59 replies to this topic

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros]

"Waaaaaaaaaa! They're defense is too good. Make them stop ref!" - Chris Pronger

esteef

Maybe that badass old school Pronger couldn't see the defense quite right with that visor on

[cusimano_brothers]

This shows that the statement "Any publicity is good publicity" can be incorrect.

[drumnj]

It would be wrong to penalize a team that doesn't want to play into the trap. That's just giving other teams more reason to use the trap.

Both sides are equally wrong. A team is just as much at fault for not forecheck pressuring as a team not advancing the puck. There will have to be a rule change of some kind in the future to combat this.

[Heaten]

Here's what Yzerman and some Red Wings had to say about this. Zetterberg though it was hilarious Flyers did this because the trap is boring hockey.

Yzerman said:

"I don't care what people say. I coach our team and I'm paid to win games and our rink is full. (General Manager) Steve Yzerman is happy," he said after Thursday's practice. "The comments don't bother me and I really don't know the extent of it. We play the same way we played last year and we're going to continue playing that way. In every game, every team has a strategy. We have a strategy against the other team and during the game we adjust and re-adjust and other teams have to do the same against us. It's an ongoing process, whether it's on the ice or off the ice. The only thing that matters is what happens on the ice. We've got our strengths and weaknesses. We play to our strengths."

Zetterberg said:

"I think Philly did the right thing," Detroit's Henrik Zetterberg said. "I haven't actually seen it, but I think it's hilarious if they're just standing there waiting for them to come. It must be tough for the referee to know what to do. I don't know … I actually thought it was a good way for showing how boring it could be if the other team doesn't do anything if they have the puck. That's the way we played in Sweden for, I think, 10 years. We played a 1-3-1 really strict and the game became really, really boring. I think with the skill we have in this League, you shouldn't be able to play that way."

Babcock said:

Added Detroit coach Mike Babcock: "What the League's got to decide … if you look at the League every night, it's one guy and then four guys standing around the far blue. That's because everyone stretches out and that stretch pass and you tip it and you race … so all your offense is off the forecheck. That's what taking the red line (out) has done and making the end zones bigger. So, to me, if you want rush hockey and you want nice-looking hockey, you put the red line back in."

Added Babcock: "Tampa was rewarded with a 2-1 win, so why would you forecheck when you can wait? They forecheck when they get the opportunity. They wait for transition and they go like crazy. And it's been very successful for them. Their coach is a real good coach and they have good players and they play a good system that works for them."

EDIT:

Source: http://www.nhl.com/i...vid=DL|NHL|home

Edited by Heaten, 10 November 2011 - 04:53 PM.

[Konnan511]

The Lightning won and the fans (the ones that I have talked to) don't mid this style because they are winning. Look at the cups the Devils won doing the same thing, I doubt ther fan base cared they played the trap. Stevie and the coach get paid to win, not to appease fan boys.

[WorkingOvertime]

It would be wrong to penalize a team that doesn't want to play into the trap. That's just giving other teams more reason to use the trap.

Both sides are equally wrong. A team is just as much at fault for not forecheck pressuring as a team not advancing the puck. There will have to be a rule change of some kind in the future to combat this.

I agree. I'm not sure how one team can be singled out for this happening. I hope the league doesn't make a knee-jerk reaction with any changes.

The Lightning won and the fans (the ones that I have talked to) don't mid this style because they are winning. Look at the cups the Devils won doing the same thing, I doubt ther fan base cared they played the trap. Stevie and the coach get paid to win, not to appease fan boys.

FWIW Philly scored first, despite the trap- Tampa then stopped playing the trap. I'm not sure if it was implemented as severely after Tampa tied the game. Tampa did win, but it wasn't because Philly sat back on their breakout.

[drumnj]

The Lightning won and the fans (the ones that I have talked to) don't mid this style because they are winning. Look at the cups the Devils won doing the same thing, I doubt ther fan base cared they played the trap. Stevie and the coach get paid to win, not to appease fan boys.

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.

[miller76]

I hope I never watch another game that has 64 face offs in it again.

That and the refs were so in shock they failed to blow the whistle, make the delay of game calls. Rule 73 I think.

Edited by miller76, 10 November 2011 - 05:44 PM.

[SDavis35]

I see nothing wrong with playing a 1-3-1 defence, but I don't think that should mean no forecheckers, that's where I get annoyed. Philly is the first(?) to exploit it like this, but it's not an unbeatable tactic.

[WorkingOvertime]

I hope I never watch another game that has 64 face offs in it again.

That and the refs were so in shock they failed to blow the whistle, make the delay of game calls. Rule 73 I think.

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.

[wings1110]

the NHL cant make a rule about this. You cant make rules about everything, (their trying 2) let the game go, the play shouldnt be whistled dead either.

[miller76]

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.

[Manoir]

On the bright side, the Wings now know how to get at least one point when they play Tampa.

[wingfan1991]

Wings are gonn hammer TB when they meet.

[Wing Across The Pond]

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.

[cusimano_brothers]

Was Stamkos on the ice?

[Echolalia]

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.

[Wing Across The Pond]

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

[number9]

[Konnan511]

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.