No more off-sides?

[eva unit zero 271]

Personally I'm quite happy with just having no two-line pass rule...I think the league has about 1000 things it would be better-served trying to fix before it goes back to screwing with perfectly functional, well-established rules in an attempt to force more offense into the game.

I pretty much automatically equate "blogger" to "know-nothing blowhard with too much time on their hands" because 98% of them just spout off pages full of uninteresting, uninformed crap...such as seriously advocating removing fundamental parts of the game because their attention span is too small to handle the 20 seconds between an offsides call and the ensuing faceoff.

Yeah, because we all know offsides is a fundamental part of the game. I mean, taking out offsides would have about the same effect on the game as taking out the goaltender or saying everyone must now wear spikes instead of skates.

/sarcasm

[Kp-Wings 3]

Yeah, because we all know offsides is a fundamental part of the game. I mean, taking out offsides would have about the same effect on the game as taking out the goaltender or saying everyone must now wear spikes instead of skates.

/sarcasm

If you take out offsides, you'll be 50 goals scored every game. Sidney Crosby will finish his career with over 10,000 goals. Brett Hull could come out of retirement and be a force again. Guys like Holmstrom and Smyth would sit in front of the net the entire game, regardless of where the play is at on the ice.

Offsides keeps the game in balance. Say what you want, but without it, final scores will be like basketball scores. I do consider a fundamental part of the game, since it keeps things the way they should be.

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Well which is it? "Devilish", or the trap? The two are not the same thing. This cannot be said enough: the New Jersey Devils of the mid 90s DID NOT TRAP. The trap is a 1-2-2 forecheck that is reliant on speed and positioning. The Devils played an 0-5 format forming a wall in the neutral zone. HUGELY different.

This rule change was made after the lockout.

So my idea for making icing have to be 140 feet rather than 90 is a bad idea, but we should change it so that most icings get waved off if the player is ahead of his own blue line? How is that significantly different?

"Offsides is an integral part of the game", that has been changed many times since it was first put in place 70 years ago.

My suggestion would certainly be different from what we've seen before, but it would result in faster games, fewer whistles, and more potent power plays. Because longer passes would be available at lower risk, teams couldn't clog up the middle as easily because you could just dump the puck into the corner from 130 feet away with no penalty. If your guy is faster than theirs, you may have just found yourself a scoring chance.

The description 'Devilsih' was meant to shed light on how the Devils changed the game with their style of play.

And yes, the icing rule was changed after the lockout. However, what I was suggesting is to make it more liberal. There are still too many icings in the game. That is a huge flow killer.

The way things differ between your suggestion and mine, is that I would not change the layout of the ice. You want to drasticly change it. Those type of changes aren't what is going to get things done. They will, however, turn hockey into a circus sport just like Arena Football is.

I don't think your suggestion would result in faster games, or more scoring. In fact, I think it would result in the exact opposite. You woul have teams sitting back and waiting. Why press a defender into making a play, when you can shorten up the ice simply by letting him skate it up? You would never see hard forechecking, all it would take to beat that is one quick side to side pass. Then boom, add in the long bomb pass, and you have an odd man rush.

I think the only real solution is to just leave the offsides rule as is. The tag up offsides has proved to be the best possible method. It works, leave it alone. Maybe coaches should stress staying on side more. That would reduce the number of whistles.

[StaticWithABeat 0]

Yeah, because we all know offsides is a fundamental part of the game. I mean, taking out offsides would have about the same effect on the game as taking out the goaltender or saying everyone must now wear spikes instead of skates.

/sarcasm

Are you inferring that taking out offsides would have no major effect on the game, or are you totally misinterpreting me and thinking that I'm not open to or aware of the fact that offsides can and has been modified in the past? When you're not busy delivering snide, ******* comments I think you have some of the more interesting opinions around here...tinkering with offsides is one thing, like in your move-it-up-a-line idea, but taking it out altogether? I would love to hear you, this dumbass blogger, or anyone on earth try to explain how that wouldn't completely f**k up the game. If the presence of offsides isn't a fundamental part of hockey, then what the hell is?

I fail to see what's so wrong with it as it is right now. Is the game really that boring? I know the NHL has problems, but I don't think offsides is the cause of any of them.

[regwinguofmfan 0]

Apparently the blogger is too young to remember how successful the RHI was

They eliminated everything including the ice and score 20 goals a game.

That league folded in under 3 years.

And was honestly about as entertaining to watch as grass growing. Just a bunch of dudes rollerblading up and down the court shooting, no hitting, not much passing and only 4 guys on each side.

Yes Roller Hockey International was so successful Im sure alot of posters on here remember it well

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Apparently the blogger is too young to remember how successful the RHI was

They eliminated everything including the ice and score 20 goals a game.

That league folded in under 3 years.

And was honestly about as entertaining to watch as grass growing. Just a bunch of dudes rollerblading up and down the court shooting, no hitting, not much passing and only 4 guys on each side.

Yes Roller Hockey International was so successful Im sure alot of posters on here remember it well

Let's not forget Pro Beach Hockey. That was some pretty intense stuff there.

[mannysBETTER3434 1]

Let's not forget Pro Beach Hockey. That was some pretty intense stuff there.

I loved Pro Beach Hockey! Cheli's brother played there for a while.

[vangvace 12]

Maybe coaches should stress staying on side more. That would reduce the number of whistles.

But that would require coaches to stress fundamentals instead of systems...

[eva unit zero 271]

Are you inferring that taking out offsides would have no major effect on the game, or are you totally misinterpreting me and thinking that I'm not open to or aware of the fact that offsides can and has been modified in the past? When you're not busy delivering snide, ******* comments I think you have some of the more interesting opinions around here...tinkering with offsides is one thing, like in your move-it-up-a-line idea, but taking it out altogether? I would love to hear you, this dumbass blogger, or anyone on earth try to explain how that wouldn't completely f**k up the game. If the presence of offsides isn't a fundamental part of hockey, then what the hell is?

When did I say offsides should be removed? I offered a suggestion for modifying it RATHER than removing it to achieve the same goals. I certainly don't think removing offsides would f*** up the game because every step you take beyond what you would have been able to with offsides in place is a step away from your own zone when you don't have the puck. If players get too careless trying to be an extra step ahead, and it hurts their team, you can bet the coaches will have a say about it. And if it works, and creates more offensive chances for the attacking team, what's wrong with that? Not having offsides would provide more chances for breakaway situations--the winger stays high along the blueline and the moment his defenseman gains control in the corner, he takes off like a rocket to meet the long bomb pass his defenseman is sending. That would, of course, mean the defensive team is effectively short a man and this gives the attacking team an advantage. Or teams would play like they do now. Where's the harm?

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

When did I say offsides should be removed? I offered a suggestion for modifying it RATHER than removing it to achieve the same goals. I certainly don't think removing offsides would f*** up the game because every step you take beyond what you would have been able to with offsides in place is a step away from your own zone when you don't have the puck. If players get too careless trying to be an extra step ahead, and it hurts their team, you can bet the coaches will have a say about it. And if it works, and creates more offensive chances for the attacking team, what's wrong with that? Not having offsides would provide more chances for breakaway situations--the winger stays high along the blueline and the moment his defenseman gains control in the corner, he takes off like a rocket to meet the long bomb pass his defenseman is sending. That would, of course, mean the defensive team is effectively short a man and this gives the attacking team an advantage. Or teams would play like they do now. Where's the harm?

Taking out offsides would kill hockey. It would turn the NHL into a circus league. It wouldn't increase scoring, in fact you'd have teams sitting back more, and pressing less.

What makes you think that coaches would be any more or less upset at a player cherry picking in your senario, than a coach would be or not be in the current setup?

All taking out offsides would do is force coaches to come up with a different system. At least with current rules, the players are kept honest, and forced to play the game. If I want to see the game played without offsides, go watch some shinny. See how entertaining that stuff is. If you've ever played it, you know what I'm talking about. The first 15 minutes are fun. But after that it just gets old, and there is no challange to it. The NHL has a great product. It needs to be marketed more wisely. If that means giving ESPN a sweetheart deal, then do it.

The best way to increase scoring isn't to make nets bigger, take out offsides, or any other rule changes for that matter. All you would have to do is get some refs who have the balls to make a call. Regardless if it's a preseason game, or game 7 of the SCF. A penalty is a penalty, and hockey like no other sport, changes it's rules for playoffs.

And just a tidbit, get rid of the instigator rule. I won't even argue any points on why I think it should be gone. I just want to see some more fights!

[Kp-Wings 3]

And just a tidbit, get rid of the instigator rule. I won't even argue any points on why I think it should be gone. I just want to see some more fights!

Unfourtantly, because of people like Todd Fedoruk, that probably won't happen. Him being on the recieving end of these one-hit knockouts is what started this whole "take out fighting" debate in the first place. Though that was silenced, the instigator rule is still there.

If the owners complained about it, then something would probably happen. Unfourtantly (yes again), there are too many owners in this league like Bill Wirtz and Jeremy Jacobs that don't even care about hockey. In fact, with how bad their teams are, I bet they don't even watch it. They just go with the grain and do whatever is best for them to make more money.

I hate the instigator rule also. You know, the fans, players, coaches, commentators, and basically everyone hates it, because this is where the stuff like with Chris Simon comes in. If there was no instigator rule, Chris Simon would have simpily showed Ryan Hollweg what for by beating his ass. But because you can't start fights without instigating them anymore, he decided to lumberjack him in the face. It's secretly turning hockey into an even more dangerous game.

I can't stand the rule. I just hope everyone complaining about it will eventually get them to take it out. I mean, if Bettman wants to start selling the product to people (especially in the south), he needs to realize that people like violence, and that's what fighting is. Why do you think people watch Nascar? Nobody watches it to see guys drive around in a circle 200 times. They watch it for the potential crash. Hockey is a little different, but still. I want more fights also, and I just hope Bettman smartens up and removes it.

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Unfourtantly, because of people like Todd Fedoruk, that probably won't happen. Him being on the recieving end of these one-hit knockouts is what started this whole "take out fighting" debate in the first place. Though that was silenced, the instigator rule is still there.

If the owners complained about it, then something would probably happen. Unfourtantly (yes again), there are too many owners in this league like Bill Wirtz and Jeremy Jacobs that don't even care about hockey. In fact, with how bad their teams are, I bet they don't even watch it. They just go with the grain and do whatever is best for them to make more money.

I hate the instigator rule also. You know, the fans, players, coaches, commentators, and basically everyone hates it, because this is where the stuff like with Chris Simon comes in. If there was no instigator rule, Chris Simon would have simpily showed Ryan Hollweg what for by beating his ass. But because you can't start fights without instigating them anymore, he decided to lumberjack him in the face. It's secretly turning hockey into an even more dangerous game.

I can't stand the rule. I just hope everyone complaining about it will eventually get them to take it out. I mean, if Bettman wants to start selling the product to people (especially in the south), he needs to realize that people like violence, and that's what fighting is. Why do you think people watch Nascar? Nobody watches it to see guys drive around in a circle 200 times. They watch it for the potential crash. Hockey is a little different, but still. I want more fights also, and I just hope Bettman smartens up and removes it.

Anyone who has played hockey at any remotely high level knows that fighting is an important part of the game. It allows players to police themselves. Does it get out of hand sometimes? Yes. But that's the nature of sports. Fights happen in EVERY sport. Hockey is different because it's rarely an ugly event. I can't ever remember anything happening in a professional hockey game that was as ugly as what happened at the Palace a few years ago.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the fans (you know Mr. Bettman, the people who pay to keep this league running?) love it. And at some point, someone is going to have to realize that, and get fighting back into the game.

As much as people on this board hate the Ducks, and anything to do with them, you have to admire Brian Burke. His stance on fighting, and having a tough team that plays hard-nosed hockey is quite evident. Sometimes I wish the Wings would go out and get a guy like Pronger. We haven't had a guy who can hit like that on a consistant basis since Vladdy.

I miss fighting, and good hockey. I wish Bettman would stop trying to turn hockey into basketball. I am afraid to think of what is coming next from Bettmans office...

[vangvace 12]

Unfourtantly, because of people like Todd Fedoruk, that probably won't happen. Him being on the recieving end of these one-hit knockouts is what started this whole "take out fighting" debate in the first place. Though that was silenced, the instigator rule is still there.

I want more fights also, and I just hope Bettman smartens up and removes it.

Yeah Fedoruk came out right away saying that fighting needs to stay after the game.

They're supposed to be voting on relaxing the instigator to eight games for next season.

[Kp-Wings 3]

Anyone who has played hockey at any remotely high level knows that fighting is an important part of the game. It allows players to police themselves. Does it get out of hand sometimes? Yes. But that's the nature of sports. Fights happen in EVERY sport. Hockey is different because it's rarely an ugly event. I can't ever remember anything happening in a professional hockey game that was as ugly as what happened at the Palace a few years ago.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the fans (you know Mr. Bettman, the people who pay to keep this league running?) love it. And at some point, someone is going to have to realize that, and get fighting back into the game.

As much as people on this board hate the Ducks, and anything to do with them, you have to admire Brian Burke. His stance on fighting, and having a tough team that plays hard-nosed hockey is quite evident. Sometimes I wish the Wings would go out and get a guy like Pronger. We haven't had a guy who can hit like that on a consistant basis since Vladdy.

I miss fighting, and good hockey. I wish Bettman would stop trying to turn hockey into basketball. I am afraid to think of what is coming next from Bettmans office...

Great example. When was the actual last time a fan got involved with a brawl on the ice? Probably since Mike Milbury was still playing when he beat a guy with shoe. And Milbury hasn't played in ages.

Bettman came out and said himself back during the fighting debate in March that fighting would stay in the game. But still, I really think that's just him saying that. When he removes the instigator rule, then we'll see if he's actually serious, or just spewing off more bulls***.

Yeah Fedoruk came out right away saying that fighting needs to stay after the game.

They're supposed to be voting on relaxing the instigator to eight games for next season.

Oh, I know he did. The reason Fedoruk is the example is because he's constantly getting his ass kicked every time he drops the gloves anymore. I like Fedoruk, but this talk like what was going on back in March will keep happening if he keeps fighting. I'm beginning to think he isn't capable of winning a fight anymore, which is too bad, because he was one my favorite fighters. And it's these one-hit K.O's that are the problem. First against Derek Boogard, then Colton Orr. It's when that stuff happens is when everyone starts going "This could be bad".

Of course, one man that has really pissed me off in the last few years is Shanahan. Back when he wasn't a puss, he used to fight a lot. Now he's one of the people advocating (secretly) to get rid of it. That hit by Knuble must have really screwed him up or something.

edited for grammar

Edited June 21, 2007 by Kp-Wings