No more off-sides?

[mannysBETTER3434 1]

This is from a U-M blog on an idea to give the NHL more flow.

Offsides needs to die. Hockey offsides, that is. It is sort of required in football and soccer. But it is not in hockey, and every time the rule is invoked a little part of me dies. Entertaining rushes are blown dead because one player strayed a fraction into the attacking zone. Power plays go from excitingly set up to regrouping because a defenseman can't hold the puck in the zone. Defenders can stack the blue line and enforce a dump and chase strategy that's about as interesting as watching the Spurs play basketball. And for what? I can't figure it out. It's true the rule gives a certain structure to the modern game, but what would the consequences be if offsides did not exist?

Cherry-picking is not likely. No team is going to voluntarily put themselves a man down in the defensive zone in the vague hope a long lead pass goes tape-to-tape and puts a player in alone. The continued existence of the two-line pass would make the offensive zone verboten until the defending team had cleared their zone with control of the puck. At that point, players could go where they pleased with incurring the wrath of a whistle and a boring neutral-zone faceoff. No, the framework for a penalty-kill-and-breakaway based offense has been in place since the NHL adopted the collegiate two-line pass rule, but no one has seriously attempted to deploy it save for some Swedes in the Olympics. Breakaway passes remain difficult, low-return things; removing offsides is not going to change that.

So, then, what are the negatives? The ability of a team to remove pressure around its own goal by desperately poking the puck out past the blue line has always seemed a cheap maneuver, and there's nothing I hate more in hockey than the whistle that disrupts an interesting rush for no reason. (Except the delay of game penalty you get when you accidentally fling the puck into the stands in your defensive zone. Worst rule in sports? Other than "Anderson Varejao is allowed to participate in them"?) Those are the ways offsides inflicts itself on the sport. Removing both of these things would improve the game

The benefit is obvious: hockey gets to play to its strengths. It's always been a game of flow up and down the ice, players approaching and retreating. One of my favorite sequences in all of hockey came in Michigan's 3-2 overtime loss to BC in the NCAA tournament a few years ago. Michigan had been dominated the entire game until a gorgeous nine minute-plus stretch of nonstop end-to-end action unsullied by whistles. Michigan started to emerge. You could feel the momentum shift. The Wolverines re-asserted themselves as equals, and you could feel the tenor of the game change. By the time it ended and the freaked out network cut to commercial, the tension drained from the room and real-life reasserted itself after what seemed like a lengthy ten minute vacation. (This being Michigan sports in the past half-decade, Boston College would bat in a rebound off the offensive zone faceoff and go on to win in overtime; yea, Angry Michigan Hockey Hating God was wroth that day.)

Dropping offsides would not turn all games into that ten-minute pressure wave but it might do that for some. It would reduce whistles, kill deadly dull neutral zone faceoffs, and make it harder to stand up offenses at the blue line with impunity. It would make hockey awesomer.

Okay, okay: while I would be happy to see offsides disappear entirely, I do realize most observers of the game would file that under lunacy and move on. But there are less radical alternatives:

Widen the blue line, which is actually part of the offensive zone when you want it to be -- holding a puck in or gaining the zone -- and a part of the defensive zone when you want it to be -- skittering along the edge of the zone with one skate precariously onside.

A more extreme version of same: make the "blue line" functionally extend all the way to the red line. Once you have gained the zone the puck must pass the red line for it to be lost. When you are taking the puck up ice, once you pass the red line you are permitted to pass to anyone.

Any of these suggestions would be somewhere between a moderate and a drastic change, but... um... they're embiggening the nets in a desperate attempt to increase scoring. Drastic measures are called for.

Thoughts on this? I really don't like the idea, but I think it would help flow, and more scoring. I am against making nets bigger

[Dixie Wingslover 0]

I totally agree with this blogger.... in the new NHL, where flow of game, uninterupted is the goal,,,, the amount of off sides *has* to be reduced. One of the things that attracts new fans to the game is the speed of it. Constant interruptions due to slight off sides calls is a distraction. I am a sesoned fan and I find them to distract from the game...... the flow, the momentum, the excitement....... I would like to see a season with a much ammended, if not totally removed off-sides ruling.

[toby91_ca 620]

Hate the idea....too tired to elaborate.

Edited June 15, 2007 by toby91_ca

[Redwings-40-5 11]

That is a great idea, and next why don't they take goalies and refs out as well because they disturb the flow of the game, then it would be like watching the NBA on ice. Hands down probably the worst idea I've ever heard

[Hank 0]

They tried it during the lockout in Boston and everyone there said it created a crap load of offense. The only downside they said that it made for far less hitting.

I wouldn't mind seeing this in an exhibition game.

But what they should think about is bringing back the Bowman lines. If you pass a line around the hashmarks you can pass all the way down the other end without icing or offsides. It forces teams to forecheck, because you wouldn't want that dman to get past the line to open the ice up.

What I really like about the idea is that while some trumpet the insitution of a larger ice surface, why not open up the ice that you have now?

What about these rules?

1. Bring the bluelines in 4 feet.

2. If you cross the blueline you can pass all the way down with no offsides or icing.

3. Once you enter the offensize zone, the blueline no longer acts as an offside marker but rather the redline would be(taken from roller hockey). So in essence, the defending team would have to get the puck across the redline to 'clear the zone'.

With this, you force the defensive team to forecheck, trying to prevent them from crossing the blueline. You also increase the offensive zone by almost 50% once you get past the blueline.

There would be a lot more skating and neutral zone traps would be abolished because you'd have to spread your 'trap' over 150 feet of ice.

Can you imagine seeing a quick player like Marty St.Louis in this system? Dan Boyle crosses the blueline. Once he does, Marty takes off, Boyle fires it into the corner or on net and Marty beats everyone to it.

The d might decide to sit back, but by donig that, they'd be allowing the team to enter the zone, extending the offensive area to the redline. It would make little sense to allow teams to come in. You'd be forced to attack more.

[Guest Crymson]

This is from a U-M blog on an idea to give the NHL more flow.

Thoughts on this? I really don't like the idea, but I think it would help flow, and more scoring. I am against making nets bigger

Two words: cherry picking.

Think of Brett Hull without offsides. He would have scored 200 goals per season. Think of Holmstrom or Smyth PERMANENTLY parked in the crease. Not cool.

[LeftWinger 4,961]

...while we're at it, why don't we just eliminate the whistles all together? I got it, when the opposing team scores, the play keeps going the goalie fishes the puck out of the net and tries to pass it to a team-mate!

...Eliminate offsides?!?!? F*ck, this is not and never will be the NBA, this is hockey, the NH f'ing L! All these wanna be Bettman's should just go back to watching the NBA and MLS! Stop f'ing with our rules to try to attempt people who don't give a rats ass about Hockey! Hey, maybe 15,000 people will show up to celebrate the next Stanley Cup too, maybe, just maybe 15,500 will show up if we change the rules some more! Yeah, that's attracting fans!

...you keep changing the rules and making this sport into a ballerina, maybe 15,000 people will show up to the next DETROIT Stanley Cup, how bout that bettman? Would you like that? Ass-hole!

[T-Ruff 47]

What about these rules?

1. Bring the bluelines in 4 feet.

2. If you cross the blueline you can pass all the way down with no offsides or icing.

3. Once you enter the offensize zone, the blueline no longer acts as an offside marker but rather the redline would be(taken from roller hockey). So in essence, the defending team would have to get the puck across the redline to 'clear the zone'.

At first reading the title I thought I would definitely be against it, but the blogger made some good points that got me thinking.... the above however, is the best solution of the 3 as far as I'm concerned.

Two words: cherry picking.

Think of Brett Hull without offsides. He would have scored 200 goals per season. Think of Holmstrom or Smyth PERMANENTLY parked in the crease. Not cool.

As the blogger mentioned, it would be unlikely that a team would put themselves down a man in their own zone in order to send up a guy to cherry pick.....

[Pucker 0]

Kinda reminds me of pond hockey.

[BeeRYCE 2]

Eliminating offsides? WOW.

Much like toby, too tired to elaborate. Just wow.

[OsGOD 3]

Two words: cherry picking.

Think of Brett Hull without offsides. He would have scored 200 goals per season. Think of Holmstrom or Smyth PERMANENTLY parked in the crease. Not cool.

I concur

I suppose the "great one" will also be against it. His records would be crushed.

[Hank 0]

Kinda reminds me of pond hockey.

Hahaha. That's basically what it would be.

LeftWinger, I understand your anger but the NHL does need to open things up yet. We need to find a way to force coaches to rely on offense at least as equally as defense.

During the finals I couldn't help but laugh when Sens fans began a small roar when the Sens were cycling succesfully for over 30 seconds. This is what gets fans excited now? Cycling? Really?

I grew up with 80's hockey and it was awesome. Lots of hitting, fighting and scoring. In fact, I would say 25% of the time the offensive team entered the zone it was an odd-man rush. Odd man rushes occur maybe 2% of the time now.

Add to the fact that every player in the league is expected to block shots, your average shooter is really facing 3 goalies when he lets it rip.

The creativity and flow of the game is better with the new rules being enforced but it's still not close to what it was like in the 80's and early 90's.

Unfortunately, because of how the game is played today, it will never return to what it was. This is why, if the NHL wants to create more offense, they need to tinker with things. I still think the easiest solutioni is force the goalies to wear smaller equipment or make the nets bigger. Give them the choice of what direction pro hockey will take.

I don't want to see radical change either, but I don't want to get excited over continuous cycling either.

As Detroit fans we're spoiled because we've had one of the most exciting, if not THE most exciting team to watch in the past 15 years. But I'm a hockey fan first and a Wings fan 2nd. I enjoy watching other teams and other players. And it frustrates me to no end when I tune in to watch a great player like Crosby or Ovechkin get stymied because the other team refuses to leave their zone.

Only when you make it harder to prevent goals will teams try to score them. I realise it'll never be like it was back in the day, but they can still do more to make the game entertaining to watch. And that's what sports is supposed to be; entertainment.

I can almost guarentee you that NHL ratings and it's popularity would be double what it is now if the hockey being played was similar to how it was from 80-94.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Keep the offsides, it definitely has its value.

i think a better idea would be to increase the width of the arena by about 10 feet or so (I believe someone else mentioned this in a different thread, and I really like the idea). There will be plenty of room to skate in the neutral zone, thus eliminating the 'trap-conundrum', and with that extra speed going through center ice, offsides will probably be reduced, if only just a bit. However if you don't like an offensive rush thats ruled offsides by a fraction of an inch, perhaps create a center line-blue line offsides rule. If the puck passes the center line, then the offensive team is free to skate into the other team's zone. Otherwise an offsides will be ruled. This eliminates the cherry-picking factor, and probably more importantly: the trap. With players being free to pass the blue line once a defensman crosses the half line, there really is little chance of clogging the neutral zone efficiently.

And unless the majority of the defending team is waiting at their net, this will also increase the chances of odd-man rushes, as speed will be maintained through the neutral zone, and forwards can start crashing the net as soon as the puck passes the halfline.

Personally, I don't want to see the goalie pads get smaller, or the net get larger. I can only see two results from this.

First, with that extra handicap, coaches will turn to an even more defensive style of play, and require that all 5 players clog the middle of their zone and block even more than they do now. Not only would it fail to increase the scoring by a marginal value worth the changes, but it would make offensive play more boring.

Second, scoring would increase, but many of the goals I can only expect will be what I call "sissy goals". Some Samuelson-like player will take a flimsy wrist shot from the top of the circle, and will beat the goalie far side in an embarrassing play, but one that puts the team up nonetheless. I would prefer the goals come well-earned, and I'm not necissarily saying that the wider nets/smaller pads would make every goal unearned, but I'm almost positive that many would be what we call now "the gimme-saves".

Edited June 15, 2007 by Echolalia

[Wings_Fan_In_Exile 3]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion and my opinion is that eliminating the off-side rule (no "s" in that word- sorry a mini pet peeve of mine ) is a HORRIBLE idea. As is making nets bigger. There have been enough changes as it is.

I enjoy watching a game where each goal is excitng. A 12-10 game full of cherry picking isn't hockey to me.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Wings_Fan_In_Exile

[spydrwebb 0]

not in favor of this at all.

[Packer487 3]

The guy who runs that site is a buddy of mine. He sat in my group at U of M games last year and we'd always go back and forth about offsides. Anytime there was a play that was a fraction of an inch offside, he'd elbow me and be like, "See? See?"

And while I'd agree that offsides on rushes like that do slow the game down, I really wouldn't want to see hockey without offsides of any kind. And there needs to be a boundary of some sort. Widening the blueline would probably work to eliminate a lot of those "rushes" offsides

I do disagree with Brian that teams wouldn't risk playing a man down in their own zone in favor of camping someone out at the other end of the rink. If anything, it would make offensive zone play more like 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 because the other team wouldn't risk playing 5 on 4 in the offensive zone at the risk of leaving someone wide open down the ice. The pass wouldn't even have to go tape to tape. Just have a defenseman rap it off the boards and the guy would be able to pick up the puck anywhere it went and be in cold turkey.

And being that even the best powerplays are only 25% (when you get to play on one for a full 2 minutes) and penalty shots are 35-40% when you have ONE attempt at it, I'd say teams would be much more likely to try and play "short-handed" when the reward is a chance at a breakaway. Thus the other team would have to drop a man back.

It would also lead to speedy wingers being far too valuable. Let a guy like Kariya take off up the side once his team gets possession, and not have him have to worry about being offsides? C'mon.

I would like to see them find a way to eliminate the "offsides by an inch on a rush" calls, but not at the expense of eliminating offsides altogether.

-Tim

[PRStoetzer 1]

The guy who runs that site is a buddy of mine. He sat in my group at U of M games last year and we'd always go back and forth about offsides. Anytime there was a play that was a fraction of an inch offside, he'd elbow me and be like, "See? See?"

And while I'd agree that offsides on rushes like that do slow the game down, I really wouldn't want to see hockey without offsides of any kind. And there needs to be a boundary of some sort. Widening the blueline would probably work to eliminate a lot of those "rushes" offsides

I do disagree with Brian that teams wouldn't risk playing a man down in their own zone in favor of camping someone out at the other end of the rink. If anything, it would make offensive zone play more like 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 because the other team wouldn't risk playing 5 on 4 in the offensive zone at the risk of leaving someone wide open down the ice. The pass wouldn't even have to go tape to tape. Just have a defenseman rap it off the boards and the guy would be able to pick up the puck anywhere it went and be in cold turkey.

And being that even the best powerplays are only 25% (when you get to play on one for a full 2 minutes) and penalty shots are 35-40% when you have ONE attempt at it, I'd say teams would be much more likely to try and play "short-handed" when the reward is a chance at a breakaway. Thus the other team would have to drop a man back.

It would also lead to speedy wingers being far too valuable. Let a guy like Kariya take off up the side once his team gets possession, and not have him have to worry about being offsides? C'mon.

I would like to see them find a way to eliminate the "offsides by an inch on a rush" calls, but not at the expense of eliminating offsides altogether.

-Tim

How about this - Part of a player can proceed the puck into the zone, but not all of a player.

[Packer487 3]

How about this - Part of a player can proceed the puck into the zone, but not all of a player.

Isn't that kind of the rule now? I mean, you're allowed to drag your foot along the blueline to stay onside even if the rest of you is in the offensive zone.

Hockey doesn't need any radical changes. Call the game consistently (meaning if a team wants to interfere on every dump in ::cough:: Anaheim ::cough:: then call it every time....even if the power plays get out of whack. They'll stop doing it before too long), get rid of the trapezoid, get rid of the dumping the puck into the crowd is an automatic penalty rule, and make the instigator a 2 minute penalty. And enforce more strict rules on goalie equipment...less wiggle room.

They definitely don't need to dump offsides. The playoffs were great this year. We don't need to "dumb the game down" so with more offense so the masses may fall in love with it.

-Tim

[Guest jaytan]

That's quite possibly the dumbest idea I've heard all day.

[MonkeyGoalie 14]

I don't think that getting rid of the offside rule would help that much unless the refs are really going to call the cluch and grab penalties. I don't want to see the offside rule taken out because one main thing is that all hockey players, pros and ametures, are taught that the puck must cross the blue line fully before the player crosses the blue line.

I think the best thing to get more shots to the goal is by keeping players from dropping in front player shooting the puck. But it will never happen, because they would create another penalty that refs probably won't call. I don't think there is anything thats going to change except for hopefully the refs are more strict in their calling of penalties.

[tweekvp 0]

I hate the idea of getting rid of the off-side rule.

However I am warm to widening the blue line. It could lead to fewer "by an inch" off-side calls that do really slow the game and frustrate new fans.

If I was going to get rid of a whistle in hockey it would be the hand pass. I really hate seeing that whistled and I am not quite sure what the point is. I think the penalty for closing your hand over the puck would keep things under crontrol and the added ability to direct the puck to a teammate could lead to some interesting scoring chances.

Just a thought.

[sharomyga 6]

Don't like the idea. Like someone above said it's going to be basketball on ice. No way!!

[Earthhuman 8]

No offsides?...

... I am so turned on right now.

This would mean that Lidstrom would continue to maintain his 60-80 points status, as the game would adapt to his age.

Therefore, I'm all for it.

[Dixie Wingslover 0]

What I really like about the idea is that while some trumpet the insitution of a larger ice surface, why not open up the ice that you have now?

What about these rules?

1. Bring the bluelines in 4 feet.

2. If you cross the blueline you can pass all the way down with no offsides or icing.

3. Once you enter the offensize zone, the blueline no longer acts as an offside marker but rather the redline would be(taken from roller hockey). So in essence, the defending team would have to get the puck across the redline to 'clear the zone'.

I like Hank's ideas here.... and with the elimination of that stupid "goalie can't play the puck in front of the trapezoid" rule..... should make for some interesting hockey. And I hate to say it, but ANYTHING which will reduce the effectiveness of the trap..... I am for it. It definitely should be given a trial. Whether it makes it or not..... remains to be seen.... Cherry picking.... don't believe it will happen..... not in this defensive minded league.

Don't like the idea. Like someone above said it's going to be basketball on ice. No way!!

This is assuming that every shot on net will result in a goal....... how many times have we seen a puck go around, stop short, miss an OPEN net? Under this logic, every single one of those pucks should have gone in..... they don't. And there are goalies out there who can, will, and do handle the puck very well...... Something I think should be a part of hockey. It takes the "positional" goalie out of the game....( Cough, Giguere ) so you will not have to tinker with net size, goalie equipment. Some of those guys will be shooting fests.... but not Detroits, they can handle the puck and clear it out..... accurately.

[Kp-Wings 3]

What is with these people? Jeez, why don't we take fighting, hitting, and goalies out the game while we're at it and just change the name of the sport to basketball?

I've grown tired of these outrageous ideas people come up with that they actually think will improve hockey. God forbid Bettman reads any of this stuff, otherwise he might like the ideas! Christ.