• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

WorkingOvertime

Philly v. Tampa

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

By the rule, they can only use that rule if the puck is not being played. Therefore, when Philly skated around and passed within their zone they were playing/moving the puck. I believe the NHL called the officials during a stoppage to clarify this rule. The referees were told not to interfere with the coaching strategies as long as the puck was being moved.

I was referring to the Flyers player who would stand on the face off dot for 30 seconds not willing to take a face off in an appropriate amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be against adding an asterisk to the icing rule, where a team is allowed to dump the puck into the opposition's zone from behind center ice when the opposition's zone is occupied by at least one player besides the goalie.

As stated above, icing was introduced to prevent teams from relieving pressure in a manner difficult to combat from their own zone. This punishes the defending team and prevents them from simply dumping the puck every time they gain possession after they get a lead. The trap is so effective partially because of the icing rule, but its punishing the attacking team, not the defending team. By eliminating the icing rule when opponents are playing the trap, dump and chase should become more prominent, and that run-and-gun style hockey might be observed more.

This is pretty much in effect now. An official will wave off the icing if there is a chance the defenceman can reach the puck before it crosses the goal line. Your proposed rule would mean they can fire it down, miles away from the defenceman and get away with a cheap play. Scenario: A team plays the trap, has a defenceman in their own zone. He's covering the side of the ice that the puck is on (say the left wing). Opposition defenceman with the puck on said left wing, passes it across to the right sided defenceman, who one-times it down the ice. With your rule in place, the initial defenceman is effectively out of the play, and the other team has a cheap icing play ruled out.

Take this scenario further: The initial defenceman is in position to receive the puck when it is iced (in your ruling, no call, play continues). However, both of the oppositions defencemen may still be in their own zone, and so the defenceman with the puck, can just do the same thing and ice it back without a call being made.

One side of it is incredibly unfair, negating careful defence, and allows arguably even more boring icing plays to go uncalled. The other side, is that it could lead to both teams simply throwing the puck from end to end.

You can't really impose a rule for a team playing the trap, because there is no definitive way for an official to say a team is doing so. Too many men penalises a team for having an extra man on the ice, who then plays the puck. This is physically definitive: A player hasn't made it to the bench yet, as his replacement plays the puck - there will be six or more players on the ice. To impose a rule for a team playing the trap, would mean officials would have to INTERPRET a teams tactics. I know from watching soccer over here in England, that interpretation of the rules is the only thing that makes me throw my slipper at the TV. I think the trap is just good defence, and will force offensive teams to be more creative with their plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much in effect now. An official will wave off the icing if there is a chance the defenceman can reach the puck before it crosses the goal line. Your proposed rule would mean they can fire it down, miles away from the defenceman and get away with a cheap play. Scenario: A team plays the trap, has a defenceman in their own zone. He's covering the side of the ice that the puck is on (say the left wing). Opposition defenceman with the puck on said left wing, passes it across to the right sided defenceman, who one-times it down the ice. With your rule in place, the initial defenceman is effectively out of the play, and the other team has a cheap icing play ruled out.

Take this scenario further: The initial defenceman is in position to receive the puck when it is iced (in your ruling, no call, play continues). However, both of the oppositions defencemen may still be in their own zone, and so the defenceman with the puck, can just do the same thing and ice it back without a call being made.

One side of it is incredibly unfair, negating careful defence, and allows arguably even more boring icing plays to go uncalled. The other side, is that it could lead to both teams simply throwing the puck from end to end.

You can't really impose a rule for a team playing the trap, because there is no definitive way for an official to say a team is doing so. Too many men penalises a team for having an extra man on the ice, who then plays the puck. This is physically definitive: A player hasn't made it to the bench yet, as his replacement plays the puck - there will be six or more players on the ice. To impose a rule for a team playing the trap, would mean officials would have to INTERPRET a teams tactics. I know from watching soccer over here in England, that interpretation of the rules is the only thing that makes me throw my slipper at the TV. I think the trap is just good defence, and will force offensive teams to be more creative with their plays.

The first scenario is exactly what I'm proposing. Nullifying the icing rule when a defender is in his own zone makes the trap less effective. It doesn't make it weak, because the pressuring team still has to get on their horse and fight to gain possession (and you still have the issue of the opposing team's goalie coming out to play the puck, but that's a whole different talk), but it certainly allows for otherwise slow and boring game-styles to be effectively countered.

As for scenario two, I don't think it will be that difficult for the attacking defender to leave their zone after dumping the puck, thus icing would go into effect should the trap defender get the puck and dump it right back down the ice. Or more specifically, it shouldn't be difficult for the attacking defender to leave the zone if they're close to their blue line and playing into the game, and not back at their own goal-line. If they play too conservatively at their own goal line when the other team is playing a trap, then yes, he's risking the other defender shooting it right back into his zone and losing that advantageous icing call by not being within skating range of center ice.

And finally, this isn't a rule that's imposed directly at playing the trap so there is no issue with "ref's discretion" or interpreting what's occurring on the ice.. Its black-and-white. If your zone is occupied by one of your players, you are relinquishing your right to have an icing call against the opposition.

But hey, I can respect if you don't agree with my idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first scenario is exactly what I'm proposing. Nullifying the icing rule when a defender is in his own zone makes the trap less effective. It doesn't make it weak, because the pressuring team still has to get on their horse and fight to gain possession (and you still have the issue of the opposing team's goalie coming out to play the puck, but that's a whole different talk), but it certainly allows for otherwise slow and boring game-styles to be effectively countered.

As for scenario two, I don't think it will be that difficult for the attacking defender to leave their zone after dumping the puck, thus icing would go into effect should the trap defender get the puck and dump it right back down the ice. Or more specifically, it shouldn't be difficult for the attacking defender to leave the zone if they're close to their blue line and playing into the game, and not back at their own goal-line. If they play too conservatively at their own goal line when the other team is playing a trap, then yes, he's risking the other defender shooting it right back into his zone and losing that advantageous icing call by not being within skating range of center ice.

And finally, this isn't a rule that's imposed directly at playing the trap so there is no issue with "ref's discretion" or interpreting what's occurring on the ice.. Its black-and-white. If your zone is occupied by one of your players, you are relinquishing your right to have an icing call against the opposition.

But hey, I can respect if you don't agree with my idea.

Oh no don't get me wrong, completely understand where you're coming from. Just bugs me to hell when officials in any sport, start to interpret rules. Ruins a sport. But another discussion for another day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup...totally, fans of the Devils are filling their arena every night for the past 10 years.

They are winning alright, all the way to the poor house.

Nice fallacy. They played the trap when they won their 3 cups in 10 years. They aren't doing well now because they have crappy players. But I doubt their fans back then didn't care that they played the trap.

The TBL have been playing that trap style for the past couple years as well, they finally have the right players to play it most effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now