04/24/24
January 23, 2004
Here's a new one:: to add a line at each end. They would run parallel to the bluelines and deep enough to touch the top of the face-off circles.
Sort of a two-line pass nullifying zone. How does this differ from eliminating two-line passes?
posted by Succa at 02:12 PM on January 23, 2004
It expands the zone the trap would have to defend....i think.
posted by garfield at 03:08 PM on January 23, 2004
Boo! No more lines! This isn't football! Just eliminate the 2-line pass rule and let them pass from their own end to the opposing team's blue line. That's a REALLY long pass and it's either going to: a) give a guy a nice breakaway b) get picked off and cause an odd-man rush in the opposite direction Either way, it's going to be an exciting result and it's hard to defend.
posted by grum@work at 03:10 PM on January 23, 2004
But...eliminating two-line passes would give the puck carrier two thirds of the ice to work with, and this would give it slightly less. Unless the rule is that you can pass all the way to the other new-line-thing. In which case that would be interesting, but policing offsides would be much harder.
posted by Succa at 03:12 PM on January 23, 2004
i don't know dude. it was Bowman's idea. I think he endorsed this opposed to eliminating the two-line call is because of the incentives it provides. the defenseman still has to rush the puck up ice, which would not be the case if the two-line pass wasn't there. a defender could pop out from behind his goal line and pop a pass to the opposing blue line. forcing the defender to skate the puck up also encourages the forecheck, which opens up the trap, which blah blah blah.....you get the idea.
posted by garfield at 03:34 PM on January 23, 2004
In theory this would work, but I don't see it working out in practice. Which official would be in position to make the call on this new line? I really don't see a need to try anything quite so radical. Just remove a lot of the 'new' rules that were brought into the game in the last 30 years:
- Allow the players to tag up on offsides (why did they get rid of that?)
- A delayed penalty is no longer negated by a goal
- A goal no longer ends a 2 min. minor
- Co-incidental minors remove players from the ice (more 4 on 4)
- No more 2 line pass
posted by camcanuck at 04:09 PM on January 23, 2004
I see no reason for #2 and #3 camcanuck. What does this add to the game except more shorthandedness? There is not a direct correlation between power play goals and excitement. I know, the intention is to get players to take fewer penalties, but I think the mechanisms of this particular game element are perfect the way they are. Make the players do the skate of shame to the bench after his team gives up a power-play goal. There are better ways to cut down on penalties. For example, by calling them.
posted by Succa at 04:19 PM on January 23, 2004
Succa... I've got to agree with youon calling the penalties. The officials this year have been horrible. I should've included going back to 1 ref and giving more power to the linesmen to point out stick infractions etc. If memory serves they use to be able to call major high sticking penalties, but since there is no such thing anymore (just double minors these days) I guess they don't worry about it any more. As for more shorthandedness, I really don't think those 2 ideas would add that much more time. Whats the average powerplay conversion rate these days... 15%? Only in those cases would you see more shorthanded time. Besides the only reason the NHL ever moved to allowing only 1 goal during a 2 min minor was because back in the 70's Montreal would rack up 3 goals before the penalty expired. To help level the playing field a bit it was decided to only allow 1 goal.
posted by camcanuck at 05:09 PM on January 23, 2004
I want to campaign for the refs to make one call. Only one. Real simple. When a player closes their hand on the puck, its an automatic two. Well, same thing here, except change the puck for an opponent's stick. This is a huge pet peeve of mine, and would help reduce the strangle hold defensive hockey has on the game. It encourages defenders to learn how to play with two hands on their stick. But, in general, penalties need to be called. The players always adjust.
posted by garfield at 05:20 PM on January 23, 2004
small things I'm in favour of: tag-up (back again) reducing the space behind the net (back again.) reducing the size of goalie equipment, especially the catching gloves no-touch icing larger thing I'm in favour of: contraction (preferably some of those southern teams :) definitely opposed: gimmicky new lines (there's enough already) two-line passes. I don't buy it. It just means that the defense-men coming into the zone will stay back further, and they'd be in the offensive play less and, naturally, clog up the neutral zone more. Plus you'll get more icings. And yeah, one thing that will definitely improve the league is more consistent referees. Call that obsctruction and grabbing throughout the whole season -- not just the first two weeks and for a week anytime after the NHL calls for it.
posted by mkn at 12:30 AM on January 24, 2004
There's a drawback to the Bowman rule. It adds two more lines to a playing surface that already has plenty of lines and circles and is confusing to many, particularly people new to the sport.