Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NHL testing new rules and rink modifications


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,910 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 11 August 2010 - 09:30 AM

All of these ideas are retarded. Dumb...Duh-umb!


The good folks who run the NHL aren't exactly known for genius ideas.

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#42 sibiriak

sibiriak

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 11 August 2010 - 04:48 PM

It would really depend on how they did it I guess (and your perspective), since the blue line is considered part of whichever zone the puck is in and the entire puck has to completely cross it to enter/exit a zone.

If they keep the blue line starting at the same point in the neutral zone and made it wider only toward the net (if that makes sense), then the offensive zone would be smaller when you're outside of it, but it would be the same size it is right now when you're in it.

If the keep the blue lines starting at the same point closest to the nets and expanded it only toward center ice, the offensive zone would be bigger while you're in it.

And if they keep the middle of the blue lines in the same place and add a little bit more each way, then each zone is bigger when you're in it and smaller from an outside perspective.

Just paint the whole neutral ice blue and be done with it. :ph34r:

#43 seeinred

seeinred

    Teemu!

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,812 posts
  • Location:Richmond, MI

Posted 11 August 2010 - 05:20 PM

This is my understanding of hybrid icing:

If the team is clearly going to get the puck, and the other team has no chance at it, the play stops and icing is called. But if two players are in a race for the puck, you let that play out.

I would be in favor of this rule. Seconds are not ticking off the clock for one person to go and get the puck, but it still allows the battles for the puck that I think is a big part of hockey.




I think that's pretty much it. I think it's basically a race to the face-off dot, and the linesman decides who would've gotten there first and either blows it dead or lets it go.

Posted Image

Crosby's Bettman Real Doll is going to get quite a workout tonight.


#44 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,936 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 12 August 2010 - 02:23 PM

Make the blue lines thicker. Make the crease bigger. Lines thicker. Crease bigger. Blue paints meet. No offensive zone. Homer retires. Bad plan.

Seriously, though. Pick your poison for a face off partner sounds stupid. No puck drop is anathema. OT is complicated enough as it is. The icing stuff, I can see tinkering with.

Intent to blow needs to go- or at the very least the official must have been in the act of blowing, and an acceptable reason must be given for the intended blow.

Here's another one: competent officiating. Give it a try.

#45 Original-Six

Original-Six

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 12 August 2010 - 02:29 PM

The NHL is also experimenting with these new rules, as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7mekhFTrXM


Bahahah.....perfect

#46 egroen

egroen

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Gold Booster
  • 4,619 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 12 August 2010 - 09:57 PM

It shouldn't be black and white. There's two different rules you're confusing as one.

The rules allow a goal to be waived off if a goalie was interferred with, even if it's incidental contact that doesn't warrant a penalty. If you try to go 'black and white' either way, you're inviting either a lot more diving from goalies, or a lot more 'incidental' contact that's really intentional.

Which is fine, and I actually do agree with, however, the play is not reviewable in the case the puck was in before the net - and it should be.

Just as an on-ice incorrect call allowing a call is overturned when video review proves otherwise (puck was kicked in, high-sticked, etc.), a good goal disallowed by an incorrect call should also be overturned if video review shows the call was in error.

Now this should only be for instances where the puck was in the goal before the whistle, and thus will not cause numerous delays in a game.

Edited by egroen, 12 August 2010 - 10:13 PM.

Red Kelly #4 and Larry Aurie #6 belong in the rafters!!!

"For my game, I don't need to score the goal," Konstantinov once explained. "I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals."

#47 egroen

egroen

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Gold Booster
  • 4,619 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 12 August 2010 - 10:12 PM

Think dodgeball. Puck laying on the center dot, skaters all lined up on their respective blue lines, whistle blows, mayhem ensues...

It could be fun. :lol:

I'm seeing it! Lol
Some zingers in this thread....
Red Kelly #4 and Larry Aurie #6 belong in the rafters!!!

"For my game, I don't need to score the goal," Konstantinov once explained. "I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals."

#48 Gordie Howe hat trick

Gordie Howe hat trick

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Location:IL.

Posted 13 August 2010 - 02:07 AM

I'm seeing it! Lol
Some zingers in this thread....


Wasn't that how they determined possession in that failed league that the WWF started, the XFL?
"If a guy slashed me, I'd grab his stick, pull him up alongside me and elbow him in the head."

-Gordon "Gordie" Howe-


Overall 3 Gordie Howe hat trick 113 points
2011 playoff pick game

#49 seeinred

seeinred

    Teemu!

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,812 posts
  • Location:Richmond, MI

Posted 13 August 2010 - 02:29 AM

Wasn't that how they determined possession in that failed league that the WWF started, the XFL?


Good times...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeeVwkLYD5g

Posted Image

Crosby's Bettman Real Doll is going to get quite a workout tonight.


#50 blgillett

blgillett

    Stevie the one and only Captian

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts
  • Location:Ludington Mi

Posted 13 August 2010 - 12:14 PM

Yes it was and it SUCKED!!!
"He was standing there like a cigar store Indian" Mickey Redmond
"Holmstrom gets more attention around the net than a pretty girl around closing time!" Mickey Redmond
IPB Image

#51 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,910 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 16 September 2010 - 08:42 AM

Make the blue lines thicker. Make the crease bigger. Lines thicker. Crease bigger. Blue paints meet. No offensive zone. Homer retires. Bad plan.

Seriously, though. Pick your poison for a face off partner sounds stupid. No puck drop is anathema. OT is complicated enough as it is. The icing stuff, I can see tinkering with.

Intent to blow needs to go- or at the very least the official must have been in the act of blowing, and an acceptable reason must be given for the intended blow.

Here's another one: competent officiating. Give it a try.


That's my number one concern right now. The intent to blow excuse has not only conveniently screwed Detroit over, but also screwed over several other teams after scoring legitimate goals.

Edited by Hockeytown0001, 16 September 2010 - 08:43 AM.

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#52 Offsides

Offsides

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,906 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown to Texas

Posted 16 September 2010 - 09:13 AM

Nearly all of those seemed like they would make no positive impact on the game. Some of them just seem wacky. The whole OT thing just seems bizarre, and I think our OT is already messed up as it is. How would it benefit anyone to start at a whistle as opposed to a puck drop.

As many others have stated, none of this does a lick of good with the officiating being so bad when it matters most.

Posted Image


#53 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,910 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 16 September 2010 - 09:32 AM

A great new rule would be to allow coaches to challenge at least 1 call per game. The bulls*** level on some of these calls has reached a ridiculous level, especially after last year.

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#54 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,132 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 16 September 2010 - 10:36 AM

I would love to see the intent to blow rule abolished. The play is alive regardless of whether the puck can be seen until the whistle blows. I don't see why refs should be immune to needing athletic ability to participate in this sport. Its a fast game, so you should be able to blow whistles fast.
I would also love a challenge rule of some sort, although its easier implemented in football because they have three timeouts that they can sacrifice. In the NHL there is only one. It would make for some interesting scenarios and bring the coaches' effect more directly into the game with a rule where coaches sacrifice their 1 timeout if a challenge is not successful. There could be some pretty intense moments.

#55 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 11:57 PM

I like the hybrid icing with the whistle unless there is a footrace.

Other than that, rule changes either listed or that should be listed which are good ideas:

Abolish icing immunity on the PK. I have wanted this for years, and it's how it used to be. Don't let teams just get possession and send a Hail Mary to your goalie, especially now that your goalie can't play it.

Abolish the trapezoid. Stupid. I get the thought behind it, but it wasn't a good idea then and definitely hasn't worked out in practice.

Eliminate one on-ice official, change from 2 refs and 2 linesmen to 4 refs, which will include the head ref and two other refs on the ice. Linesmen often have views of penalty calls that referees don't, but they can't call them, or the ref will call the penalty when the linesman knows it was not actually a penalty. By making this change, you take away those scenarios.

All questionable goals will be reviewed of-ice by the fourth referee, who then will inform the head referee of whether the goal should be allowed or disallowed and for what reason. "Intent to blow" goals should only be disallowed if the whistle is actually blown before the puck is completely inside the goal. If a goal is disallowed due to goaltender interference, a minor penalty shall ALWAYS be assessed to the offending player, rather than simply "at the referee's discretion" as the rule states now.

Widen the blue lines, based on the center point, so that the zone of possession is always larger.

Faceoff variants; Penalize offending players on faceoffs by sending them back to further points. Allow players to pick their opponent on draws when opposing center commits a foul. After three consecutive fouls by the same team, the entire team is sent to the next dot back (or over, in their defensive zone) and the team the fouls were committed against takes possession automatically, with play resuming upon a whistle and puck touch in the same fashion as a shootout begins.

A team which is offsides is not allowed to change lines, and the faceoff will be in the neutral zone outside the offending team's defensive zone. The attacking team will be allowed to select which dot.

Overtime is extended to ten minutes of 4-on-4 with long changes and the shootout is abolished, OR the shootout goes to 5-on-5 with a team having to select one of their two dressed goaltenders to take the first shot.

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#56 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,910 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 17 September 2010 - 10:42 AM

I would love to see the intent to blow rule abolished. The play is alive regardless of whether the puck can be seen until the whistle blows. I don't see why refs should be immune to needing athletic ability to participate in this sport. Its a fast game, so you should be able to blow whistles fast.
I would also love a challenge rule of some sort, although its easier implemented in football because they have three timeouts that they can sacrifice. In the NHL there is only one. It would make for some interesting scenarios and bring the coaches' effect more directly into the game with a rule where coaches sacrifice their 1 timeout if a challenge is not successful. There could be some pretty intense moments.


Babcock's death stare should be challenge enough.

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users