toby91_ca

I think you and many other people are really missing the big picture. You seem to think the big argument for changing is due to the risk of injury and point to so many other things that create injuries. I think the media has tended to go overboard on the injury risk thing, because it probably is a fact that injuries resulting from touch icing are very rare. But this really shouldn't be the big picture here. To be honest, I really couldn't care less if they changed the rule, because I don't see it making a real impact one way or another, but if I were to vote, I would vote to change the rule and here is why: - ingorning the injury argument for a moment, if you change to no-touch icing, what is really going to change? 95 times out of 100, or more, the same play will result in the same thing....a whistle, except, theorectically, the play can get moving quicker because you don't have to wait for someone to go touch the puck. Theoretically, the number of icings may reduce because players may be less likely to throw the puck the length of the ice if they know there is no chance of avoiding a whistle and being stuck out there. The other 5 times out of a 100 that the icing is negated because the offensive player gets there first and does absolutely nothing other than turn the puck over seconds later (most cases) would be eliminated.....so what? The argument that there are far more negated icings by goalies coming out to touch the puck does not hold water with me. In those situations, it is clear that the offensive player is so far ahead, the icing would be waived off anyway, the rule change would have zero impact on this play. - so, taking that into consideration, why not change the rule even if it could prevent 1 serious injury every 10 years? Yes, it is rare, but when it doesn't have to happen, why not avoid it. All the discussions around more injuries being incurred in other scenarios are pointless because you would have to look at what you would be losing should you try to eliminate those situations. With this one, you are eliminating basically nothing from the game, in fact, you may be improving the flow. In other situations where injuries occur, to eliminate the risk, you would have to change the game significantly.....completely different discussion. However, let's be clear, there are several discussions about changing certain rules to avoid injury in other areas as well, including visors, etc.

Yes it is, his rookie year was 2005/06. Out of interest, he's over a year younger than Kronwall, who's rookie year was also 2005/06. Lundqvist is another older rookie from that year. Crazy to think, but Crosby and Kronwall were both rookies in 2005/06, even though Kronwall is almost 7 years older.

Actually, it shouldn't matter to them as they will still be doing the same thing except they won't have to wait for the defenseman to touch the puck first. Unless you are suggesting they are thinking the number of icings will be decreased, which is a dintinct possibility.

I'm basing my opinion on being pretty knowledgable on the guy since he was a teenager, mostly due to my origins. To be honest, if I wasn't from Halifax, I probably would have never heard of the guy. I just don't remember the guy ever being given much expectation to succeed at the NHL level before or after being drafted. This has nothing to do with the fact that he was drafted in the 7th round, I just used that as further evidence that the general public had the same views....at least at that point in time.

I realize that a lot has to do with his size, but what does it matter? The fact is, he wasn't expected to be an impact player in the NHL, so the fact that he never became an impact player in the NHL wasn't a disappointment, it was the "expectation". Also, with Zetterberg, he wasn't expected to come and make an impact in the NHL, there was no hype surrounding him, the fact that he did means he belongs on the other list (surprises, exceeded expectations) - has nothing really to do with Reid.

As I am originally from Halifax, I saw quite a bit of Brandon in junior. I have to say that he was a pretty good player back then, but in terms of making the jump to the NHL, I don't think anyone thought he was really capable of much. I mean, he was drafted in the 7th round, that should tell you all you need to know about the expectations.

What you are doing is interpreting the actual words in the rulebook and the instances to which they would apply. I have no problem with your interpretation and it does make sense, however, the NHL obviously has a different interpretation as no penalties are called when players are hit without the puck in certain circumstances. I'm not just referring to races for the puck on an icing. I think what you are trying to say is that the NHL is not calling penalties they should be calling based on the rules as written. While I think the rules could be clarified as you can easily interpret the rules different ways.

I think your "interpretation" is clearly different than the NHL's.

None of the rules you posted have anything to do with a legal "battle for the puck" where a person could be legally hit while not possessing the puck, as noted in the excerpt from the rulebook that I previously posted. The rulebook basically says that if you hit someone who is not in possession of the puck and is not deemed a legal "battle for the puck" you should be assessed an interference penalty. I think that is pretty clearly stating that there are instances "battles for the puck" whereby you could legally hit someone not possessing the puck. I don't know how much clearer it could be. Edit: by the way, I'm not sure what rulebook you are refering to, but it's out of date. In the current, official rulebook, there is not rule 67(a). Granted all the rules are pretty much the same as you have stated, except the fact that you have left out the "battle for the puck" part.

The thing with saying WAS would completely fall apart with AO is that it is very easy to say, but you never really know unless that happens. Teams have done surprisingly well without star players. It just goes to show how much of a team sport hockey really is. Obviously, losing a star player is going to hurt, especially someone like AO, but no one player can win games for you. In basketball, one player can make a huge difference, in hockey, not quite as much.

More than half of the losing streak happened with Lidstrom in the lineup.

You do not have to be in possession of the puck for you to be hit legally. If two players are racing for the puck, they are allowed to hit one another, as long as you are within reasonable range of the puck. If you hit someone that is going for the puck, but is 10-15 feet away from it, that would be different. In terms of the % chance of injury on icings, I know it is low, very remote, but that's not really the point. Almost as remote is the chance that something is going to happen from touch icing, so why bother keeping the rule. Implementing no-touch icing may even speed up the game.

2 goals and 7 pts in 7 games after tonight. When Crosby comes back and they are put on a line together, I suspect he'll pick it up.

But you just said he hadn't stepped up his game after Crosby went down.....I'm confused.

I completely disagree, scouting is going on all over the world, there shoudln't really be any difference when we are talking about more recently drafted players. Going back to Fedorov's draft days is a different story. Fedorov was drafted pretty late. Everyone knew about his skill, but he wasn't picked early because they didn't know if he would ever come to the NHL. It was different times back then.

Are you serious????? His ppg went from something like 1.15 to 1.75.

The only time it would warrant a call is if the hit is dirty or late. Nothing wrong with hitting someone while battling for a lose puck. I've seen the argument that for a hit to be legal, you can only hit a puck carrier, but that really isn't true.

But maybe you should put further effort into it, because from what I read, the only reason you want to keep the rule is because it has always been there and you don't like change. In terms of the other items you mentioned: - visors/cages - these would inhibit players vision and comfort levels and potentially limit their playing ability. Having played with and without a cage, I can tell you, its definately easier to play without one, but you are opening yourself up to some dangers. - fighting - well, its part of the game and it is necessary at times. A fight can also change the momentum of a game, wake up your teammates, the crowd, etc. - hits - well, it needs to be there for so many reasons it would be a waste of time to list. What is it that "touch icing" adds to the game that would be removed if the rule was changed to "no-touch icing". It absolutely makes no sense to me and the guys that are actually out there playing the game agree with me. I have no problem if someone has an opinion that the rule shouldn't change, but I haven't really seen any logical reason to keep it yet. Keeping it for the sake of not making a change is not a logical reason.

I think it is a tough one, you'd like to rest him as much as you can, but you also need to get him in game shape. After tonight, there are only 5 games left in their season. There isn't much time left to get in game shape. He definately won't have enough time at this point to be fully conditioned by the start of the playoffs, but you want to give him as much game time as you can, so I think he has to play asap. Obviously, if you are going to risk injury, you keep him out. From what I have read, his ankle is feeling strong, he's just not in game shape. To be honest, I'm not sure if I believe that. If his ankle was strong enough (no way it is going to be 100% until next year anyway, but if it was truly strong enough), he'd be playing and gaining the game shape he needs during those games. Then again, its probably risking injury more if your conditioning isn't where it needs to be.

Crosby may return on Thursday, he is out for their game tonight against the Devils. If they lose tonight, it puts them them 3pts behind Montreal with 5 games to play. It would also put them in a tie with the Devils, which means they could very easily fall to 4th in the conference. It is very possible the match up happens, but if I were to give my best guess, I would say that Pitt finishes 2nd in the conference and Wash finishes 9th or 10th (out of the playoffs). Wash is 2 pts behind Bos right now, but Bos has a game in hand. They are only 1 pt up on Buf, who also have a game in hand. Surprisingly, Tor is only 2 pts behind Wash as well and they have been playing without some key players, including Sundin (little too late if you ask me though).

In terms of not allowing a team to ice the puck during a penalty kill: I agree that it doesn't make sense to give the offending team an advantage here, I think the main issue is that the team is going to ice the puck anyway, which is going to result in more stoppages of play. I think the NHL wants to avoid stoppages as much as possible.

Well, wiki does have a lot of good info, but probably not as much as what you are looking for.

I'm actually completely done with discussing Crosby now. Unless I see something that is just so misleading or plain wrong, I won't bother getting involved, it's a waste of time.

Fedorov is 4th, not 5th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Red_W...scoring_leaders

Your impression is impaired. Roberts won one cup (about 20 years ago), he's an old man. Laraque's playoff experience is a benefit? Did he even play any of their playoff games last year (I think he played a few minutes in game 1, that's it). An Gonchar, well, he was one of the worst players in the playoffs last year.