12/21/24
September 25, 2003
Getting better by goin' back.: Darren Eliot figures that the best thing the NHL can do to make the game more entertaining (read: increase scoring) is to revisit some old rules. Some of his ideas make sense (re-introduce the tag-up rule), some seem crazy (no limit on stick curvature!??!) . Do you agree with his ideas? What would you change?
Let's try the goalie equipment, the auto icing, tag-up off-sides, and removing the redline. If that doesn't do the trick, put back the red line and shift the blue lines and goal lines, while keeping the other changes.
posted by garfield at 01:59 PM on September 25, 2003
Well, tag-up offsides and smaller goalie equipment would get us pretty close to the way hockey was when I started watching. The intervening sex, drugs, and punk rock haven't blotted out the recollection that there was a lot more goal scoring in the mid-80s. The one thing I'd really like to see is 5 skaters a side overtime and no consolation point. That rule really bugs me. You could never win a game and still make the playoffs. Really, the NHL needs to figure out what to do about overtime. My ideal solution would be to have no overtime in the regular season and sudden death in the playoffs. Unlike, I'm guessing, most Canadians, I wouldn't mind the shootout. It'd be better than the current system. I also like no-touch icing, and I'd like to see international size rinks, but I know what a non-starter that is.
posted by alex_reno at 03:03 PM on September 25, 2003
"You could never win a game" should be "You could lose every game." I know, it's unlikely but theoretically possible.
posted by alex_reno at 03:06 PM on September 25, 2003
agreed, the point system is fucked right now.
posted by garfield at 03:22 PM on September 25, 2003
I don't mind the point system as it stands right now - overtime kicks ass 4 on 4 - exciting end to end shit. Yes, admittedly it does seems a little desperate for a final score, but I don't see a great disparity between the amount of ties before and after the rule change. Good teams still score 100 pts a year and bad teams don't get much more than 70. Hasn't really changed that much in the final summation. I also think that the best change might be - to stop changing everything. Bettman can't seem to let things rest for more than a season or two. Maybe these little experiments should be given longer gestation periods than 8 months before being re-written again.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:33 PM on September 25, 2003
I hate the consolation point in overtime mostly just because there are differing numbers of points being given out in some games. And I don't like that a team can lose a game and gain ground in a race. To gain ground and get points you shoudl win. What is this tag up rule? I'm thinking this may just be a semantics issue here, since I am a hockey player and as far as I know, the tag up rule never left (but I must be thinking of the wrong thing).
posted by Bernreuther at 03:39 PM on September 25, 2003
everytime i see a team that has more points but less wins than team below it in the standings, my blood boils. I like the 4 on 4 as well, but a win should be worth more to discourage playing for a tie.
posted by garfield at 03:42 PM on September 25, 2003
Here's what bothers me about the 4 on 4 OT: It's not hockey. Hockey is played by teams of 6 at a time, barring penalties. 4 on 4 is like hockey, but it's not. Could you imagine baseball having to remove a fielder after nine innings? It would be more exciting, sure, but it's not baseball. Seriously, If we have a 5-minute 4 on 4 that can't decide the game, why not play a period of Lacrosse, our national game, to decide it?
posted by alex_reno at 04:26 PM on September 25, 2003
I'd prefer a round of curling myself.
posted by garfield at 04:36 PM on September 25, 2003
It's not hockey Then what is? The structure of a game is not trapped in amber. For example, teams used to have a seventh player, the "rover", until 1911. And as mentioned in the link, the rule about penalized players returning to the ice following a goal only came into effect during the fifties. There's nothing that says the game can't change, so long as it's for the better. Anyway, as for the rule changes, the more drastic the better. The NHL is forgetting that in the pro sports business, entertainment value is sacrosanct. It's the lifeblood of the business. The fans won't pay not to be entertained. With fanbases dwindling as they are, Bettman and the GMs should be attacking snoozy defensive hockey with fire-eyed ferocity. Excitement is the league's most precious resource, and it's being stifled by military-style coaching regimes and controlled asphyxiation of game flow. I know I'm trundling out a tired rant but it's still as valid today as it was in the mid- and late-90s. So: kill the red line, move the goals back to the way they were pre-Gretzky, hack a few inches off the goalie pads, get the tag-up rule in, and try to open up the neutral zone. All this probably won't be enough, but it'll be a start.
posted by Succa at 05:10 PM on September 25, 2003
Also, in case you haven't seen it, here's an interesting scenario where the extra point in OT really screws things up.
posted by Succa at 05:17 PM on September 25, 2003
Succa, did you just say the sctucture of a game is not trapped in amber? Shit, looks like somebody gots himself some book-larnin'! I agree with you, though. And I have nothing more to add, except that it's so good to have hockey talk again. This is like finally making it to that oasis after endless days in the desert. Or being trapped in amber. Or something.
posted by Samsonov14 at 05:25 PM on September 25, 2003
Succa, I agree with you that the game is not and should not be trapped "in amber", however in my opinion, once you change the number of people playing the game, or the type of equipment, you have a different game. I know that everyone will have different standards as to what sort of change is required to make a "new" sport. For a completely random example, if a football ruleset has 4 downs, it's not CFL football. That's not to say that it isn't some kind of football - I hear there's a somewhat successful league with 4 downs - but 3 downs is a distinctive feature of Canadian football. Would it be the end of the world if the CFL went to 4 downs? No, but it would lose a lot of its distinctive character.
posted by alex_reno at 05:30 PM on September 25, 2003
Bring back the damn Rover!
posted by billsaysthis at 06:11 PM on September 25, 2003
Bobby Smith came up with this idea. The article is in this season's Hockey News Yearbook. This is the only link I can find.
posted by Philfromhavelock at 09:36 PM on September 25, 2003
OK - so the point structure isn't ideal - 4 categories looks a little bush league perhaps, but does anyone remember what overtime looked like before? It was like a race to the front of your own net - prevent defense. Points are valuable, so you can't blame teams for trying to get them, but it sucked. Every sport goes through sometimes drastic ruoles changes - basketball comes to mind - there's no way sports can remain static when everyone who plays them professionally trys to take advantage of the rules - when a particular advantage is adpted by enough people, then the game has to adapt. I would ask that those people that are so enamored with going back to the old system - show me where a team got into the play-offs on the back of this particular rule. Plus, it's not just teams with more wins that should be thought of as being the best - but teams with less losses - and that means that ties are important.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:35 AM on September 26, 2003
I don't see how anyone can say that dropping a skater in overtime is "not hockey." It's the only pro sport in the big four where a team can outnumber its opponent during play, and it happens all the time.
posted by rcade at 09:36 AM on September 26, 2003
Rcade, with all respect, so what? Hockey is played with various numbers of players on a variety of surfaces. NHL hockey is played by teams of six at a time, barring penalties. Except now, sometimes, it's played by teams of 5. I'm apparently in the minority on this, but I think it's disgraceful. Bush league. Why doesn't the NFL use CFL rules for its overtime? Why doesn't baseball drop a fielder each inning after nine? Surely, if changing the number of men on a team mid-game is so good for hockey, why don't other sports do it? As far as the consolation point goes, Edmonton, Montreal, and Florida were the big overtime losers (or winners, depending how you look at it) last year with 9 each. 12.5% of Florida's points were from losses, 9.8% of Edmonton's. It rewards losing and even though my team has been a beneficiary, I don't like it. Weedy, it hasn't made a difference yet, but it seems quite likely that it will. If Montreal had three more wins last year, they'd have made it and the Isles would have been out, with more wins. If Chicago were in the east, they'd have been tied with the Isles, undeservedly.
posted by alex_reno at 02:19 PM on September 26, 2003
If the pads shrink, OT scoring will increase (if there's a need for OT at all). Just give me my W/L/T stats back. Reading stats now sounds like a locker combination.
posted by garfield at 03:28 PM on September 26, 2003
Hmm... I didn't think people where still really hung up on the 'loser overtime' point anymore. I actually like it. Overtime use to be boring as hell. It's far more entertaining now. In then end that's why I watch a game. 4 on 4 is very much what hocky is about. Heck as the acticle mentions there use to be a lot more 3 on 3 for matter. That being said I would like to see a team who wins in regulation rewarded more. Perhaps a system like some soccer legues were a regulation win gets you 3 points, an overtime win gets you 2, an overtime tie or loss 1. That might get a bit too complicated for some people though. Anyway I personally think the point system is the least of the NHL problems these days. The on-ice product is. The owners won't admit it, but player salaries arn't the only reason they are lossing money. Decrease attention to the game in general is the first problem. I would love to see a larger ice surface, but as was mentioned above the chances of that are almost nil. If you can't make the surface bigger then have fewer players on it. I'm very much in favor of having more 3 on 3 situations. It's the way it use to be. We got rid of it because it caused 'to much scoring'. It seems like a no brainer to me.
posted by camcanuck at 03:52 PM on September 26, 2003
Alex - a point we disagree on - the extra point rewards going for the victory, not losing. There's no point in having overtime when the road team just shuts down the offence and waits for five minutes to tick by. It didn't use to be a problem because teams actually tried to outscore each other to win games. Simply is no longer the case. There is nothing sinister about the arrangement, it doens't benefit one team over the other - everybody is playing by the same rules. An overtime loss is simply a 60 minute tie. Effectively the game is over after 60 minutes and an extra point is up for grabs if you can score in OT. Let's generate an moderate interest in offense for at least 5 minutes - please.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:15 PM on September 26, 2003
Weedy, I agree with you in theory(the not losing thing), but in reality the teams that benefit are the teams that do shut it down. Unlike the past, Road vs. Home really isn't much of difference in the regular season (in actuality road records have been curiously better than home records in more and more cases, which only a few years ago a better away record would've been considered freakish.), its the team style and their standing that determines how it plays in OT. The consolation point isn't the worst thing in the world, and if the rules are set up this way I can't argue with the strategy of making the 3rd period boring as hell, but if scoring can be tweaked doesn't the need to inject excitement into the extra period evaporate?
posted by garfield at 04:39 PM on September 26, 2003
Quicks aside, nobody forget to watch this beauty in the making. "I only had one or two shifts a game in the old days so why should this game be any different? Someone has to open the door for Wayne. Just don't catch his foot in it."
posted by garfield at 04:58 PM on September 26, 2003
4 on 4 is very much what hocky is about. Yes but hockey is about 5 on 5. The 'e' makes all the difference!
posted by billsaysthis at 06:16 PM on September 26, 2003
I like the idea of re-introducing the tag-up rule and moving the nets back. Curve of the stick I'm not sure will result in more offense - maybe more pucks to the face, but either way that's pretty entertaining. I think that basically doing the above and eliminating the red line for offsides will essentailly be the international game played on a smaller ice surface - an idea I've been comfortable with for a year or two. I also think that touch up icing should been looked at - sure seeing the guys crash into each touching up icing is at times devestating - but it's so unnecessary and teams ice the puck to do two things: get a line change or kill time (i.e. stop momentum). Auto-icing kind of prevents time coming off the clock as we wait for tired defenseman A to touch it, and the hurry-up face-off (if it's ever enforced past November) will make for a quicker game - and more time to score for teams down in the last few minutes of the game. But all in all it's the rules of the international game that seem to suit modern hockey best.