• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Wing Across The Pond

GMs to discuss the 1-3-1 forecheck

Rate this topic

37 posts in this topic

It's like those people who drive 25 in a 40. They're not doing anything illegal; they're just annoying.

Bad example. Depending on the situation, and local laws, that could very well be illegal. Its also up to the officers discretion.

If you are going 25 in a 40 zone all by yourself and nobody else is around, fine, you'll not be ticketed even if a cop pulls up on you.

If you are going 25 in a 40 zone during rush hour and causing a major backup and impeding traffic, you can (and most times will if a cop witnesses it) get a ticket for impeding traffic, which is illegal in many, if not most, places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waste of time if you ask me, I think it's a perfectly acceptable way to play hockey.

http://www.nhl.com/i...pid=nhl-rxl-twt

Maybe have it to where if the defensive team refuses to attack the puck for an extended period of time, Refs should blow the whistle and faceoff in the 1-3-1 teams defensive zone.

This way if they refuse to play, they'll be penalized with an defensive zone faceoff. Not a big deal,but may enough to keep the coaches and players honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe have it to where if the defensive team refuses to attack the puck for an extended period of time, Refs should blow the whistle and faceoff in the 1-3-1 teams defensive zone.

This way if they refuse to play, they'll be penalized with an defensive zone faceoff. Not a big deal,but may enough to keep the coaches and players honest.

Honestly I think it should be the other way.

If the team in possession of the puck doesn't try to advance it and just sits in their own zone like Philly did, the ref whistles the play dead and puts the faceoff in that team's defensive zone.

I would rather the onus be on the team with the puck to advance play and try to score, rather than the defending team be required to attack the puck in their offensive zone.

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, I'm of two minds on this one. I can also see the argument that a team should be able to sit there with the puck if the other team isn't going to attack, basically saying "come and get it." Hmm...

Edited by haroldsnepsts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im kinda new to the strategies of hockey so correct me if im missing something.

if its so good defensively why not run the trap while resting your star offensive players, then when your best players are rested, play them attack attack attack, then back to the trap while resting offensive players again.

or even just run the trap with their top line is on the ice, and play full hockey any other time.

if one team has a few superstars and no depth, and the opposing team has 1 or no superstars but lots of depth i can see it being a valid strat.

even if that works and gets wins i wouldnt be happy to attend a game like that.

The Secret likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just screams fixing something that's not broken. The trap may be difficult to play against, but it's not fool-proof, and I don't even know if it's statistically any more successful than any other style of play. Only a few teams in the league do it. I feel that any fix is only going to ruin the game in some other aspect. The owners will feel the bite if fans don't like it and stop going to games, no need to make any rule changes. Like people have said, Philly had an obligation to at least try. It's all about good faith, the whole point of the game is to try to score. It'd be easy to win if you just lined all your players up and stacked them in front of the net with the goalie, but teams don't do that because it defeats the purpose of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching some of Winnipeg - Tampa and was thinking, "my God they scheduled that as if the team was still in Georgia". Must be hellish

Not "as if" they were still in Georgia. The schedule was already made before the move was announced. That's why the league didn't realign THIS year.

Incorrect.

I initially thought this as well, but since then I've reconsidered. The goal above anything else is to win. If the Flyers think that attacking a trapping team is going to hurt their chances of winning (which it sometimes does), and if they also think that waiting will pull the Bolts out of their trap (which it did), then I don't see why they shouldn't wait; waiting for the opportunity for your attack to be effective seems like a good strategy to me.

If this sort of thing became an epidemic in the NHL then something would have to be done, but it really wasn't that big of a deal in the game it happened in. My guess is that the GMs don't do anything about this.

With regards to the situation of the other night, it is absolutely and always the responsibility of the team with the puck to advance it. Tampa could have lined up all five skaters at the defensive blue line, and Philly still has to try and break that.

To wit:

Rule 63 - Delaying the Game

63.1 Delaying the Game – A player or a team may be penalized when, in the opinion of the Referee, is delaying the game in any manner.

63.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player, including the goalkeeper, who holds, freezes or plays the puck with his stick, skates or body in such a manner as to deliberately cause a stoppage of play. With regard to a goalkeeper, this rule applies outside of his goal crease area.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't getting on my nerves... we are just not seeing it the same way. I'd rather see my team play exciting hockey and lose 7-4 then adopt the rope a dope strategy and bore everyone to victory. Shows a lack of defensive creativity on the coaches part imo. Standing around in the neutral zone is not playing hockey in my eye's.

Yeah granted, the game was really exciting, even finishing 7-4. But with the form they were in, something had to change. I mean it wasn't a bad streak they were on like we had, they flat out sucked in general. Had to change up the defence as they couldn't rely on Rolo (one man tried to throwing his arms around and swearing at him, despite being in the highest possible seat at the arena. That was pretty funny.) I guess the one good thing to take from it, is that at least the Wings would never sit back and take it, or would even use it - could you imagine Helm playing the trap? If that happens, I would just pack up and go to sleep for the year.

Not "as if" they were still in Georgia. The schedule was already made before the move was announced. That's why the league didn't realign THIS year.

Crap I either didn't realise when I got my schedule, forgot this, or just never connected it! That must be hell on them. Another terrible journey for a team in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the situation of the other night, it is absolutely and always the responsibility of the team with the puck to advance it.

It seems intuitive but if you examine it I don't know why this should actually be the case. There isn't any rule specifying that the puck has to be advanced, it's just what the attacking team does so it seems really weird for them not to try, but it doesn't mean they are obligated to. A defenseman wouldn't shoot a puck from the point if he thought it was going to be blocked; why should he try to start a breakout into the neutral zone if he thought it would result in a turnover?

Tampa could have lined up all five skaters at the defensive blue line, and Philly still has to try and break that.

Or they can sit back and do exactly what they did, which eventually caused Tampa to commit a forechecker and get the ball rolling. As for the Delay of Game rule, that's subject to interpretation. The referees in that game contacted hockey operations at the first intermission and were told not to interfere with coaches' tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems intuitive but if you examine it I don't know why this should actually be the case. There isn't any rule specifying that the puck has to be advanced, it's just what the attacking team does so it seems really weird for them not to try, but it doesn't mean they are obligated to. A defenseman wouldn't shoot a puck from the point if he thought it was going to be blocked; why should he try to start a breakout into the neutral zone if he thought it would result in a turnover?

It's weird though isn't it. It is purely intuitive. If you look at the best players throughout history, none of them would have sat there holding the puck. Gretzky, or Yzerman, or Howe, or Lemieux wouldn't have held the puck and said "ok lets wait and have them come at me". Granted in this situation it was a defeceman but I guess it still applies. Those sorts of players had the instinct to attack in different ways, when it came to different defensive strategies. Onus might not be on the offence at the real heart of it, but it's just the instinctive thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad example. Depending on the situation, and local laws, that could very well be illegal. Its also up to the officers discretion.

If you are going 25 in a 40 zone all by yourself and nobody else is around, fine, you'll not be ticketed even if a cop pulls up on you.

If you are going 25 in a 40 zone during rush hour and causing a major backup and impeding traffic, you can (and most times will if a cop witnesses it) get a ticket for impeding traffic, which is illegal in many, if not most, places.

Quite so. Depending on where you are, it might be.

However, in the example I specifically said that they weren't doing anything illegal. Such is the case where I live. I was trying to think of an example of something which doesn't violate the letter of the law, but nonetheless drives one crazy.

I stand by what I said. There's nothing "wrong" rule-wise with it, but it makes you want to grab them and shake them and yell at them to move their rumps. But, of course, you can't.

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0