Viperar 16 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 "Brodeur thinks the team that is killing the penalty should no longer be allowed to ice the puck." Brodeur's Thoughts I thought this was rather interesting as this change doesn't even favor goalies...any thoughts on this? I am curious to see what others think about this coming from Marty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shannyfan1414 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 Not a fan of this idea. Yes it would create some scoring chances, but i think you need to give the team with the penalty the chance to ice the puck. IMO, taking this option away from team is just tinkering to much with game. It would allow more chances but could also put tired players out on the ice for longer shifts which could in turn lead to more injuries or even dumb plays that could lead to that team ending up two men down. Not a fan of this idea and i think that they should ignore it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imisssergei 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) I'm against reducing the size of goaltenders equipment. But I'd be for changing the rules to base the size of the equipment on the goaltender. EDIT: I accidently deleted this part... I like the idea of taking away the ability to ice the puck. Maybe change the rule to the penalized team has to gain the blue line before they can ice it, or they can only ice it on a 5 on 3. Edited January 4, 2008 by imisssergei Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sparty13 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 No Way. There would be wayyy many more icings which would slow the game down even more with stoppages in play and turn it into football baseball and basketball. Which would suck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imisssergei 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 No Way. There would be wayyy many more icings which would slow the game down even more with stoppages in play and turn it into football baseball and basketball. Which would suck. How would this increase the number of icings? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedisappearer 291 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 How would this increase the number of icings? Because the players wouldn't be able to learn from the rule change and adopt new techniques, therefore every time a team clears the puck now would instantly be an icing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Booster313 138 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 How would this increase the number of icings? Because if I'm killing a penalty and I have the choice of taking a face off or giving up a goal the f*#king puck is going to the other end of the rink! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
irishtemper14+25 11 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 i like the idea of changing some of the goalies pad sie, but getting rid of the allowed icing on the pk is just a terrible idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedisappearer 291 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 Because if I'm killing a penalty and I have the choice of taking a face off or giving up a goal the f*#king puck is going to the other end of the rink! That doesn't happen that often. I would think the increases chances and goals would negate the occassional icing. at least, if this thing is your type of thing. i personally don't. i like my game old school, thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imisssergei 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 Because if I'm killing a penalty and I have the choice of taking a face off or giving up a goal the f*#king puck is going to the other end of the rink! So how is that different from now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imisssergei 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 Because the players wouldn't be able to learn from the rule change and adopt new techniques, therefore every time a team clears the puck now would instantly be an icing. You mean just like they haven't been able to learn to play without all the clutching and grabbing we saw in the 90's? Or how goalies just can't seem to get that whole not being allowed to play the puck outside of the trapezoid? You are right, players are too stupid to learn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedisappearer 291 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) You mean just like they haven't been able to learn to play without all the clutching and grabbing we saw in the 90's? Or how goalies just can't seem to get that whole not being allowed to play the puck outside of the trapezoid? You are right, players are too stupid to learn. you missed my sarcasm. it's cool, i didn't use an emoticon. Edited January 4, 2008 by thedisappearer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mudvayneowns91 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 idk about that.... It would rise PP goals most likely, but it would kinda cheapen the goals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedisappearer 291 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 idk about that.... It would rise PP goals most likely, but it would kinda cheapen the goals. Just to play devil's advocate... did the shoot-out cheapen the wins you get from it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mudvayneowns91 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) Just to play devil's advocate... did the shoot-out cheapen the wins you get from it? I think it gave a higher chance to get the win, but both teams have the same opportunity. Whether or not it cheapens the win is up to the person. Personally, I don't really think it does. But then again, I hated ties and always wanted to see a victor. However I wouldn't like to see a rise in PP goals due to ther PK being exhausted. Also, I'm not quite sure how the two subjects correlate together. Edited January 4, 2008 by Mudvayneowns91 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vangvace 12 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 Look at (St. Louis goalie) Manny Legace. He's a small guy who wears 38-inch pads (in length), the maximum. Olaf Kolzig wears 38s, but he's 6' 4". There are a bunch of guys who should be wearing 36s. (Brodeur wears pads that are 34½ inches.) Because Legace is small, the pads are allowing him to cover areas that he probably shouldn't be covering. The way it is now, it isn't fair. Burn! Like the goalie idea, but don't really see it happening. Not against the icing idea, just don't know if I'm for it. I like having to serve the full 2 min on a penalty. But in the new NHL, that would mean about a period a night is spent a man down per game and I don't know if that's a good thing or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akustyk 84 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 as far as icing would not go penalized I think they could give it a try in AHL. with penalties for icing this could easily translate into mor 5-on-3 powerplays. which unfortunately fits Bettman understanding of what US viewers need. you'd either see guys going into the box for shoting the puck to far or over the glass. I'm definitely not sold on this area. that would mean much more PP hockey and therefore we'd very likely see dead tired teams in 3rd periods, and overtimes would most likely be dog boring with players only wanting to have shootout. IMHO if you want to make game better, just stop putting piles of hockey equipment in front of the net. if those rules allow monsters like Giguere then it's not some rocket science to say what is the problem with scoring, huh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
auxlepli 17 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 I have an idea for increased scoring - no goaltenders. Wouldn't have to worry about increasing the size of the goal nor decreasing goalie equipment, and it would only put 60 people out of work. Cut a hole in the back of the net so there wouldn't be an annoying face off to slow down the game either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CopenhagenWing 38 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 "If you ice the puck now, you can't change," Brodeur said, "so you'd get tired penalty killers out against a fresh power play. That's a better advantage [for the team with the extra skater]. Is it just me or is Brodeur a little confused? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 Because the players wouldn't be able to learn from the rule change and adopt new techniques, therefore every time a team clears the puck now would instantly be an icing. exactly. period. I'm not a fan of rule adjustments, but I think if anything - like I've said before - they need to revert back on a few rules, reduce goalie gear, remove the trapezoid and let goalies be fair game if they leave their crease... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imisssergei 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 exactly. period. I'm not a fan of rule adjustments, but I think if anything - like I've said before - they need to revert back on a few rules, reduce goalie gear, remove the trapezoid and let goalies be fair game if they leave their crease... That doesn't make ANY sense. Players would just have to learn how to clear the puck with some touch. What's the problem with this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
auxlepli 17 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 Seriously though, there seems to be more and more players who are saying that the size goalie equipment must be reduced. Crosby, Brodeur, Esposito are just three who I can think of who have complained about this issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) "Brodeur thinks the team that is killing the penalty should no longer be allowed to ice the puck." Brodeur's Thoughts I thought this was rather interesting as this change doesn't even favor goalies...any thoughts on this? I am curious to see what others think about this coming from Marty. Scotty Bowman's been trumpeting this for decades and I agree with him. Why should a team that took a penalty be given an advantage? It makes no sense. P.S. I love what he said about some of the goalies in the league. And he's absolutely right. Why are some goalies allowed to wear the same sized equipment as guys who are 6" taller and 30 lbs heavier? It's a joke. I also think the league can shrink the goalie leg pads even more. Why is 11" the standard? Just because it was years ago? With today's technology a goalie can be just as safe with 8" pads. Heck, most skaters shin guards are more protective than the pads guys like Tony Esposito or Ken Dryden wore. Edited January 4, 2008 by Hank Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 308 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 Just to play devil's advocate... did the shoot-out cheapen the wins you get from it? Yes a resounding yes!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 That doesn't make ANY sense. Players would just have to learn how to clear the puck with some touch. What's the problem with this? as stated in two earlier posts - it makes PERFECT sense. When there's a scramble for the puck, as ANYONE who ever played the game know, one is going to just blast the puck and take the icing over giving up a goal, the ONLY time a clear would be made with "touch" would be the same cases in which a player could carry it out... which they already do... These extra icings would slow the games progress down by stopping play close to at least 3 times a power play, leave tired players on the ice and in turn cause more injuries and improper line change opportunities (for BOTH the attacking AND defending team) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
