NHL rules experiments

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruins8. Show bruins8's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    play 65 min 1 way    then decide the game in a skills competition is just not right   get rid of the shootout  play the game with 10 min ot  if tied so be it   regualr season can have ties...playoffs play to someone wins
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from No4BobbyOrr-GOAT. Show No4BobbyOrr-GOAT's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]Enough with the incessant rule changes already! By show of hands, who likes the instigator rule? Or the Goalie Trapezoid?  Or the automatic penalty for shooting the puck over the glass in your end zone?  Each of these awful rules has, in its own way, diminished the game.  Now, we are "piloting" a single face-off circle in each end zone?  Are you kidding me?  These ideas are absolute garbage, there is no need to dramatically change the greatest game on the face of the earth. Now, for safety reasons, I can get behind the hybrid icing idea.  Beyond that, leave the game alone!  Unless, of course, the league wishes to revoke any of the three bad rules mentioned above.
    Posted by Crowls2424[/QUOTE]

    Leave the delay of game penalty in, you can dice the other 2.

    Forget about the new ones, they are just getting too stupid to comment on.

    Leave the icing the way it is, the players need to be coached on how to handle it better is all.  There have not been that many injuries over the past 100 years in the NHL that I have seen or heard of, maybe NAS can enlighten us I am pretty sure he seen the first game.  Just give the cheap shot artists a larger penalty for their actions.

    I would like to see penalties that are dangerous and brutal that cause major injuries, result in time served to be equal to the injured players time off to maximum of 1 season + playoffs.  I am not talking about clean hits like Richards, more like the hit on Sav, premeditated dirt shots.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from No4BobbyOrr-GOAT. Show No4BobbyOrr-GOAT's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    1. Allow too many men if one of them is a bum and doesn't score anyways.

    2. Let them carry a spare stick on their backs because they are breaking sticks at a stick per shift now. Or even better  place sticks on the boards and glass all around the arena so they do not have to go back to the bench to retrieve another useless stick.


    Really though...
    Make them go back to the wooden sticks, Baseball has not changed to the aluminum bats for a good reason, go back to the wooden stick, when it breaks from a chop, you know it was a real slash, real men could shoot the puck over a hundred miles an hour with them and the shots were a lot more accurate.

    Get rid of the gladiator equipment as Cherry says it causes more injurries than it stops

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]no one on the planet sees it this way but me. q) what is the most exciting hockey there is? a) playoffs, tight series, tight game.  End to end hockey, pace is fantastic. q) do you see any penalties called in that situation? a) no q) why not? a) because you can't risk a stupid penalty in that situation.  Annihilate someone with a clean hit, don't do that behind the whistle slash at someone that could get you 2 minutes. the final answer is: Infuse that into every game.  I think you could do it by calling EVERYTHING.  And that way you don't get guys like Avery and Cooke because you can't take a stoopit penalty anymore.
    Posted by BadHabitude[/QUOTE]

    I completely agree with this.  The idea that referees "don't want to influence the game" so they put their whistles away late in games or playoffs is flat out the opposite of the truth.  If everyone is getting away with restraining penalties, they are completely affecting the game adversely.

    Call the game tight, real tight, and lose the marginal "talents" that dilute the game.  I'm tired of hearing Edwards and other winers cry about calling interference the way they do now.  It's exactly the way it should be... dont hit the man without the puck.  Not hard to figure out.

    I could do without the mystery hooking calls.  Call every penalty, but not phantom stuff that doesn't exist.

    PS, is the blue line in that picture HUGE?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    just skimmed through the thread dont know how much has been said about this particular rule...but,as far as OT goes...i think they should do 10 minutes 5v5. If no winner then an additional 5 minutes of 4v4.  If no winner then tie.  The NHL did fine with ties for how long? They can do it again.  I'd rather a tie then watch shootouts....the other alternative...just keep having 5 minute 4v4 periods until there is a winner, which really i wouldnt mind either.

    the no touch icing seems stupid...so does the 3 face off circles.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments : Leave the delay of game penalty in, you can dice the other 2. Forget about the new ones, they are just getting too stupid to comment on. Leave the icing the way it is, the players need to be coached on how to handle it better is all.  There have not been that many injuries over the past 100 years in the NHL that I have seen or heard of, maybe NAS can enlighten us I am pretty sure he seen the first game.  Just give the cheap shot artists a larger penalty for their actions. I would like to see penalties that are dangerous and brutal that cause major injuries, result in time served to be equal to the injured players time off to maximum of 1 season + playoffs.  I am not talking about clean hits like Richards, more like the hit on Sav, premeditated dirt shots.
    Posted by No4BobbyOrr-GOAT[/QUOTE]

    Say what????
    Kurtis Foster - broken leg, specifically broken femur, 6 hours of surgery.
    Pat Peake ('96) heel shattered in 12 places, career ending injury.
    Al Macinnis dislocated hip
    Mark Tinordi - broken femur
    Marty Reasoner - knee and foot
    Mike Wilson dislocated shoulder and broken arm

    and another guy you might have heard of
    Marco Sturmhen he was with the Sharks, dislocated his ankle and broke his leg.

    Not the NHL, but an NHL draft pick (Rangers) Ludek Cajka DIED.  DEAD - that's a really freakin severe injury, career ending in every single case I know of.

    And come on, 99.9% of the time it's a boring touch up by the defenseman.

    Or if the forward does beat him out, it usually doesn't amount to anything because nobody else has caught up with the play usually.

    Of my recollection, I can only remember a handful of times someone beat out an icing that amounted to something.  Off the top of my head, I would say it's about as rare as a penalty shot.

    And think about this.  Minute left, team pulls their goalie.  The other guys ice it, with the touch up I've  counted as much as 11 seconds for the touch up.  I can gaurantee you that automatic icing WILL amount to something when those seconds don't come off the clock when the goalie is pulled.  Talk about your issues with ties and OT, I can 100% gaurantee that games will get decided in those seconds saved with an automatic icing with the goalie pulled.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    It's simple.  4-on-4 for 10 minutes OT, switch ends after 5 minutes.  Games can end in a tie.  No shootouts.  Ice gets too crappy after 10 minutes to do anything else unless you zamboni before OT which no one wants unless it is the playoffs. 

    3-on-3 is too gimmicky since it hardly ever happens during the course of an NHL game (you might as well keep the shootout).  2-on-2 is ridiculous. 





     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments :  PS, is the blue line in that picture HUGE?
    Posted by SoxFanInIL[/QUOTE]

    yes, they were experimenting with widening the blue line, supposedly to cut down on offsides.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moogfan35. Show moogfan35's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    I would like to see the shootout eliminated. I like the idea some have thrown out about going back to ties, but there should some incentive for the teams so they just dont go through the motions like they used to.  I have one idea though if the league doesnt want the games to end in ties. Go to a college football type of overtime instead of the shootout. Have the regular 4-4 ot, if still tied then one team goes on a 5-4 PP for 2 minutes. If that team scores the trailing team gets a chance. If they tie it go to a 4-3 , and so on down to a 2-1. It would be like a 10 minute OT just with different challenges. Then if the game is tied it remains a tie or go to a 3 player SO. The visiting team would always have the first chance in the extended time. If a team scores shorthanded during the pp the team on the PP must score to keep the game going.  I think that this would make the game more exciting, its a radical idea but its something that could work.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments : yes, they were experimenting with widening the blue line, supposedly to cut down on offsides.
    Posted by duinne[/QUOTE]
    The cheers from wherever Wheeler is were audible all the way around the continent Innocent

    So clearly the OT experimentation is the topic of choice, but what about some of the less game-changing ideas?
    • The Confirmation Line:  seems like a no-brainer to include, so long as it isn't tacky.
    • Thinner netting on top:  same deal, though cost to implement may outweigh benefit.
    • Shallower net:  I'd have to see it in game action.
    • Off-ice official:  So many ways it seems like a good idea, so many it seems horrible.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share