Fix what's obviously broken, NHL needs more goals

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm in the camp that does want to see an increase in scoring but thinks the only way it should be accomplished is to actually call the damned penalties when they occur. Post-2005-Lockout hockey when average goals per game were closer to 6 than 5. Clear hooking, holding, interference and diving calls are routinely let go, as they were in the dead puck era. Make the calls, play style will adjust to avoid being penalized, and the game will open up more.

Particularly interference call standards could be easily adjusted. Simply put, you cannot impede a guy who chips the puck by you and then goes after it. This is routine - winger chips puck in at the line, defenseman runs into him and holds him up. Not called because winger just had possession. But unless it's a bodycheck, it's the absolute definition of what should be considered interference.

One specific rule change I might consider would be changing icing, so that you're required not just to touch the puck on the attacking side of the red line, but actually have possession of the puck. Taking out the red line was supposed to increase game speed but has instead resulted in a tactic of firing the puck off a forward's stick at the blue line. Then the defending team retrieves and fires it the other way. It's just created longer-range dump ins.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Goals are fun to watch, especially goals scored off the rush. It's exciting and entertaining. I watch hockey to be entertained.

I agree. But my enjoyment and satisfaction with a game is almost never connected to how many goals were scored. Goals are fun, but great plays that don't end up in the net are very often even more exciting than those that do.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When games are close teams play too conservative. They don't take any chances and hope for a lucky deflection or rebound. I find that boring.

This is also true, but this is not something that is ever going to change. No matter what the League decides to do to increase scoring, NHL coaches are too smart to not figure out new ways to reduce opposing offensive chances.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

...I'll turn it back on you:

Are you absolutely content with the NHL today?
Compared to other eras, do you prefer today's game above all?
Do you see any way the NHL game could be improved?

No. I'm not absolutely content. I do believe that goaltenders' equipment should be reduced in size, and I also would like to see a more consistent level of officiating, and less game management.

However, I also think that the quality of the game is better today than it has ever been, and yes, I do prefer today's game above that from any era I have experienced. I have been watching hockey since 1979.

Like I have said above and elsewhere, the players are bigger, stronger, and faster. They are MUCH more skilled and MUCH better conditioned. Teams are comprised of elite level athletes at every position through all four lines and three defense pairings, and the goalies in today's NHL as a group are universally stellar compared to those from eras past. The game is coached at an exceptionally higher level than at any time in history, and there is more parity throughout the League than ever before. All these things make for an incredibly competitive brand.

And yes, while this year's finals was a bit of a disappointment, I do not believe this is necessarily the product of a trend connected to reduced scoring. Last year's playoffs were sensational, and even though it was a lockout season, the 2013 playoffs were also very good. Maybe this year was just an off year? They will happen. Having said that, what is better in every season of the current modern era compared to years past is the overall quality of the game from October through April. EVERY GAME is played in today's age like it means something, and this is quite different from the days when many teams coasted through the first half of the season to make the playoffs.

So, here is maybe the root of the problem as you see it. I think the Finals this year was played the way it was because both teams were just so dog-tired. And that is the price to be paid for a full nine months of competitive, meaningful hockey.

[Sport Psych]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Particularly interference call standards could be easily adjusted. Simply put, you cannot impede a guy who chips the puck by you and then goes after it. This is routine - winger chips puck in at the line, defenseman runs into him and holds him up. Not called because winger just had possession. But unless it's a bodycheck, it's the absolute definition of what should be considered interference.

I have heard the argument that more injuries would occur to defenseman if some type of impedence/interference isn't allowed (e.g., puck is dumped in and the forward gets to take what essentially amounts to a free shot at the defenseman who has to play the puck). With quality defenseman at a premium these days, teams don't want them going down with injuries/concussions/etc.. I don't know if I agree with this argument, but it is definitely one I've heard from folks in the game.

For me, the most frustrating aspect of today's NHL is the amount of blocked shots that occur in the attacking zone. I have no clue as to how to limit this (and really, this is an example of improved team/system play, so logically it is difficult for me to argue against it), but I wish we could cut it back a bit.

And yes, I've just agreed with Howie Meeker for maybe the first time in my life!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, here is maybe the root of the problem as you see it. I think the Finals this year was played the way it was because both teams were just so dog-tired. And that is the price to be paid for a full nine months of competitive, meaningful hockey.

I agree that fatigue was probably the biggest reason for the lacklustre Finals (and the reason most Finals are anti-climactic). The fix for that is a 70 or 65 game regular season, but that will never happen.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, here is maybe the root of the problem as you see it. I think the Finals this year was played the way it was because both teams were just so dog-tired. And that is the price to be paid for a full nine months of competitive, meaningful hockey.

I don't buy the "tired" excuse as the six games of the final series was played over 13 days which is akin to a regular season schedule. I do believe that nagging injuries played a role but honestly there's no way you can watch that hockey and see anything else but two teams playing chess in hopes of getting a lead and hanging on for the win.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't buy the "tired" excuse as the six games of the final series was played over 13 days which is akin to a regular season schedule.

Well, by that time it doesn't really even matter. Any reasonable number of days' rest is not going to result in an instant return to full capacity for the players who have been playing at that level for over 100 games already.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I do believe that nagging injuries played a role but honestly there's no way you can watch that hockey and see anything else but two teams playing chess in hopes of getting a lead and hanging on for the win.

Semantics. And the "chess-match" method of play in these instances is not going to change simply because the League might introduce measures to increase scoring. Coaches are still going to coach the game however they can to limit and reduce offensive chances for the opposing team.

[afc wimbledon]

I always thought changing the offside rule so that the play is only stopped if the off side player actually touches the puck, and let the puck carrier come in any way they can, in front of or at the side of the puck.

I'd let an offside player drive to the net to clear a path for the puck carrier in theory.