PDA

View Full Version : possible NHL rule changes



canuckthug
04-11-2010, 03:25 PM
I watched Don Cherry's weekly rant yesterday (akaCoach's Corner) and that got me thinking..Some things GOT TO Change. I would personally enforce 3 things ASAP.

1.First off, nobody has been preaching the no-touch icing like Don Cherry. That rule must come into effect. Hes right, somebody is gonna die. Its gonna happen. It can be avoided. Players skate at 35 km/h ( read that somewhere) and one bad slip into the boards could break the neck, insta death. :dead: RIP. [see youtube Don cherry rant below]

2. The loser point. You want a loser point, play 65 minutes. Both teams get 1 point. Its a tie just like old days and that was cool. If you lose in OT, guess what, you fuckin lost the game and should get ZERO points! If the league feels the need to keep the skills competition (the shootout) to settle the game, then so be it. It helps sell the game, it can be exciting and doesn't change the current structure.

3.Delay of game penalty. I fuckin hate this rule as it stands. I say change this rule to 3 strikes your out. If you clear the puck in your own zone 3 times in a single game, your team will be awarded a 2 minute delay of game penalty. Thats the true meaning of delay of game!!! Your team did it 3 times, accident or not, you will be punished because your slowing the game down. This "slight change" in the rule will still deter players from delibrately wasting time in a game. I dont have a problem if a team does it 1 or twice to get a stoppage or change up a tired line. It can be used as strategy, plus it gives a lucky fan a puck and me a chance to grab a cold beer. No big deal, Just don't do it 3 times. I personally cannot accept a team losing a game on those calls. Can you imagine a Stanley Cup game or huge playoff game getting decided by this rule the way it stands. DISGUSTING. [see Rick Nash video at 4:50 getting this called on him in OT in a HUGE Russia vs Canada battle.] Canada lost the game in overtime, gimme a fucking break Bettman.

I started this thread to see what needs tweaking or is the game fine the way it is??

YouTube- Coach's Corner CBC - Don Cherry March 22 2008

YouTube- Hockey World Cup Championship 2008 Final Canada vs. Russia

MrScientist
04-11-2010, 03:30 PM
No touch icing - Absolutely.

Ditch the loser point - Just make regulation wins worth three points and maintain the two and one. For those that say a win shouldn't be lessened - maybe you should have won in regulation then.

Delay of game penalty - It's ticky tack, yes, but three strikes is far too much, how often do you see a team get more than two in a game? I say take the minor penalty out - just don't allow the offending team to change, just like the icing rule.

Zangetsu
04-11-2010, 03:32 PM
I agree on the first point. No touch icing was used during the Olympics, and I don't think anybody other than the most diehard hockey fans even noticed. It doesn't change the game all that much, and it eliminates one of the most dangerous plays.

The second point sounds great in theory, but you'd see very few games decided in OT under that rule. There would be little reason for a team to try to finish the game in OT when they can guarantee themselves a point by playing for the shootout.

I am still a proponent of the 3, 2, 1, 0 system where a regulation win would be worth three points, an OT/SO win would be worth two, an OT/SO loss would be worth one, and a regulation loss would be worth zero.

I don't have a problem with the delay of game rule as it is now.

keyboard
04-11-2010, 03:43 PM
Would have preferred being able to select more than one option. Get rid of the point for losing in OT and SO. You can see in games teams playing for the tie to ensure a point. Fuck that, leave everything on the ice. Go for the win all the time. Incentives for ties takes away from the game. Winner takes all.

Personally, I'd also like to change the hand pass rule in the defensive zone being blown dead and a faceoff. Sick of seeing teams under pressure throwing the puck around like it was curling. Actually, make it a delay of game penalty. Use your stick and feet, not your hands. Want to use your hands? Go play basketball.

No instigator penalty. This is a sport for tough guys, don't make it for pussies by sending players off for doing what is right.

Change the instant replay rule for calls once the whistle is blown. Right now it's not reviewable, and that's just retarded.

Make headshots a 5 minute major and game misconduct. Also there should be reviews of headshots like there are for goals.

Use the Olympic shootout style where you can repeat shooters. I don't want to see goons and big defensemen pretending like they know what they are doing.

Kyle
04-11-2010, 03:45 PM
I have no issue with the delay of game rule as it is. Nash was a fucktard, that was the issue. He had no reason whatsoever to throw that puck away like that. Players don't need any more help on defense than they get already, I like that they don't get the option to just toss it away and actually have to make a calculated clear (or uncalculated and risk a bad turnover).



This is more a statistic, but no shutout awarded for a shootout win. You don't get a goal awarded when you score, so nothing should be recorded for the goalie either.


What are you talking about? Shootouts have absolute zilch to do with shutouts. You get a shutout for surviving through OT with 0 goals allowed. Thats why Ellis and Howard both got a shutout when Detroit beat Nashville 1-0 in a shootout a week or two ago.

Why on Earth should a goalie not get a shutout recorded for not allowing a goal for 65 minutes?

alias
04-11-2010, 03:48 PM
1. agree 100% on the no touch icing

2. I've been saying for a long time the NHL should adopt the same point system as the NBA/MLB, you only count wins and losses, none of the OT bullshit points, but keep the OT format the way it is. 4 on 4 for 5 minutes and a shootout. No need to have the playoff version of OT in the regular season.

3. As for the delay of game penalty I like it the way it is. It takes no skill or endurance to clear the puck over the glass. I don't mind the idea of being penalized for being lazy.

HABS_FrEaK
04-11-2010, 03:49 PM
This is more a statistic, but no shutout awarded for a shootout win. You don't get a goal awarded when you score, so nothing should be recorded for the goalie either.


What? That's ridiculous!

If a goalie goes 65 minutes without letting in a goal he should definitely be awarded a shutout. When There was 0 - 0 ties back in the day they both had shutouts so why not after a SO.


Also I would go with only win-loss system but I would like to see the OT go 10 minutes instead of 5. I don't mind the shootout but I would like to see fewer.

two24four
04-11-2010, 03:57 PM
I also agree on the no touch icing, it's needs to be in the NHL. They have had the no touch icing in Jr hockey now for a few years, and it's worked out just fine.

keyboard
04-11-2010, 04:19 PM
What are you talking about? Shootouts have absolute zilch to do with shutouts. You get a shutout for surviving through OT with 0 goals allowed. Thats why Ellis and Howard both got a shutout when Detroit beat Nashville 1-0 in a shootout a week or two ago.

Why on Earth should a goalie not get a shutout recorded for not allowing a goal for 65 minutes?Oh, I didn't realize both goalies got awarded SHOs. Nevermind then. Before, when there was only OT and the game ended in a 0-0 tie, did both goalies get SHOs?

Kyle
04-11-2010, 04:22 PM
I would guess yes but couldn't say for sure.

Zangetsu
04-11-2010, 04:33 PM
If we can't have the 3,2,1,0 points system, I'll agree that the next best thing would be to eliminate the loser's point altogether.

alias
04-11-2010, 04:48 PM
If we can't have the 3,2,1,0 points system, I'll agree that the next best thing would be to eliminate the loser's point altogether.

I think that just makes it more complicated, especially to new fans of the game. Simplification is the best thing here IMO. Wins & losses. Nothing else.

canuckthug
04-11-2010, 07:01 PM
Would have preferred being able to select more than one option.
I missed that part making the poll. Option could have been there, didnt see it, didnt really look- my bad.


I don't have a problem with the delay of game rule as it is now.


As for the delay of game penalty I like it the way it is. It takes no skill or endurance to clear the puck over the glass. I don't mind the idea of being penalized for being lazy.

Was Nash being Lazy!?! I havent looked at it too closely and its blurry but i bet the puck was rolling.


I have no issue with the delay of game rule as it is. Nash was a fucktard, that was the issue. He had no reason whatsoever to throw that puck away like that. Players don't need any more help on defense than they get already, I like that they don't get the option to just toss it away and actually have to make a calculated clear (or uncalculated and risk a bad turnover).

Yeah, what a fitting way to end a game. :rolleyes: He was very close to the blue line trying to get to the puck first and evade the defender at the same time. He had to adjust his stance and flipped it too hard. It wasnt a good flip but im pretty sure he wanted to flip it more towards centre ice. I agree it was a bonehead play (i wouldnt call him a fucktard) but the team shouldn't pay that great a cost on a non-shady meaningless clear.

I cant wait to see the Cup won on a similar play. :no::suicide:
My argument is I've seen that penalty being called on players who try to make the "smart calculated clear" off the glass/boards but the fuckin puck starts rolling.



Delay of game penalty - It's ticky tack, yes, but three strikes is far too much, how often do you see a team get more than two in a game? I say take the minor penalty out - just don't allow the offending team to change, just like the icing rule.


Id take your ruling in a heartbeat. If they still enforce the rule like you suggest, the play will still be regulated. They created this new rule for the sole purpose of increasing goals but when the puck is rolling. Is that really a penalty??

Hamsterkill
04-11-2010, 07:15 PM
When did they make a defensive zone hand pass a faceoff? I know it was allowed in the defensive zone only 2 years ago.

Cornholio
04-12-2010, 12:17 PM
The NHL has good enough refs for no touch icing.

In Germany, I HATE the no touch icing, because the refs / linesmen blow the whistle, even if the opposing / defending player tried to touch the puck or can pick up enough speed EASILY to get the puck before crossing the line. I've seen so many fuck ups this year and the past years, I would really want to go down on the ice and take them to task.
It sucks so bad, I tell ya!
If the refs / linesmen are good enough to "know" the rules, which they are in the NHL, the rule of NO touch icing is perfectly OK.

eykwingnut
04-12-2010, 12:40 PM
No touch icing - Absolutely.

Ditch the loser point - Just make regulation wins worth three points and maintain the two and one. For those that say a win shouldn't be lessened - maybe you should have won in regulation then.

Delay of game penalty - It's ticky tack, yes, but three strikes is far too much, how often do you see a team get more than two in a game? I say take the minor penalty out - just don't allow the offending team to change, just like the icing rule.
I agree with all 3 of these ideas.

However, I'd add that if you are going to have shootouts then there shouldn't even be a 5 minute overtime.

Also, get rid of the stupid goalie no-touch area.

Castanagy
04-12-2010, 12:51 PM
I agree with all 3 of these ideas.

However, I'd add that if you are going to have shootouts then there shouldn't even be a 5 minute overtime.

Also, get rid of the stupid goalie no-touch area.

I'm a fan of no touch icing. It's a dangerous play for very little reward 90% of the time.

The no touch area for goalies, however, is important imo. It allows teams to dump the puck in without letting the goalie get to it first. It definitely helps make the game more offensive.

Also, the more the goalie is out, the more likely he is going to get hit. Wearing all that gear, it can be easy to "accidentally" trip a goalie, steal the puck and score.

I know there are other reasons for the no goalie zone. I remember reading up on it when it first came out and it made sense to me.

Kyle
04-12-2010, 08:05 PM
Yeah, what a fitting way to end a game. :rolleyes: He was very close to the blue line trying to get to the puck first and evade the defender at the same time. He had to adjust his stance and flipped it too hard. It wasnt a good flip but im pretty sure he wanted to flip it more towards centre ice. I agree it was a bonehead play (i wouldnt call him a fucktard) but the team shouldn't pay that great a cost on a non-shady meaningless clear.


Yeah, I was being dramatic to make my point, the reasoning behind it is clearly there and fucktard is harsh but he really wasn't in a threatening situation. I can see where he thought he was but that comes down to poor awareness of what was going on on the ice which still falls on him. He freaked out when he didn't really have to.

I agree it sucks but at the end of the day it falls on Nash and not the rule. It just doesn't happen often enough for me to call that an issue.

eff1ngham
04-12-2010, 09:23 PM
No touch icing is fine. I used to kind of care but I'm past that. Icing is icing, I don't care what method they use. If it's safer for the players then I'm all for it now.

They really need to just go straight wins and loses. There's no reason that a team should get more points for winning a game in regulation, and there's no reason they should get any for losing a game. If you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. That's it

eykwingnut
04-12-2010, 09:45 PM
The no touch area for goalies, however, is important imo. It allows teams to dump the puck in without letting the goalie get to it first. It definitely helps make the game more offensive.
I understand the method behind it, I just think it's BS. Taking skills away from a player in a CERTAIN area of the ice is BS. IMO, that's like saying D-men can't go below the hash marks in the offensive zone...

Chilly_Willy
04-12-2010, 09:52 PM
no touch icing is a no brainer IMO.

Get rid of instigator rule

If you camp on the goalie you are fair game. I am tired of players like Holmstrom camping in front of the goalie and no one can do jack shit about it or server 2 minutes. If you are anywhere near the goalie I want to see heads roll. People need to earn their spot in front of the net. I like how the new rules have opened up the neutral zone and gaining the zone and the cycle but camping in front of the goalie is getting rediculous.

Would like to see the goalies play the puck again, I missed watching the greats control their zone.

Kyle
04-13-2010, 02:00 AM
I think what most people don't realize about the OT loss point is that one of the only ways to remove it is to get rid of shootouts which is not possible. You can't have shootouts and not give the loser a point because then you absolutely shit on anything legitimate about the competition in the league. A team like Detroit doesn't deserve to miss the playoffs because they suck ass at an element of the game that hasn't existed for more than five years. Expecting teams to build a hockey club around the fact that they basically have to do well in shootouts to make the playoffs is ridiculous and on the flipside the revenue lost by removing shootouts is also not something that the NHL could allow.

Shootouts are not legitimate enough to say the winning team deserved 2 points while the losing team deserved 0.

Though, I suppose one possible option would be reducing the points for a shootout win to just 1 and then 0 for the loser. That way teams are encouraged to push for a win by the end of OT, and also you don't have teams that do well in shootouts building such a dramatic gap between them and teams that don't do so well (The gap would be no different than it is now). OT wins remain 2 points and OT/shootout loses would be 0 Any thoughts? I get that you still have the inconvenience of the 1 point statistic but at least losing would never award a point.

HABS_FrEaK
04-13-2010, 01:51 PM
I disagree. Like it or not shootouts are part of the game now so yes a team should focus on getting some strong shootout players. Kind of like how teams go out and get PP specialists.

I know thats different because there are actual powerplays in the playoffs but you get my point. It's just ridiculous having some teams with fewer wins ranked higher in the standings.

Hockeyis#1
04-13-2010, 05:53 PM
I'm going to probably be the only one against no touch icing. I've seen numerous goals scored this year because someone raced back to beat the icing and it resulted in a goal a few seconds later. IIRC, no touch eliminates that possibility. Yes, I understand its dangerous and there have been serious injuries incurred from it. For the number of race to the end icings that occur, I'd bet the number of significant injuries is a very small %. Like airplane flights. You only hear about them when they crash into someone's house. Never the hundreds of millions that land safely.

No points for OT losers.

The delay of game rule is fine as it is, allowing no change wouldn't change the purpose of why teams do it. If there's relentless pressure in the defensive zone, stopping the pressure is the main priority, not the line change.

Oh, and the Olympic shootout rules too. I want to see the Crosby's and Datsyuk's of the world taking SO attempts. Not the Dan Carcillo's

phaneuf6
04-14-2010, 12:08 AM
No touch icing HAS to come in ASAP. It's way too dangerous as it is right now.

Kyle, I don't think removing the shootout would result in a loss of revenues for the NHL. You don't go to the game and pay for your ticket to see a shootout. Sure its a possibility but you're paying to watch 60 minutes of hockey. I do like your 1 point for a shootout win idea, but it wouldn't fly with the teams. Should you have to be 'punished' because you couldn't beat Miller in the 65 minutes (reg + OT)?

Kyle
04-14-2010, 12:23 AM
I agree, but ultimately above all else I just don't want a two point gap between a shootout winner and loser and quite frankly find that ridiculous. So if they can afford to drop shootouts im fine with it. But if they can't, then 2 for a win and 0 for a loss is not an option IMO, shootouts are not a legitimately competitive area of the game and that would totally fuck with the concept of getting the most competitive teams into the playoffs. Ultimately your overall quality as a team is in no way indicative of your quality in the shootout, thats why its not in the playoffs and its insane to put such heavy emphasis on having to win them durring the season.

two24four
04-14-2010, 12:25 AM
No touch icing HAS to come in ASAP. It's way too dangerous as it is right now.



Agreed 100%, just watch the Kurtis Foster video, that alone should make everyone want to change the icing rule.

eff1ngham
04-14-2010, 08:19 AM
shootouts are not a legitimately competitive area of the game and that would totally fuck with the concept of getting the most competitive teams into the playoffs.

Phoenix, LA, Boston, Pittsburgh and Chicago had the most shootout wins this year IIRC; I don't think there are more competitive teams out there that deserve to be in the playoffs

Kyle
04-14-2010, 08:28 AM
So because of this one single year we go ahead and put a ridiculous 2 point gap between SO wins and losses? Don't buy that for one second, thats just a terrible idea any way you look at it. If you want 0 points for an OT loss then get rid of SO's, if you want the SO then the 1 point loss will never go anywhere. SO with 0 point loss is just the worst possible compilation of ideas.

The point is very simple, teams that excel at the SO shouldn't have any more of an advantage than they do now. Why does Phoenix or LA deserve to be higher ranked than they are just because they excelled at shootouts when they're clearly among the bottom West playoff teams and among the least likely to actually take the cup home?

Theres always been many complaints about the competitive validity of shootouts, yet people would propose to give it an even bigger impact on the playoff picture? Pass

eff1ngham
04-14-2010, 08:57 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the shootout, but I'm less of a fan of getting points in the standings by losing a game. You get 60 + 5 to win the game before that. Good teams will win and make the playoffs, bad teams will lose and won't. I've seen games decided on flukey plays that are way less legitimate than a shootout, but sometimes shit happens

Kyle
04-14-2010, 09:08 AM
I've seen games decided on flukey plays that are way less legitimate than a shootout, but sometimes shit happens


Not 10+ games a year for EVERY single team in the league.

As of now no one really has said anything except "I don't like getting a point for losing." I don't see how anyone could disagree that the sport is much more balanced and competitive when giving two even teams (Hence why they're in OT duking it out in the first place) 1 point each and then the extra point to the winner, instead of making it a 2-0 gap over a bullshit and non-competitive area of the game, the shootout.

Like I said, if people want to get creative and think of a way around a 2 point gap in the SO, then I'd love to hear some ideas. All I could come up with was the 1 point SO win. But beyond all else it is simply a terrible idea to ever make a SO win 2 and a SO loss 0 and I can almost guarentee the NHL will never so much as entertain the thought as long as shootouts are part of the regular season because its immediately obvious that it negatively impacts the regular season standings.

Competitive balance comes before your guy's moral issues with getting a point for losing. I'm amazed that you'd all rather see a less competitive playoff scene just to not have to watch teams get a point for losing in OT or those joke shootouts durring the season.

And yes I realize that overall this really wouldn't effect the playoff picture that significantly every year, but why even take the chance of screwing a team over?

Quite frankly I'd be happiest with doing away with the SO then going to a 2-0 points for the OT win or 1-1 for the tie, but the NHL likes to talk it up like its been so hugely successful so I doubt thats happening.

eff1ngham
04-14-2010, 09:33 AM
Competitive balance comes before your guy's moral issues with getting a point for losing.

The difference is I don't consider going straight wins and loses to change the competitive balance

alias
04-14-2010, 09:39 AM
And yes I realize that overall this really wouldn't effect the playoff picture that significantly every year, but why even take the chance of screwing a team over?


But wouldn't Team A with a record of say 40-34-8 for 88 points missing in the playoffs because of Team B who finished with a record of 38-30-14 for 90 points feel screwed over? Team A won more games and if I was on that team I'd feel pretty ripped off that my team won more games yet missed the playoffs to Team B. I think that's what it comes down to, winning games however you need to win them. All the GM's know that a shootout is a fairly regular occurance (15-20 times a year for each team). All players and goalies know this as well. If some of these teams didn't prepare for it as much as other teams why should they get a point? I'll wager the teams that do well in the shootout practice it more than the other teams. And if they knew they would not get a point for a SO loss they would practice it more and be better at it. Also if they went Olympic rules where the same player could go multiple times it would be more legitimate. Each team would have 1 or 2 guys who are really good at the shootout and they would go over and over. You'd feel less ripped off losing a shootout to Crosby making a sick move as you would to Matt Cooke. It's legitimate enough for the Olympics to award a gold medal for winning a shootout.


Oh, and to get back to the puck over the glass/laziness issue. Yeah for the players doing it now usually it's a mistake and it isn't a lazy play, but that's the reason the rule was implemented in the first place. Players get tired and shoot it over the glass. If the only penalty is that you cannot change you'll see pucks going over the glass a lot more and less scoring opportunities. Getting rid of the delay of game penalty will inevitably bring back the lazy play of flipping it over the glass so your line can get a bit of a rest, and if you have a good faceoff guy on the ice, all the more reason to flip it over the glass. That rule should stay.

Hamsterkill
04-14-2010, 10:00 AM
I'm with Kyle on the shootout situation. The one point gap between shootout winner and loser is all that's really fair to award. It's always been the case that a team with fewer wins could get into the playoffs ever since they awarded a point for ties. I might be persuaded to get behind Zang's 3-2-1-0 idea, though. But honestly, I'm fine with the system as is.

MissingLink
04-14-2010, 10:23 AM
The 3-2-1-0 idea is the way to go. i like how every game has 3 points up for grabs. not like now where a regulation win game awards 2 points and an OT games awards 3.

MissingLink
04-14-2010, 10:30 AM
Oh yeah....for the poll i voted for no touch icing and i would also like to give mention to getting rid of the trapezoid rule (its just stupid).

So in order for me...
1. 3 points a game
2. No touch icing
3. No trapezoid

keyboard
04-14-2010, 10:58 AM
I think what most people don't realize about the OT loss point is that one of the only ways to remove it is to get rid of shootouts which is not possible. You can't have shootouts and not give the loser a point because then you absolutely shit on anything legitimate about the competition in the league. A team like Detroit doesn't deserve to miss the playoffs because they suck ass at an element of the game that hasn't existed for more than five years.Perhaps knowing your team isn't good at shootouts would encourage teams to play harder in the third/OT to avoid having to go there. Opens the game up and makes it more exciting, which is the whole point.

kastil
04-14-2010, 01:13 PM
Watching the Olympics I really liked the no touch icing. I find the Shoot oOuts eciting to watch and if a team can't win in three periods, too bad if they don't have the fire power or goalie to withstand a Shoot Out.

madsci
04-15-2010, 12:46 PM
I agree. re no-touch icing - seems everyone does.

I think the delay of game penalty should be changed so it's like icing - no line change for the offending team. If the idea is to penalize guys who are shooting it out because they can't get it out and they need a whistle, then it serves the same purpose as the icing. When it's just an accident, then it doesn't really make a difference, since they're presumably not gassed. I see that as a no-brainer.

I don't like the instigator penalty, but if it exists, then I think it should be applied to guys who jump in to defend a teammate who gets nailed with a clean hit. I think this is totally friggin stupid. You can't see a half-way decent check in this league without someone racing to avenge his teammate. More often than not, both guys get five for fighting. So, you throw a clean check, someone jumps you and starts swinging, and then you sit for five minutes? Ridiculous.

canuckthug
04-15-2010, 01:42 PM
Yeah, the delay of game is a ticky tacky penalty like boltsfan26 said. For the obvious rule changes that need to be addressed, the delay of game penalty will go unheard and will probably be here to stay. Most people agree that its not an issue. I just don't want to see a hard fought playoff game where the refs let everything go, the game is entering the late stages and suddenly the puck gets cleared over the boards. Its those cheap penalties that teams have trouble killing. On top of that, more frequent than not, you get the refs huddling together to see if it deflected off a stick, then you get the refs going upstairs to review the call to see if it hit the glass. And they want to reduce "delay of game!!" I dont know.:dunno:

Some people are big on the 3 points for a W. Thats interesting but what would the standings and columns look like.

I think this is the best way to eliminate the loser point:
W ---L----T


to get a W and 2 points:
- win in regulation
- win in OT (5mins, 4 on 4)
- win in skill competition (aka shootout)

to get a L and 0 points:
- lose in regulation
- lose in OT

to get a T and a 1 point:
-nothing is settled after 65 minutes.

This removes the OTL column in the newspaper and the extra "loser point" just for getting to OT. Somebody mentioned that teams will sit back in OT to ensure they get the single point. The league did what they could to address that by going 4 on 4. It clearly opens the game and I have rarely seen a dull OT since the league went 4 on 4. Plus teams can not afford to sit back if they need a divisional foe to get 0 points. I think having an OT where everything is still on the line makes it more exciting. If the game isnt settled by 65 minutes, its fair to call it a tie, reward both teams with a well derserved point.

As for the Trapezoid - Its goes both ways, the goalies have learned to completely avoid that zone letting the D-man take the responsibility. On the flipside, the Olympics had no trapezoid, it went well. It is kind of funny how the rink is oval shaped and the game is free-flowing and somebody came up with the "trapezoid".

Zangetsu
04-15-2010, 02:43 PM
Some people are big on the 3 points for a W. Thats interesting but what would the standings and columns look like. First, who cares? If newspaper formatting is a higher priority for you than competitive balance, we'll never come to an agreement.

Second, the standings are already a jumbled mess of numbers that only reasonably informed fans can fully understand anyway. And honestly, who else cares enough about the sport to check the standings? As long as the teams are listed in order of total points, casual fans will be able to figure out all they need to know.

So, adding a fourth column (however you want to format it) wouldn't be a big deal. I think the biggest obstacle to the "3-2-1-0" system would be purists who wouldn't want point totals to skyrocket. The Caps would have amassed 167pts. this year with a record of 44-15 (OT 11-13).

phaneuf6
04-15-2010, 03:12 PM
I've played in a few tournaments where OT went something like this:

3 minutes 4 on 4.
3 minutes 3 on 3.
3 minutes 2 on 2.

I can't remember the times exactly, but if no goals were scored, they removed a man from each side. I think if they did this you'd have more exciting finishes than the shootout, and its more fair in a sense that you have to have the depth and talent to win in that format of OT.

Cornholio
04-15-2010, 03:17 PM
About the delay of game penalty:
I talked to a player of the german league a couple of years ago, when that rule was brought in, and he had an interesting point of view:
as a professional hockey player, a guy should be able to clear the puck without putting it above the glass. if he does, it's a penalty, that's kind of the clearest rule one can make.

madsci
04-15-2010, 03:25 PM
About the delay of game penalty:
I talked to a player of the german league a couple of years ago, when that rule was brought in, and he had an interesting point of view:
as a professional hockey player, a guy should be able to clear the puck without putting it above the glass. if he does, it's a penalty, that's kind of the clearest rule one can make.

This would make a lot more sense if it didn't just apply to the defensive zone.

phaneuf6
04-15-2010, 03:26 PM
I think they need to regulate the height of the glass in all arenas to make the delay of game rule fair. However, I like the rule otherwise.

chicagohockey
04-15-2010, 03:50 PM
I think it is regualted. the glass portion is 6 feet high excpet for behind the nets which is 8 feet high (on top of the 42 inch boards).

Edit: based on the books it is regualted, but it's really not set in stone:


1.3 Boards and Glass - The rink shall be surrounded by a wall known as the “boards” which shall extend not less than forty inches (40'') and not more than forty-eight inches (48'') above the level of the ice surface. The ideal height of the boards above the ice surface shall be forty-two inches (42''). Except for the official markings provided for in these rules, the entire playing surface and the boards shall be white in color except the kick plate at the bottom of the boards, which shall be light yellow in color.
Any variations from any of the foregoing dimensions shall require official authorization by the League.
The boards shall be constructed in such a manner that the surface facing the ice shall be smooth and free of any obstruction or any object that could cause injury to players.
Affixed to the boards and extending vertically shall be approved safety glass extending eight feet (8’) above the boards at each end of the rink and not less than five feet (5’) along both sides of the rink. The glass and gear to hold them in position shall be properly padded or protected. Protective glass shall be required in front of the penalty benches to provide for the safety of the players on and off the ice. All equipment used to hold the glass or screens in position shall be mounted on the boards on the side away from the playing surface.

Cornholio
04-15-2010, 04:15 PM
This would make a lot more sense if it didn't just apply to the defensive zone.
Sorry, forgot about it, the IIHF rule says that the player is penalized, no matter where he stands when shooting the puck over the glass.

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 06:00 PM
First, who cares? If newspaper formatting is a higher priority for you than competitive balance, we'll never come to an agreement.

Second, the standings are already a jumbled mess of numbers that only reasonably informed fans can fully understand anyway. And honestly, who else cares enough about the sport to check the standings? As long as the teams are listed in order of total points, casual fans will be able to figure out all they need to know.

It's not an issue of newspaper formatting, it's about looking at point totals and trying to figure out why a team that has more wins than another team could be seeded lower than them in the standings (not counting being the division leader). It's much easier to be casually follow other sports because you know that your team needs to win, and other teams need to lose in order to move up in the standings. It's tougher in hockey because your team may win and another may lose, but they may have lose in a shootout meaning they still gained a point.

Going straight wins and loses is much easier to follow, and makes more sense to anyone who's not a regular hockey fan because no other sport offers "half" a win for losing a game (or more points for winning a game in regulation as opposed to overtime)

Kyle
04-15-2010, 06:04 PM
Well, making the game easier to follow comes at the cost of shitting on competitive balance if it means a shootout win awards 2 points and a loss 0. I'd rather the standings be confusing and at least properly competitive over an easier to follow but less fair system that excessively rewards good shootout teams.

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 06:08 PM
I've played in a few tournaments where OT went something like this:

3 minutes 4 on 4.
3 minutes 3 on 3.
3 minutes 2 on 2.

I can't remember the times exactly, but if no goals were scored, they removed a man from each side. I think if they did this you'd have more exciting finishes than the shootout, and its more fair in a sense that you have to have the depth and talent to win in that format of OT.

Heh, 2 on 2, the NBA Jam of hockey. I've seen some weird tourney rules as well. Unfortunately I think at the NHL level 3 on 3 or 2 on 2 would be more boring that 4 on 4 and wouldn't really lead to the odd man rushes that you get 4 on 4.

Although if you're looking for an alternative to the shootout why not try a college football type of OT where teams alternate powerplays every two minutes. Flip a coin to decide who goes first then you get two minutes to score, when time's up, then the other team tries. Though that would be a slower process than a shootout, which I think it part of the reason they chose that format

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 06:09 PM
Well, making the game easier to follow comes at the cost of shitting on competitive balance if it means a shootout win awards 2 points and a loss 0. I'd rather the standings be confusing and at least properly competitive over an easier to follow but less fair system that excessively rewards good shootout teams.


The difference is I don't consider going straight wins and loses to change the competitive balance

;)

Zangetsu
04-15-2010, 06:19 PM
If you go to a system that only counts wins and losses and maintains the current OT/SO system, you would ruin competitive balance.

A regulation win > shootout win > shootout loss > regulation loss

3 > 2 > 1 > 0

Seems pretty simple to me.

And really how complicated is this?

Team....................W - L / OT W - L / Pts.
Washington............44-15 / 11-13 / 167

If anything, that's more informative and less confusing than the current standings chart which doesn't differentiate between a regulation win and a shootout win. I had to go to the "Team Stats" page on NHL.com to find out what the Caps OT record was.

I still think the only reason that the NHL didn't use the "3-2-1-0" system when they decided to use shootouts is because of the inflated point totals that it would cause.

Kyle
04-15-2010, 06:19 PM
So you think its fair and balanced to essentially double the emphasis on shootouts? :rolleyes:Saying you don't think it changes the balance isn't really making a point. Shootouts don't exist in playoff hockey. How does it not hurt competitive balance when teams who excel at an area of the sport that doesn't exist in the playoffs get an advantage in the season standings over teams better built for playoff hockey but just not exactly excelling at 1v1 goaltending and skill players? The shootout is already flawed and rewards teams incorrectly but it supposedly sells the sport and isn't going anywhere (or so they say). Your proposal basically doubles the flaw, I just don't see how stats sheet convenience is worth that. If we can't do the truly right thing (Get rid of shootouts), why on Earth would we do the opposite? I'd much rather keep things the way they are now over fucking it up twice as much just to make the standings a bit easier to read (I'm sure so many people spend hours pondering how team A with X wins beats team B with more wins that its worth fucking with a competitive playoff picture:rolleyes:)

Kyle
04-15-2010, 06:26 PM
I still think the only reason that the NHL didn't use the "3-2-1-0" system when they decided to use shootouts is because of the inflated point totals that it would cause.


I agree, I think they need to realize that NHL records are worthless and jaded by the differences between eras and just go ahead and let teams redefine regular season points records. I doubt anyone really gives a shit and they can easily still honor the best seasons of the previous era in the record book.

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 06:30 PM
If you go to a system that only counts wins and losses and maintains the current OT/SO system, you would ruin competitive balance.

I disagree.


A regulation win > shootout win > shootout loss > regulation loss

3 > 2 > 1 > 0

Seems pretty simple to me.

I don't think the idea of different point totals for wins of losses is a good idea. I never have. No other major sport uses it. The idea that you could gain a point in the standings by losing a game in OT as opposed to a team who loses in regulation doesn't make sense. Just like the idea of gaining more points by winning in regulation as opposed to OT doesn't make sense. For me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss

keyboard
04-15-2010, 06:31 PM
Heh, 2 on 2, the NBA Jam of hockey.We already have an NBA Jam of hockey.

YouTube- NHL Hitz 2003 X-Box - Gameplay part 3 of 4

Zangetsu
04-15-2010, 06:35 PM
I don't think the idea of different point totals for wins of losses is a good idea. I never have. No other major sport uses it. The idea that you could gain a point in the standings by losing a game in OT as opposed to a team who loses in regulation doesn't make sense. Just like the idea of gaining more points by winning in regulation as opposed to OT doesn't make sense. For me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss
No other major sport uses a skill competition to decide games.

The comparisons have all been made before, but the NBA doesn't use a free throw shooting competition to decide games.

MLB doesn't use a HR derby.

The NFL doesn't use a punt, pass, and kick competition.

Why doesn't the NHL just go use one of the other All-Star Skills events? How awesome would it be if they spun a wheel after OT to decide which one they'd use? They Bruins would be undefeated when the wheel lands on hardest shot.

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 06:37 PM
We already have an NBA Jam of hockey.

There was actually one before that, by Midway, that was 2 on 2, side view, just like NBA Jam :)

Kyle
04-15-2010, 06:39 PM
No other major sport uses a skill competition to decide games.

The comparisons have all been made before, but the NBA doesn't use a free throw shooting competition to decide games.

MLB doesn't use a HR derby.

The NFL doesn't use a punt, pass, and kick competition.

Why doesn't the NHL just go use one of the other All-Star Skills events? How awesome would it be if they spun a wheel after OT to decide which one they'd use? They Bruins would be undefeated when the wheel lands on hardest shot.

:lol::beer: Well said. It amazes me people are so bothered with the principal behind a point for losing that they'd lose sight of the only glaring issue which is competitive balance.

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 06:47 PM
No other major sport uses a skill competition to decide games.

No, but every other sport's OT rules also help some teams more than others. If you have a strong bench in the NBA then you're not helped out by their OT rules because it's only a 5-minute quarter where starters rarely take a rest. If you have a weak bullpen then going to extra innings in a baseball game is going to be a problem. Teams try to build the best possible balance to win in any situation, and the shootout for an NHL team is a part of that as well. Other formats aren't the same as the shootout obviously, and I've already stated that I am not a fan of the shootout. But I'm less of a fan of awarding different point totals based on how you win or lose the game

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 06:50 PM
Well said. It amazes me people are so bothered with the principal behind a point for losing that they'd lose sight of the only glaring issue which is competitive balance.


The difference is I don't consider going straight wins and loses to change the competitive balance

I think we've been down this road before ;)

Kyle
04-15-2010, 06:52 PM
But I'm less of a fan of awarding different point totals based on how you win or lose the game


It still sounds more like a principle you can't get over than a valid complaint. Team A with 0 wins and 8 shootout losses is better than Team B with 2 wins and 6 regulation blowouts. Period. You're proposing changes for every reason but balance.



I think we've been down this road before ;)


The road I'm waiting to reach is the one where you actually explain how competitive balance isn't negatively impacted by putting a larger emphasis on shootouts.. I've got no issues with 0 points for an OT loss but that requires the removal of the shootout. 0 points for a SO loss is the worst possible scenerio and will never be entertained because its common knowledge that the shootout is a gimmick meant for entertainment and not competitive play and the NHL will not allow it to impact standings more than it already does durring the season.

Zangetsu
04-15-2010, 06:56 PM
No, but every other sport's OT rules also help some teams more than others. If you have a strong bench in the NBA then you're not helped out by their OT rules because it's only a 5-minute quarter where starters rarely take a rest. If you have a weak bullpen then going to extra innings in a baseball game is going to be a problem. Teams try to build the best possible balance to win in any situation, and the shootout for an NHL team is a part of that as well. Other formats aren't the same as the shootout obviously, and I've already stated that I am not a fan of the shootout. But I'm less of a fan of awarding different point totals based on how you win or lose the gameBut the games are still decided by playing the sport in question.

Shootouts suck, and I'm glad that we at least agree that they are a terrible way to break a tie, but you're trying to solve that problem by making them more meaningful. I simply can't understand that logic.

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 09:06 PM
It still sounds more like a principle you can't get over than a valid complaint. Team A with 0 wins and 8 shootout losses is better than Team B with 2 wins and 6 regulation blowouts. Period.

I disagree. Those loses may be nice "moral victories," but they're still losses. A team that goes 0-0-82 is not better than a team that goes 40-42-0. Even if those 42 loses were all blowout loses. Just like an NFL team that goes 0-16 with 16 OT losses isn't better than a team that goes 7-9 with all their games decided in regulation. To me the whole idea of gaining a point by losing in OT is too close to awarding a point for losing in the last minute of a game on a flukey goal or a bad call that leads to a powerplay. You can take something away personally, or even as a team from a close loss. But it shouldn't be a point in the standings. A loss is a loss.

The idea of "getting a game into OT to gain a point" is not competitive. Sitting back and not taking chances to avoid an odd-man rush and hoping to get into OT so you get a point is not the way the game should be played. You should play to win. Getting a game into OT and then losing should not be rewarded any more than losing in regulation. You can think you're a better team than a team that loses in regulation if it makes you feel better, but the fact is you still lost just like they did.


The road I'm waiting to reach is the one where you actually explain how competitive balance isn't negatively impacted by putting a larger emphasis on shootouts.If you look at the standings just based on wins, all the same teams would be in the playoffs. There would be a little different seeding, but the good teams are still good and the bad teams are still bad. I don't have the effort to look up how many of each team's wins were via shootout, but I don't see how it would have negatively impacted the game to go straight wins and losses.


But the games are still decided by playing the sport in question.

To a point. The NFL doesn't allow each team to play offense and defense in OT, for example. But I also feel that NFL OT is wrong, though that's a different story...

But NHL teams do play 4 on 4 for 5 minutes before going to the shootout.


Shootouts suck, and I'm glad that we at least agree that they are a terrible way to break a tie, but you're trying to solve that problem by making them more meaningful. I simply can't understand that logic.I do agree that shootouts aren't the method they should be going with. As I've said in the other threads on this subject, I'd rather see 5 minute 4 on 4 OT periods continue until a winner is chosen, or even alternating power play chances ala college football.

But shootouts are the method the NHL has chosen, and I think teams should adapt to that and find players who can contribute in the shootout. The excuse of a team winning because they're better at shootouts is a cop out, if you're losing in shootouts, then either win the game in regulation, or get players who are better at shootouts.

I don't feel that going straight wins and loses make the shootout more meaningful by itself. It makes losing more meaningful no matter how you do it. And I'd rather see teams win rather than be rewarded for losing

Zangetsu
04-15-2010, 09:22 PM
I still don't understand your obsession with the sanctity of the almighty W. I'd rather have the best teams in the playoffs. The most reliable way to achieve that is to minimize the impact of the shootout as much as possible.

Hell, I'd rather have ties than SO wins. I've only been arguing for the "3-2-1-0" system because I know that shootouts are likely here to stay, which is also why the NHL will never go to a straight win/loss system, either.

Whenever shootouts are mentioned in interviews, you tend to get the same canned response from the players. "Shootouts are exciting for the fans, but..." This tells me that the players would never support a move to a two point differential between SO wins/losses.

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 10:01 PM
I still don't understand your obsession with the sanctity of the almighty W. I'd rather have the best teams in the playoffs.

My "obsession" with winning is because I think teams should play to win. Rewarding losing doesn't make sense to me. The "best" teams would still make the playoffs if the league went straight wins and loses. The "best" teams are the ones that win. If you base the standings on wins from this season the same teams all would have made the playoffs.

I don't understand how it unbalances the league to go with that method.


Hell, I'd rather have ties than SO wins. I've only been arguing for the "3-2-1-0" system because I know that shootouts are likely here to stay, which is also why the NHL will never go to a straight win/loss system, either.The shootout probably isn't going anywhere. But the problem I have with 3-2-1 scoring is the same one I have the current method. I don't see how winning in regulation should be worth more than winning in OT. A win is a win (just like a loss is a loss)

Zangetsu
04-15-2010, 10:38 PM
If a shootout win is the same as a regulation win, why do we even bother with full 20-minute OT's in the playoffs. I mean, a win is a win, right?

eff1ngham
04-15-2010, 11:10 PM
I'd rather have OT continue until someone wins that the shootout method they use today.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're asking. Remember, I'm not a fan of the shootout, so I don't think they should use it at all

alias
04-17-2010, 11:20 AM
If a shootout win is the same as a regulation win, why do we even bother with full 20-minute OT's in the playoffs. I mean, a win is a win, right?

IMO it has nothing to do with the way its won. you can't have 20 minute OT's in the regular season for injury reasons.

Kyle
04-17-2010, 11:27 AM
IMO it has nothing to do with the way its won. you can't have 20 minute OT's in the regular season for injury reasons.


He wasn't suggesting that, he was basically saying if shootouts aren't a problem and theres nothing wrong with emphasizing them more, then why bother with 20 min OT in the playoffs and just go straight to shootouts like the season. The reason is, shootouts blow, they aren't competitive, they aren't based on team skill, they're almost entirely luck based, and thats why the NHL would never let them decide a playoff game, therefor we can follow that line of thought and farther say theres no reason to ever emphasize it more than its being emphasized now (Which the 2 point win/0 point loss would emphasize it MUCH more).

It was just a sarcastic question Alias in response to Eff saying "A win is a win," he was never actually suggesting continious OT in the season but rather pointing out that the NHL deems shootouts not worthy of deciding a game in the playoffs for a reason.

Zangetsu
04-17-2010, 11:32 AM
It was a rhetorical question. I was trying to point out a flaw in eff's position (that being that not all wins are equally legitimate).

I know that the shootout was implemented because many fans didn't like games ending in ties (I prefer ties to shootouts), and 20min OTs during the regular season are just unrealistic for a number of reasons.

EDIT: Slow typist here, I guess. Kyle nailed it, though.

Kyle
04-17-2010, 11:44 AM
Slow typist here, I guess.


Don't beat yourself up, by my standard anything below 100 WPM is slow:lol:

MrScientist
04-17-2010, 11:51 AM
There was actually one before that, by Midway, that was 2 on 2, side view, just like NBA Jam :)

NBA Hang Time!

Dubz
04-17-2010, 11:55 AM
I know that the shootout was implemented because many fans didn't like games ending in ties (I prefer ties to shootouts), and 20min OTs during the regular season are just unrealistic for a number of reasons.
.

I agree with this and the solution is to leave it alone.....or revert back to ties (which wont happen)

No touch icing will be in.

canuckthug
02-03-2011, 05:35 PM
I agree with this and the solution is to leave it alone.....or revert back to ties (which wont happen)

No touch icing will be in.

maybe it will, but i recall Ron MacLean talking about hybrid icing...

what is hybrid icing??


"If they were to try the hybrid rule I think it would help, and it would definitely lead to bigger and better things," he said. "Why not try it in the preseason and then see how it goes, and then make a decision before the season."
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=352286

Hamsterkill
02-03-2011, 05:38 PM
Hybrid icing is a mixture of touch and no-touch icing. It gives a linesman the discretion to blow his whistle and stop the play if he believes a defending player will reach the puck first. If the linesman believes the attacking player has a chance to reach the puck first, he keeps his whistle in his pocket and lets the race to the puck play out. The linesman always will side with the defending player and blow his whistle if he feels the race is a tie by the time the players reach the faceoff dots.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=536137

Cornholio
02-03-2011, 05:45 PM
bullshit!
touch icing is only dangerous when it comes to "speed-battles" between forward and defender.
those battles will then still occur, only the situations when there's no forward will be blown dead early.
why make such a change??

keyboard
02-03-2011, 05:45 PM
I thought the problem with icing wasn't saving time but saving player's from injuries. That hybrid doesn't help with the latter whatsoever.

Hamsterkill
02-03-2011, 05:49 PM
bullshit!
touch icing is only dangerous when it comes to "speed-battles" between forward and defender.
those battles will then still occur, only the situations when there's no forward will be blown dead early.
why make such a change??


I thought the problem with icing wasn't saving time but saving player's from injuries. That hybrid doesn't help with the latter whatsoever.

If the race is a tie or the defender is leading, the play gets blown dead at the faceoff circles, thereby avoiding the dangerous situation of two players taking each other into the boards at high speed. It keeps the excitement of a race for the puck while eliminating the most dangerous aspect of it. I believe hybrid icing is what they use in the USHL.

canuckthug
02-03-2011, 06:28 PM
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=536137


. so in essence, like you just mentioned, the battle for icing will not be eliminated but it does however slightly eliminate the chance of serious injury because the whistle can potentially be blown a little more early (faceoff circle). if that is the hybrid rule, i think it is better than the traditional icing rule as it stands. cool, thanx for finding that..




Having got that cleared,






And speaking of rule changes.. I got one that i really do not want to see changed. Everybody remembers the 'golden goal' at the Olympics but nobody commented on the slight rule change that happened. I was way to drunk to notice at the time but have thought about it since...

Olympic Overtime went to 4 on 4. I cant say i am fan of that rule change. If the OT was only 5 mins long, then i get 4 on 4 but that GOLD medal OTgame was 20 minutes long... why go to 4 on 4,?? too late, cant change it now but my real beef is if they decide to change the NHL sudden death playoff format to 4 on 4.. Please, keep it 5 on 5. It worries me that the league may want to change one of the greatest things in sport and that is NHL overtime playoff hockey the way it stands now. I understand that playoff hockey can go on and on and on and disrupt regularly scheduled programming but i love watching triple OT;s and being tired for work the next day.. its perfect IMO.

boredguy
02-03-2011, 06:29 PM
As if there wasn't enough stuff that ref's get bitched at over adding another one seems rather stupid. I'd much rather see no touch icing, i never found the races to the puck very interesting anyways.

two24four
02-03-2011, 06:32 PM
As if there wasn't enough stuff that ref's get bitched at over adding another one seems rather stupid. I'd much rather see no touch icing, i never found the races to the puck very interesting anyways.

Agreed, NHL should have the no touch icing like they have in Jr.

TSN just did another thing on Kurtis Foster today, know one should have go through what he did.

Edit: sorry I did not see the Foster thing posted already above.