 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000 time: 01:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sava
As with goalie interference... I'm talking about when a goalie goes out along the boards to play the puck. |
Doesn't matter. The goalie should not, ever, be "fair game" for guys to run over. It's a total non-starter, no GM or owner in his right mind would even consider it, for exactly the reasons I've stated earlier. I think the "problem" of strong puck-handling goaltenders is largely overstated; it becomes a matter of planning your shoot-ins smarter to account for the goalie's abilities (ie hard shoot-ins around the glass or off the end boards such that they don't drift behind the net where the goalie can suck them up).
If you really think it's that much of a problem, you'll have to come up with another solution. I've read one suggestion about painting an "extended crease", where if the goalie went outside it the whistle would be blown and, depending on the circumstances, a penalty could even be assessed. I'm not sure I like that one, but at least it's something that could feasibly be implemented. Not so the "fair game" idea.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
FrustratedPoet
|
 |
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
Mar 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedFred
13. Less canned music, less blatantly homer goal announcer, less telling the fans what to do on the score clock. Cheering and ovations are more fun when the fans decide on their own to do it.
|
They don't really give instructions to the fans on the score clock do they? Like "Cheer now" or "This bits exciting, make ooh and ahh sounds"? If so, that's the lamest thing I've ever heard.
Oh, and Hockey definitely needs to lose the stupid music they play whenever the game stops for a couple of seconds.
/edited for some terrible grammar.
Last edited by FrustratedPoet on 22-05-2003 at 16:45
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:28
|
|
Imran, optimus, redfred: Most of my improvements are not new ideas. In fact, they are more about restoring hockey to what it was before the crappy Bettman-rule-changes of the 1990's.
quote: Because that happens all the time in college hockey and in the Olympics? |
It's a completely different game. The NHL season is 82 games long. In college hockey, facemasks are mandatory. So players grow up not being more accountable for their sticks. The Olympics is played on an International sized rink. And due to the lack of games, the refereeing is is consistent throughout the tournament. Imran, you can't compare the NHL to the college or any other game. I'm a bit frustrated in discussing this with you because IIRC, you don't have any organized hockey playing experience. This is significant if you are talking about such rule changes.
RedFred: I agree with your take on OT. I think there should be a 5 minute OT, then a shootout. And no points for an OT loss. Ties are bad for the fans, bad for the teams, and extended overtimes have the potential to last a long time.
As for the costs issue... well it's capitalism, and that's a different topic altogether. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
RedFred
|
 |
Vancouver
Jun 1999 time: 21:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
They don't really give instructions to the fans on the score clock do they? Like "Cheer now" or "This bits exciting, make ooh and ahh sounds"? If so, that's the lamest thing I've ever heard. |
Yes, that is exactly what they do. For example on the Canuck's scoreboard they often have a big 'CLAP' sign. They also have a 'Fanometer' which is a measure of the loudness of the cheering so when fans see it they try to max it out. They also spell out stuff like GO, CANUCKS, GO in order to get a chant going.
Equally lame is the prerecorded "GGGGGOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLLL" yell after a home team goal. This isn't latin soccer. In the old days they used to play back Jim Robson's radio call of the goal which was a lot better. Either that or just let the fans cheer.
Speaking of radio announcers, this would be a point in Sava's favour on reducing the number of teams. I don't know how those announcers do it with so many different players, especially when an Eastern team comes out that we only see every other year.
Re: the costs issue... It is more than capitalism Sava, the current system makes it extremely unlikely that any save five or six high salary teams ever make it to the finals. (Yes, I know, this year is very unusual with so many big salary teams bowing out early) Even back in the 1980s there was a sense that any team who coached and drafted well could make a Stanley Cup run.
On stickwork... maybe the solution is cages for all skaters like in women's hockey. It only takes one or two pucks or sticks in the eye per year to knock out great players. For example Ohlund has been good, but never the same since his injury.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:28
|
|
Well I watched game 6 between the Sens and the Devils and it was a great game even if it was 2-1. Both teams played extremely well. There were some great hits, close calls, and high emotion.
With games like that, I don't see any pressing need to make major rule changes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:28
|
|
quote: Oh, and btw, the no fighting rule is something, not of my own, but rather something that Wayne Gretzky proposed in his autobiography. I think he's played some hockey | Considering he survived because of guys like Marty McSorley... 
Anyways, I had to resurrect this threat because of an article in my local paper. The article mentioned how increasing the rink size to international could help the excitement of the game. I agree with his argument. I watched Game 2 of the Finals, and it was boring. The game is turning into soccer on ice. There isn't finesse, there isn't good passing. It's terrible to watch. Two stupid "system" teams are in the Finals, chipping away at the puck, mudding up the zone, and somebody gets a garbage rebound goal. Hopefully, the capitalist system will work and the lack of fan interest will force the game to change.
quote: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/printedition/cs-0305300257may30,0,2397268.story
Bigger ice = bigger thrills
BY PHILIP HERSH
May 30, 2003
Permit those of us who know and love elite international hockey to contribute a knowing and rueful smirk to the recent discussions about how to increase scoring in the National Hockey League.
The answer, you see, was so simple it is ridiculous.
(Notice the past tense, "was," in the previous sentence. That is the rueful part.)
Call more obstruction penalties? It made little difference this year, as statistics show.
Widen the nets? As the French-Canadians who are tending them for Anaheim and New Jersey in the Stanley Cup finals would say, "Quelle btise!"
(Which translates to, "You're kidding, right?")
The easiest solution is to play the game on the international-size ice surface, which is 17 percent wider (100 feet) than the NHL rink (85 feet).
The NHL had a chance to do it when most teams moved into new buildings over the last decade. Its owners apparently were loath to give up prime seats to an expanded ice surface or shuck the Neanderthal attitude that fans come to hockey for the fights.
This big-ice idea absolutely infuriates those who think the sport will become figure skating on the larger surface--and without a Tonya Harding to inject some rough stuff into the picture.
Where that argument falls apart is its failure to consider just how big and fast hockey players have become over the last generation or so. This and future generations would get up close and personal even if they were playing on a rink the size of a soccer field.
The legendary soccer player Franz Beckenbauer of Germany once told me the difference between his era (the 1970s) and the present was this: When he got the ball, he had time and space to work out a play. Now, he said, there would be a bigger, faster opponent in his face immediately. That is even more true of hockey.
Anaheim's smallest defenseman is Niclas Havelid, at 5 feet 11 inches and 197 pounds. Nine of Anaheim's 17 forwards are at least 6 feet and 200 pounds. Only five of the 22 skaters on the Devils' roster are shorter than 6 feet, only nine weigh less than 200 pounds.
Now let's look at the 1970-71 Boston Bruins, one of the highest-scoring teams in NHL history, league points leader during the regular season. Its typically sized player was Bobby Orr, the greatest defenseman in history (for my money, the greatest player in history, period.) He was 5-11, 180. Of the 26 skaters on the Bruins' roster that year, 18 weighed 196 pounds or less (eight were 180 to 165.)
To the increased size and skating speed add the increased skill at using the neutral-zone trap--now a neutral-zone chokehold--since Roger Nielson's Florida Panthers perfected it on the way to the Cup finals under Nielson's successor, Doug MacLean, in 1996. The result often is painful to watch: teams dumping the puck into the offensive zone even when they have a two-man power-play advantage.
Dump-and-chase hockey and even stricter-than-usual attention to defense in the playoffs mean few shots and even fewer real scoring chances. New Jersey outshot Anaheim 30-16 in Game 1 and 25-16 in Game 2 of the finals. The Devils are taking 26 shots per game and giving up 25 in the playoffs.
So what has this done to scoring?
Ten years ago, 15 of the NHL's 24 teams averaged at least 3.5 goals per game.
In 1970-71, the Boston Bruins averaged 5.11 goals per game.
This season, the highest-scoring team, Detroit, averaged 3.28 goals per game. Only five of the league's 30 teams averaged three or more goals per game.
There have been low-scoring periods in the past, but this era is the worst since expansion, the slap shot and the curved stick increased offensive hockey. That change now has been more than offset by the size of players and the size of goalies' pads, not to mention the generally greater agility of the men behind the masks.
Now let's look at the 2002 Olympics, where two teams of NHL All-Stars met in the final, which Canada won 5-2 over the United States while outshooting Team USA 39-33.
The United States had 49 shots and Russia 30 in one semifinal. The Czech Republic outshot Russia 41-27 while losing 1-0 in the quarterfinals. Russia and Belarus combined for 68 shots in the other semifinal.
"You find yourself skating so much more than in an NHL game," said St. Louis (now Minnesota) forward Scott Young in Newsday. "But it's great."
"It's a blast," the Red Wings' Brett Hull told the Detroit Free Press.
"I love it," said Brian Rolston of Boston. "You get a lot of time with the puck, and so many things just open up."
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman tried to explain away the more exciting play as a factor of having the world's best players in one tournament. Truth be told, the difference was the bigger rink and the lack of the two-line offside rule in international hockey. With no red line, there are more long breakout passes and more odd-man rushes, including breakaways. With a wider surface, teams actually carry or pass the puck into the offensive zone. With more NHL players than ever who learned to play on the wide surface in Europe, the skills to exploit it are there.
Other than a goalie, who doesn't love an odd-man rush?
Only those with narrow minds.
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
I never ever thought i'd say this but: bring Quebec City back in the league. After a salary cap rule.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|