Dryden: Goalies are too big

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

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.

That actually isn't a bad alternative since it should allow for more attack zone pressure being persisted.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

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.

I think it would also facilitate more shot attempts, as you'd have a better chance at recovering the puck if it misses the net and rings around the boards.

Originally Posted by Joborule

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.

I'd like it if players can cross the centre line before the puck, but not the attacking blue line until the puck is across centre (I think this is what you're saying, but others seem to be saying traditional blue-line entry and then the zone expands). Obviously this would become much harder for the linesmen to call, but I'd go a step further in 'penalizing' offside by sending the faceoff back to your own dot without a change. I think you could treat it a lot looser, as they currently do with dumping the puck in near the centre line...and it should not be reviewable. The harsher penalty should keep players honest.

Originally Posted by gamesaver

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 we'd see more shot attempts + more shots on goal with rebounds as opposed to trying for the perfect pass or picking the corner (and missing the net)

[dobbles]

I've asked this before and don't recall getting much feedback.

Why do we need a blue line? It seems a lot of the congestion in todays game has to do with gaining and clearing the zone. Would the game benefit from just getting rid of it? One downside I could see is without the blue line to slow things down the game would potentially get faster and more dangerous of the players.

But really, if we want to open up creativity and excitement, why not just truly open up the ice? Didn't getting rid of the two line pass do great things for offense?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I've asked this before and don't recall getting much feedback.

Why do we need a blue line? It seems a lot of the congestion in todays game has to do with gaining and clearing the zone. Would the game benefit from just getting rid of it? One downside I could see is without the blue line to slow things down the game would potentially get faster and more dangerous of the players.

But really, if we want to open up creativity and excitement, why not just truly open up the ice? Didn't getting rid of the two line pass do great things for offense?

Wouldn't getting rid of the blue line also eliminate off-sides altogether? I can't even imagine how this would work.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wouldn't getting rid of the blue line also eliminate off-sides altogether? I can't even imagine how this would work.

You could use the red line for offsides. So just two zones instead of three. Might eliminate all that useless neutral zone play.

I kind of like the idea, personally.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You could use the red line for offsides. So just two zones instead of three. Might eliminate all that useless neutral zone play.

I kind of like the idea, personally.

It looks like chaos in my mind. I cannot picture whether this would make the game unrelentingly fast, or if it would slow it down more significantly. I could see either happening.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It looks like chaos in my mind. I cannot picture whether this would make the game unrelentingly fast, or if it would slow it down more significantly. I could see either happening.

I bet it would do both, like 3v3.

Teams would play keep away for stretches and try to press their advantage. The defense would have to be patient and stay with them.

As soon as one guy misses one pass, or fires it wide, and now you’re in a track meet.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wouldn't getting rid of the blue line also eliminate off-sides altogether? I can't even imagine how this would work.

Yeah, no offsides at all. If someone wants to cherry pick, let em at it.

[Joborule]

I thought about just simply making the centre ice line the only line of concern, but my main concern is that it could turn the game into a lob fest where you keep a centre cherry picking instead of keeping up within the play somewhat. That's why I like the blueline to still have some purpose when breaking out to keep the players honest. It's kind of adopting the soccer offside rule where you can't be behind the last defender when a trailing teammate has possession.

Another borrow from other spot idea that I'm not sure of one way or the other, is you could use the centre court rule in basketball, where once the puck cross centre ice, you cannot enter back into your half of the ice with possession. Doing so will be like icing with a faceoff in your own zone. I was thinking of this with no blueline offside at all, which I'm not a fan of as for reasons I explained in the above paragraph. So I would prefer blueline offsides to be in place in some form for entry, but I'm not sure how well this could play out with how chaotic the neutral zone can be without encouraging too much dumping and chasing. Maybe once the puck crosses the blue line, then the centre line becomes no man zone for the attacking team. This would add an element where teams have to be more careful with their passes that are towards the point area.

[Monahammer]

Yyou could do that and increase roster size slightly to accommodate for all the extra skating (IMO there would be a lot of extra skating...) Increase lineups to have 8 D men (where the brunt of the extra skating would fall) and 2 extra forward spots.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It looks like chaos in my mind. I cannot picture whether this would make the game unrelentingly fast, or if it would slow it down more significantly. I could see either happening.

One thing we can probably be sure of is that is that a coach or coaches will in time figure out a way to defend it, stymie offenses, and the cycle will continue.

[CroFlames]

When last I looked, hockey doesn't have a problem that requires these ridiculous changes being proposed.

Remove the trapezoid, make goalie gear a little smaller. Voila.

[Geeoff]

I feel like removing the blue line would have the opposite effect as intended. Would make it pretty easy to trap IMO

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

When last I looked, hockey doesn't have a problem that requires these ridiculous changes being proposed.

Remove the trapezoid, make goalie gear a little smaller. Voila.

Why?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why?

Because it’s friggen stupid.

There’s like five goalies at any given time who are actually good with the puck, and every goalie thinks he’s one of them.

If the goalie wants to run out into the corner and try to make a stretch pass, let him. It’s a puck race.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Because it’s friggen stupid.

There’s like five goalies at any given time who are actually good with the puck, and every goalie thinks he’s one of them.

If the goalie wants to run out into the corner and try to make a stretch pass, let him. It’s a puck race.

But more than 90% of those passes would not be attempted stretch-passes, they would be easy handovers to the nearest defenseman. The whole point of the trapezoid in the first place was to help eliminate easy zone clearances by removing the goalie from the equation. For the most part, it has worked by increasing the number of board battles in the offensive zone.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Because it’s friggen stupid.

There’s like five goalies at any given time who are actually good with the puck, and every goalie thinks he’s one of them.

If the goalie wants to run out into the corner and try to make a stretch pass, let him. It’s a puck race.

I’d add that goalies are dumb and encouraging them to wander that far from the net will only lead to more mistakes and offensive chances.

It’s glorious watching them make blunders.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I’d add that goalies are dumb and encouraging them to wander that far from the net will only lead to more mistakes and offensive chances.

It’s glorious watching them make blunders.

It’s high comedy.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

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.

Originally Posted by Joborule

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.

There's an easier solution, which is to just require that players get possession of the puck in order for it not to be icing. The cause of this is that when they took out the two line pass, instead of encouraging breakaways as it was hoped, defencemen just ring the puck around for a tip-in.

Anyway, Dryden is right. Nets 6 inches wider, 4 inches taller, reduce the chest pad a bit to address the "suddenly higher shoulders" thing, and you'll barely be able to tell on the broadcast.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There's an easier solution, which is to just require that players get possession of the puck in order for it not to be icing. The cause of this is that when they took out the two line pass, instead of encouraging breakaways as it was hoped, defencemen just ring the puck around for a tip-in.

Anyway, Dryden is right. Nets 6 inches wider, 4 inches taller, reduce the chest pad a bit to address the "suddenly higher shoulders" thing, and you'll barely be able to tell on the broadcast.

This will make it essentially impossible to dump to the back corners as an attacking team during the breakout I take it? The defenseman when skating back would be close enough to the icing line (hashmarks) that it should always result in icing. Instead, they would have to do the dumping at the blue line, or do more lobs that don't cross the icing line instead.