New Rules.

[CaptHowdy00]

NHL announces rules changes for 2014-15 season - Los Angeles Kings | News

 

[oxnardkingsfan]

Getting rid of the spin-o-rama shot in shootouts is fine. It's never been OK in a penalty shot situation and should never have been allowed in shootouts unless the shooter doesn't keep the puck on his stick and just lets it glide towards the net while spinning around. Wouldn't bother me to see the whole shootout go away. Yeah it's exciting for the fans but it's a terrible way to decide a hockey game. Don't like the tripping call if the defender gets the puck first. I guess they want to see more breakaway chances. The rest of them are OK. The attempt to eliminate the diving to try and get penalties called is a good thing. Not sure it'll work with today's salaries what they are. Might try a "game misconduct" to go along with the 2nd embellishment call in a game. Are they going to call the larger trapezoid area "the Brodeur rule"? Too bad it doesn't look like he'll get a chance to take advantage of it.

Ox

 

[davnlaguna]

The problem with diving is the diver rarely gets caught/called. If it was called more the incentive to do it would go down. Fining a coach 5k won't do much

 

[oxnardkingsfan]

The problem with diving is the diver rarely gets caught/called. If it was called more the incentive to do it would go down. Fining a coach 5k won't do much

With the extra emphasis on diving I think it will get called more. Getting your coach fined could very well end up getting the player a "healthy scratch" status.

Ox

 

[ChiefsDdgersLakersKings24]

Not a fan of the trapezoid expanding. Only because Quick isn't a good puck handler behind the net. That just gives him more area to handle the puck, and that isn't a good thing.

 

[Kings4OT]

Arguments about the validity of a shootout aside, if your going to have a gimmick why bother hampering it, let the shooter and its fans have fun at the expense of the goalie and some of us hockey fans that don't like the shootout.

 

[davnlaguna]

Arguments about the validity of a shootout aside, if your going to have a gimmick why bother hampering it, let the shooter and its fans have fun at the expense of the goalie and some of us hockey fans that don't like the shootout.

I think this is to clarify an old rule.
The puck has to keep moving forward. There was a lot of debate during a spin move if that happens.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

Kind of disappointed with getting rid of the spin o rama in penalty shots & shootouts. I know it rarely happens, but who doesn't enjoy a good spin o rama?

 

[oxnardkingsfan]

Kind of disappointed with getting rid of the spin o rama in penalty shots & shootouts. I know it rarely happens, but who doesn't enjoy a good spin o rama?

It's never actually been legal. On penalty shots (and the shootout is supposed to be the same rules) the puck is never supposed to stop movement towards the net and especially not supposed to be dragged back which is exactly what happens with the spin-o-ram shots. Up until the shootouts came into the league the shot was never allowed in penalty shot situations. Once it started being allowed in shootouts they had to start letting it go for penalty shots.

But as a shootout hater I'm pretty much against gimmicks to win a hockey game. And that's what the shootout is. A gimmick that tries to appease the silly American desire to always have a winner and a loser. One of the reason's soccer has never really caught on. Too many tie matches to please the USA tastes. Personally I've never had a problem with ties after two teams play evenly for a full 60 minutes and 5 minutes of overtime. Award them both with a point and move on to the next game. Don't get me started on the unfairness of the 3-point games.

Ox

 

[Kings4OT]

I know why it is being done and I understand the rule, but its a shootout and they are stupid anyways. They can Allow for a lot more leeway in a shootout then a penalty shot. If they are going to have shootouts I say let them do just about whatever they want in 5 seconds or less.....cant be much more of a joke then it is

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

It's never actually been legal. On penalty shots (and the shootout is supposed to be the same rules) the puck is never supposed to stop movement towards the net and especially not supposed to be dragged back which is exactly what happens with the spin-o-ram shots. Up until the shootouts came into the league the shot was never allowed in penalty shot situations. Once it started being allowed in shootouts they had to start letting it go for penalty shots.

But as a shootout hater I'm pretty much against gimmicks to win a hockey game. And that's what the shootout is. A gimmick that tries to appease the silly American desire to always have a winner and a loser. One of the reason's soccer has never really caught on. Too many tie matches to please the USA tastes. Personally I've never had a problem with ties after two teams play evenly for a full 60 minutes and 5 minutes of overtime. Award them both with a point and move on to the next game. Don't get me started on the unfairness of the 3-point games.

Ox

True Ox, we as Americans expect a winner and a loser. Ties are sort of un-American IMO. Just feels like a waste of time when a game ends in a tie. Wins and losses offer some sense of closure. Ties leave things ambiguous.

 

[davnlaguna]

Heard Colin Campbell today explain the spin o Rama rule reasons. One it was too much of a gimmick, two the whole stopping of the puck, and three goalie safety ( they were worried that of a goalie getting plowed into)
The rule 38 was because of the Kings red wings off the netting goal, and other things. They asked the refs if it was ok to review more goals. The refs said they get a lot more grief when they get one wrong and it is not overturned than if they get it wrong and no replay is allowed. They know everyone sees everything now and it is better to get two minutes of grief when they are over ruled than having to answer the question for years

 

[oxnardkingsfan]

True Ox, we as Americans expect a winner and a loser. Ties are sort of un-American IMO. Just feels like a waste of time when a game ends in a tie. Wins and losses offer some sense of closure. Ties leave things ambiguous.

I just don't get the "waste of time" angle. How can 65 minutes of exciting hockey action be a waste of time?

Ox

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

I just don't get the "waste of time" angle. How can 65 minutes of exciting hockey action be a waste of time?

Ox

Because there's no conclusion. No victor, no loser, why even keep score?

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

But I do get what you're saying about the shootout tho Ox. It would be like the NBA deciding games with a dunk contest or the MLB deciding games with a HR derby.

 

[PuckinUgly57]

Not a fan of the defending player getting a penalty for tripping at all. His intention in most cases is to swat the puck away, it's not his fault if said attacking player kicks his skate out to protect the puck from the stick swipe and ends up falling over. Considering I still play defense, Not. A. Fan. At. All.

Love the diving penalty, Brown really toned it down the last two seasons but then again, he was invisible for much of those so the diving wasn't required. You have to have the puck and be doing something to feel pressure and thus dive and his 2013-14 season was piss poor in every category, statistical and non, I can think of. Better year Brownie, the Kings need it.

Love that the spinorama is gone. I always thought it was backwards puck movement and a goalie should not be victimized because of it. Now if we could lose the SO altogether, I'd be completely elated.

I've always been an advocate of defense so the puck out of play rules I'm iffy on, I'll have to see how it translates and what the outcomes are when the season starts. I believe if your own player put it out of play in the attacking zone, the puck comes out, if the defending team causes the out of play, the puck stays in. We will see.

 

[PuckinUgly57]

I just don't get the "waste of time" angle. How can 65 minutes of exciting hockey action be a waste of time?

Ox

That's exactly where I am at. I have no problem seeing two good teams slug it out and walk off with no winner. It just means it was that close of a game and probably just as exciting. To me, anyway.

Then you consider the standings with the SO points and what not, and it skews how good a team actually is. I think in 2010-11 the Kings had some whopper of a number in SO wins, didn't they? It inflated how good they actually were.

 

[davnlaguna]

Here is an interesting link
It shows the standings for last year using a bunch of different point systems
The first flaw with this, is that since the point in the alternate ways were not used the team would not have changed strategies to those systems
Current Standings | Hockey Standings

No real changes in the standings in any of the ways to assign points, including the olden days way

 

[oxnardkingsfan]

Because there's no conclusion. No victor, no loser, why even keep score?

The conclusion is that both teams played equally and it was great entertainment. Sports aren't life and death even though we fans tend to live and die every game with our favorite teams. Maybe it's because I'm on the backside of my life that I've mellowed and some things just aren't that important to bother me much any longer.

Ox

 

[Kings4OT]

That is very interesting dave, I have never been a fan of the SO but it doesn't appear to make any meaningful changes in the standings (yes, teams would change strategies and a couple of teams would make the playoffs when another should on occasion). All the arguments aside you could probably leave after OT and just ignore the SO is even going on and get an easy drive out of the parking lot. I still say if your having something as gimmicky as a SO you may as well go all out with it for the fans it was meant to appease, the rest of us can ignore it