GM Talks; Shot Blocking Rules, Medical Screening

[Jedi 1,865]

GM Talks in Chicago

"The discussion today was that you would have to have one skate on the ice, and then it would be OK to block a shot," Detroit Red Wings general manager Ken Holland told the NHL Network. "If both skates were off the ice than it would be something that would lead to a delay of the game (penalty).

"Again, today we just had some (preliminary) discussions."

Interesting that Kenny Holland was one of the GM's who was talking about the potential new rule. Nothing set in stone though, just a topic that was brought up...

Also mentioned in the link is talk about possibly making heart & health screening mandatory for all teams and all players. The Blackhawks seem to be championing that topic...

Also discussed was the NHL's stance on emergency medical procedures and heart screening.

In light of the death of New York Rangers prospect Alexei Cherepanov, who died last week while playing for Avangard Omsk of Russia's Continental Hockey League - known as the KHL - the general managers decided to invest in more medical research before making adjustments to the screening procedures for heart abnormalities.

The Chicago Blackhawks want the league to make testing mandatory at the NHL combine and for all roster players attending training camps.

[HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878]

So like does this mean you can't go down to block a shot? I don't get how there would be rules on blocking shots?

[redwings1914 18]

I heard them talking about this on NHL Radio on Sirius yesterday, apparently its just being thrown around and that implementation would be highly unlikely since almost every call would be disputable. I believe Colin Campbell said that they would be interested but they think it might lead to chaos and some people wanting to "review" the calls to see if a foot was on the ice or whatever.

On the side, we totally would have beaten Edmonton in 06 if this rule was in place.

[Jedi 1,865]

Yeah, I can only see this being more of a headache than it's worth. How do you determine in the space of less than a second that a skate is on the ice? How do you define skate on the ice? Just part of the boot such as the side of the skate, or does the blade of the skate need to be touching?

Too many question marks to outweigh any positives, if you ask me.

[Creasemonkey 30]

That's taking it too far, IMO. If a man's willing to get in front of a 95MPH slapshot to keep his team from being scored on, that takes a massive set of balls (hopefully hidden behind a well built cup), and you shouldn't take that out of the game, one foot, two feet, no feet, whatever. You want more scoring, just make the damn net 2" bigger all the way around. How many of these post shots would be goals? That's all it'd take.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

That's taking it too far, IMO. If a man's willing to get in front of a 95MPH slapshot to keep his team from being scored on, that takes a massive set of balls (hopefully hidden behind a well built cup), and you shouldn't take that out of the game, one foot, two feet, no feet, whatever. You want more scoring, just make the damn net 2" bigger all the way around. How many of these post shots would be goals? That's all it'd take.

How about we just make goalies wear pads like the pictures of sawchuk in your sig... with new technology, instead of just inches and inches of foam.

Edited October 25, 2008 by CaliWingsNut

[Elshupacabra 0]

That shot blocking part is a terrible idea. Having weird rules that are based purely on minor technicalities isn't a very good way to attract new fans. When you make the game so complex with stupid little stuff like this, it not only becomes less fun to watch for die hard fans, but it also makes it very boring and perhaps hard to understand for new, possible fans.

Implementing that shot blocking rule would be a big mistake IMO.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Elshupacabra

[Konnan511 1,736]

I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what having both the skates off the ice means. I interpret it as this way:

Non-Penalty: Going to one knee, standing like a pylon

Penalty: Laying down

I think their wording did make it confusing, but I think they are just trying to eliminate people sliding down to the ice on their stomach or side to take a shot either in the back, ribs, chest, face.

That medical one should be a no-brainer and should have been done a while ago.

[seeinred 1,488]

That's a retarded rule. If you wanna risk injury blocking a shot, that's on you. The league doesn't need to be the players' babysitter.

[Konnan511 1,736]

That's a retarded rule. If you wanna risk injury blocking a shot, that's on you. The league doesn't need to be the players' babysitter.

Let's get rid of goalie masks/helmets as well?

[seeinred 1,488]

Let's get rid of goalie masks/helmets as well?

Totally the same thing.

And yeah, if a player doesn't want to wear a helmet, he shouldn't have to, as long as he knows the risks and signs off on it. Which I assume players do with their standard contracts.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Totally the same thing.

And yeah, if a player doesn't want to wear a helmet, he shouldn't have to, as long as he knows the risks and signs off on it. Which I assume players do with their standard contracts.

I know what you're saying, but it's just not in the NHL's interest to have a guy get brained on the ice during a game, which could very easily happen without a helmet.

As for the shot block rule, it seems like a major clusterf*ck to try and enforce. Definitely a bad idea. By going down to block a shot you're sacrificing yourself and giving up your defensive position. It's up to the offense to exploit that.

[Elshupacabra 0]

I don't even know if injuries are that big of a part of it. sure, they'll gladly use it as a front but the real reason they want to do this shot blocking rule is so that less shots will get blocked and more shots will get through and then it all comes back to the magic phrase "Increased scoring" the number one reason for the majority of rule changes since the lockout.

I don't even know if injuries are that big of a part of it. sure, they'll gladly use it as a front but the real reason they want to do this shot blocking rule is so that less shots will get blocked and more shots will get through and then it all comes back to the magic phrase "Increased scoring" the number one reason for the majority of rule changes since the lockout.

If, however it is really based on injuries, it's still foolish. These are professional athletes who make millions of dollars, they know what they're getting into if they lay down in front of a piece of rubber that is moving at 100+ MPH and if they want to do it, they should be able to. There is something very noble and respectable about seeing a top line forward sacrifice his body for the good of the team. It'd be a shame to see that die out when they could probably have very similar results, in terms of scoring, if they just made the goaltender gear just a bit smaller.

If they're THAT concerned about players being injured on the ice...why aren't full face shields mandatory? as a matter of fact, you can't even wear one with out having a semi-serious injury to your face.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Elshupacabra

[Konnan511 1,736]

I don't even know if injuries are that big of a part of it. sure, they'll gladly use it as a front but the real reason they want to do this shot blocking rule is so that less shots will get blocked and more shots will get through and then it all comes back to the magic phrase "Increased scoring" the number one reason for the majority of rule changes since the lockout.

If, however it is really based on injuries, it's still foolish. These are professional athletes who make millions of dollars, they know what they're getting into if they lay down in front of a piece of rubber that is moving at 100+ MPH and if they want to do it, they should be able to. There is something very noble and respectable about seeing a top line forward sacrifice his body for the good of the team. It'd be a shame to see that die out when they could probably have very similar results, in terms of scoring, if they just made the goaltender gear just a bit smaller.

If they're THAT concerned about players being injured on the ice...why aren't full face shields mandatory? as a matter of fact, you can't even wear one with out having a semi-serious injury to your face.

If they don't institute a no shot blocking rule, and the league does decrease goalie pad size, you're going to see even more pucks being blocked by bodies. Maybe you are right, if the league gets rid of shot blocking by laying down, and goalie pads shrink, those low line drive shots will be 400x more effective than they are now.

[Elshupacabra 0]

I guess I should have read the entire article before typing all that out because it clearly says that it's all about "increased scoring"

The thought behind the potential rule is that more pucks would get through to the net, creating more offensive opportunities.

Which brings me back to my first post, I think it's off the wall rules like this that turn away potential fans.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Elshupacabra

[rage 24]

This has got to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

[Creasemonkey 30]

How about we just make goalies wear pads like the pictures of sawchuk in your sig... with new technology, instead of just inches and inches of foam.

Well heaven knows I wouldn't want Roberto Luongo to retire.

I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what having both the skates off the ice means. I interpret it as this way:

Non-Penalty: Going to one knee, standing like a pylon

Penalty: Laying down

Yeah, I pretty much figured that one out without your help. That rule would still be dumb.

[hokike 1]

you guys here are overreacting ( as in many cases, btw). They just discuss shotblocking rule in the light of causing injury, that's probably all.

Media, as always ,picked it up, added some spice and this forum goes nuts.

[Creasemonkey 30]

you guys here are overreacting ( as in many cases, btw). They just discuss shotblocking rule in the light of causing injury, that's probably all.

Media, as always ,picked it up, added some spice and this forum goes nuts.

The people who point out that we're "going nuts" are just as bad as the people "going nuts". At least we're having some sort of discussion. You're just bitching. Which one adds more to a hockey based forum?

For the record, I'm not going nuts at all. Somebody says "they're talking about this rule" and I say "that'd be stupid". Many people agree. No issue, nobody's got raised blood pressure except you, it seems.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

you guys here are overreacting ( as in many cases, btw). They just discuss shotblocking rule in the light of causing injury, that's probably all.

Media, as always ,picked it up, added some spice and this forum goes nuts.

Did you read the link?

From the article:

The thought behind the potential rule is that more pucks would get through to the net, creating more offensive opportunities.

And I don't think anyone's going nuts. But if the idea is to create more offensive opportunities, this rule change would be a pretty roundabout and complicated way of trying to generate them.

Edited October 25, 2008 by haroldsnepsts

[rage 24]

Shot blocking has always been apart of the game and always should be.

I am totally against this. I don't care what spin they put on it.

[stormboy 47]

hmmm...i don't think this is a good rule.

as has been stated by myself and countless others, you don't need goals for a game to e exciting, you need chances. you need rushes, shots, saves, races for the puck, etc. i think what grinds the game to a halt is just a lot of chipping the puck around, inaccurate passes, dumpins with no real fight for the puck, etc.

shot blocking, in my opinion, in no way contributes to the slowing down of the game. if i remember anything from the series in which we got bounced by edmonton, it was us being in the offensive zone and hearing, "shot...blocked. shot...blocked. shot...blocked." now, as a wings fan, it was obviously really frustrating, but it sure as hell got my blood pressure up. it was exciting. sure, i guess a blocked shot could slow the game down, but it seems more likely that a puck would go out of play from a blocked shot when someone was standing up anyway, not laying down.

i just think there's a big difference between generating offense and generating goals. this rule might allow a few more goals, but with the clusterf*** of penalties that would be called it would not be worth it, as i don't think that blocking shots really cuts down on the excitement of the game.

just my $.02

[edicius 3,269]

This is one of the stupidest rule proposals meant to increase scoring that I've ever heard of. Even worse than increasing the size of the net. If they tried to introduce it under the guise of preventing injuries, I could almost understand that (but wouldn't like it). But to restrict shot blocking to increase scoring? Garbage. Absolute garbage.

[eva unit zero 271]

A picture from a recent test camp the Washington Capitals and hosted using rules suggestions, including changes to net and rink sizes. At the end there was a 5 minute scrimmage. Alex Ovechkin scored 12 goals in his one shift.