12/21/24
December 17, 2003
Gary Bettman' has got himself a crystal ball, aka the AHL It's piloting of neutra-zone ice marking changes is the first and most constructive step towards what it will take to bandage the bleeding, i.e. tweak the on-ice product, of this 'blood sport'. And don't you fret AHL die-hards, competitive balance has been maintained.
I'm of the opinion that bringing back the tag-up rule would do more for the flow of the game than widening the lines, or any other hair-brained idea the league cooks up. Do they really think the delayed offside calls are good for the flow, or are they just too damn stubborn to admit they made a mistake? Also, put the nets back where they were. The extra room behind the goal line has done nothing to increase offense, like it was supposed to do, and with the nets closer to the glass, they can take the the damn netting down. But that's just me, I guess...
posted by MeatSaber at 10:07 AM on December 18, 2003
Me too. It's subtle, not radical. It'll force teams to spread their neutral zone defense. It'll encourage more break-out passing. It'll make the poke-check at the blue line a much more difficult play. It'll help D-men maintain the zone on offense. MeatSaber, can you explain the difference between 'tag-up' and 'delayed off-sides' for the uninitiated?
posted by garfield at 10:11 AM on December 18, 2003
Players that were in the offensive zone ahead of the puck were allowed to skate back to the blueline and "tag-up," then re-enter the zone and into the play. The rule is now that if a player precedes the puck-carrier into the offensive zone, the play is whistled dead. Let me give you an example: (Tag-up allowed) Kris Draper is forechecking Adam Foote behind the Colorado net. Fotte clears the puck, but Kirk Maltby intercepts it in the neutral zone. Maltby then skates into Colrado's zone. Draper is offside, but skates to the blueline, tags, and trails Maltby in the slot. There is no whistle. (Current Rule) Exact same play, only as soon as Maltby carries over the blueline, the play is whistled dead.
posted by MeatSaber at 11:50 AM on December 18, 2003
Meatsaber: I don't think that's right. Tag-up: Same as above, except instead of Maltby skating into the Colorado zone, he flips the puck in while Draper is still in the zone. The linesman signals a delayed offside. However, it is removed the moment the zone is completely cleared of attacking players (Draper leaves before Maltby goes in). At that point, the play continues as normal. If Maltby enters the zone before Draper leaves, the delayed offside is still in effect, as the zone was not completely cleared of attackers. Current Rule: Same play as above, but regardless of the what the attacking players do, the delayed offside is in effect until the defending players move the puck outside the blue line. Even if the attackers clear the zone, they offside is still going to be called if they touch the puck inside the defensive zone. The whistle will always be blown for an offside if an attacking player carries the puck across the blue line while a teammate is inside of the defensive ahead of the puck carrier (or passes it to him across the blue line). That's never changed. What changed (and hopefully will be changed back to) is the idea that the offside signal can be removed by clearing the zone.
posted by grum@work at 12:02 PM on December 18, 2003
Dammit, you're right, grum. I knew that, just didn't convey it properly in my example...
posted by MeatSaber at 12:07 PM on December 18, 2003
To recap: current rule: defenseman must clear the puck out of the zone for the off-side to be waived off. tag up rule: forecheckers can have the off-sidewaived off once they leave the attacking zone. I'm for reinstating the tag-up rule as well. More turnovers = more goals. aside: Perhaps a rules discussion of some sort could help de-mystify the sport. (Not sure if anyone's noticed, but I try my darnedest to make hockey accessible and attractive to the non-hockey fan. Well, maybe not to the greatest extent possible, but I'm definitely trying to keep its exposure up)
posted by garfield at 12:32 PM on December 18, 2003
More turnovers = more goals. Not only more turnovers, but fewer whistles, which creates more fluidity to the game. As for a rules discussion, I'm all for it. There's a few rules in hockey I'd like to see changed, and there are some obscure rules that casual and/or non-fans might not understand. As for exposure, although I loathe bandwagoners, I take a million of them over losing hockey altogether because there's no money to run a league...
posted by MeatSaber at 12:45 PM on December 18, 2003
more fluidity to the game Speaking of, perhaps hockey could learn a lesson from footie broadcasting, and skip out on commercial breaks, and instead have in-game adverts, i.e; become a better advertising vehicle. With fewer whistles and the hurry-up rule in between whistles, entire periods could go commercial-free. Imagine the highlight and commentating opportunities, to boot. Even if less people are watching, the ads could be more effective, eventually translating to more $$$. re:rules : What rules do people no understand? (speak up peeps)
posted by garfield at 01:05 PM on December 18, 2003
me fail english....constantly.
posted by garfield at 01:09 PM on December 18, 2003
I don't know about league-wide, but they do in-game commercials during local Wings broadcasts. Ken Daniels, our PBP guy, does the "this game brought to you by..." thing several times during the game, not including commercial breaks. Then we have the Belle Tire power-play, the Murray's Auto Parts shorthanded challenge, the McDonald's player of the game, the Bank One check of the game...blah blah blah...the game is pretty much one big commercial.
posted by MeatSaber at 01:22 PM on December 18, 2003
I see no reason to change the way power plays work. What's wrong with it now? Sure there might be a few more goals, but it's an arbitrary rule change. Why not take the goalie out for two minutes while you're at it? Besides, making the players sit the duration would eliminate the "skate of shame" from the box to the bench after the other team scores. And that's just not a world I want to live in.
posted by Succa at 01:40 PM on December 18, 2003
Every sporting event is one big commercial. I'm just saying reading copy is not a very effective way of advertising, apart from basic brand recognition. It's not sexy either. A nice drop-down banner ad for a minute or two, or a quick 5 second full screen ad, or something like that; no commercial break, just incorporate the ad into the broadcast. CBC and Rogers Sportnet watchers know what I'm talking about. The Canadian Tire Zamboni: overlaying a crowd shot, a animated 'boni drives across the screen to reveal the company logo. Quick and painless, and doesn't even give you a chance to change the channel. Yeah, I think the full 2 minute thing is a little half-baked.
posted by garfield at 01:52 PM on December 18, 2003
My thinking of making players sit the whole 2 minutes could actually make players think twice before they decide to water ski behind another player. Maybe, just maybe, it could cut down on all that silly clutching 'n grabbing 'n whatnot, thus opening up the ice. You know, if those things were actually called as penalties, that is. I realize that this rule change isn't very realistic, but didn't players have to sit the full 2 minutes back in the old days?
posted by NoMich at 02:26 PM on December 18, 2003
I'm not sure about the old days, but I think they might have. I think the ref should just take the captains aside and give a stern and one-time warning, to pass along to their teams. "Ok, no monkey business. I want a good, clean game. I'll call every lazy penalty I see. Even in the the third period with 4 minutes left. Don't retaliate, cause I'll call that every time." After the first ten minutes of the first, it should be crystal clear what's a call and what isn't a call.
posted by garfield at 02:32 PM on December 18, 2003
You'll never never NEVER get television networks to drop the 30-second spots from hockey or any other sport. That length is the standard for all TV advertising, which means you can plug any commercial into any broadcast without tinkering with it or having to produce separate content — in other words, jacking up the front-end cost. I'm not sure what Canadian Tire pays for its drop-ins (and I like them, unlike the crapola Fox pulls by superimposing shit into the game to make it appear as if it's reality), but there's only so much of that kind of junk that can be crammed into a game. There have to be stoppages for the ads, or you wouldn't generate enough revenue to pay for the TV contracts. /end hummer for the ad agencies
posted by wfrazerjr at 03:17 PM on December 18, 2003
garfield, that's part of the problem in the NHL, though. The refs don't always make the calls they should, or are inconsistent within the game on what they're gonna call. I've seen guys 2-hand slash another player in the back of the legs, in the refs field of vision, and it not be called. Then, 30 seconds later, call a guy for slashing for a love tap on the hip. I've seen Hatcher (in his Dallas days) crosscheck Holmstrom in the back 8 times in the span of 10 seconds, with Fraser watching the whole thing, only to have Holmer called for diving when he finally fell over after the 8th whack. The players can't figure out what's going to be called when it changes from shift to shift. And don't even get me started on the 2-ref system, or the younger refs not wanting to overrule a veteran ref... As for ads...have any of you noticed the on-field ads that they're superimposing onto college football games lately? Basically they're using the same computer system that adds the 1st down line on the field to add short-lived billboard onto the field. Yet, the number of commercial breaks is the same. Drives me nuts...
posted by MeatSaber at 03:22 PM on December 18, 2003
fraz, that's a new skill you've put on display. Actually, I disagree, but I'm fighting an entrenched institutional procedure. It would take more work on the part of the ad agencies, but specialized advertising methodologies, specific to demographics and other mitigating factors, would be much more effective, and thus able to demad higher rates. But I digress. MeatSaber, I've come to accept certain limitations and tendencies of refs, like giving the extra 2 for retaliation, even though the initial infraction was far more heinous. But the inconsistency is becoming a major issue, especially with the proliferation of satellite hockey packages. I just think the refs are being pulled in too many directions. You've got the League, the owners, the players, the fans(or lack thereof) all wanting the refs to change....but too much. I'm not sure how the refs are organized, but there needs to be some uniformity training, and a mandate that the refs can call the game the way it should be called; a penalty is a penalty...first 5 minutes or last 5 minutes. Players will adjust, and if a game is decided on a penalty, its the player's fault, not the refs.
posted by garfield at 09:17 AM on December 19, 2003
that should be 'but not too much'.....geez.
posted by garfield at 09:26 AM on December 19, 2003
I really like this idea. It (artificially) increases the size of the ice and should make for real attacks. How many the offsides calls have been from the player being inches over the blueline? I would say a majority of them (although I don't have any real stats on that) and with a widened line, it should cut those calls down. I would also like to see minor penalties treated like majors. You got 2 minutes for slashing? Fine, sit there for 2 minutes, even if the other team scores a goal.