to center ice.
I'd like to see that one in practice as teams that get clogged up a bit in the zone have more room to circle back and reset the attack. Even if the D pinches down at the hash marks you can still keep the pressure on by regaining the puck outside the blue line.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
The Following User Says Thank You to Sylvanfan For This Useful Post:
It's less about the number of goals, and more about the style of goals. The idea is that right now too many of the goals are "dirty". Lucky bounces, screens, deflections, and what not. These are not sexy, and don't make good highlight reels that will attract new fans. They want to increase the number of scoring opportunities. Big shots, big plays, and big saves are exciting.
The theory goes that, because goalies are so good and so big relative to the net, they don't have to move much to make most saves. This encourages the players to bunch up in front of the net to make the goalie's life harder. If you instead increase the size of the net, or decrease pad size, players will have an easier time scoring from further out. The goalie can't just stop all shots by being big, there are corners to pick. Now instead of focusing on clearing out the front of the net, the d has to pressure the shooters, which opens things up for more passing opportunities, and more scoring chances.
I have no idea how this would actually work in practice, but it's the reason this is a conversation. looking for ways to broaden the hockey audience by increasing high skill plays.
Does anyone really think the number of nice goals is tied to the size of goalie equipment? If you trimm the padding, goals total will increase, but most of them would be a double deflected blue line wrister, because a goalie is not gonna be big enough to save the shot he does not see.
Does anyone really think the number of nice goals is tied to the size of goalie equipment? If you trimm the padding, goals total will increase, but most of them would be a double deflected blue line wrister, because a goalie is not gonna be big enough to save the shot he does not see.
It should also increase goals from the breakaways, depending on how they limit the pads. Many of the saves are just due to the goalie being able to span from post to post, if the length of the pads were limited, either the five hole, or the corners should open up.
Also, if you trim the width, the puck doesn't need to be lifted as high, or from as far out by the shooter.
Finally, the chest protector, if made more form fitting, would allow less absorption of the shots, for more rebounds, and should make more/bigger holes when the goalie moves his arms to cover the corners.
Does anyone really think the number of nice goals is tied to the size of goalie equipment? If you trimm the padding, goals total will increase, but most of them would be a double deflected blue line wrister, because a goalie is not gonna be big enough to save the shot he does not see.
I think the idea is that currently no one even tries the exciting shots because the goalies cover so much area. So we have created a league where only garbage screen deflection goals generate offense. If forwards had a realistic chance at getting it through the pads, maybe they start shooting more off he rush and at down low angles instead of just the same get it deep then work it back out to the D for a shot from the point and hope there is enough traffic to get one to bounce through.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
The Following User Says Thank You to dobbles For This Useful Post:
