NHL GM's have plenty discuss

[Bizzle McDizzle]

Only as long as the coaches have to throw a red flag on the ice.

lets make it regional... add some spice to it.

(applies to both home and away coaches, home town advantage, you know...)

for coaches challenge, must throw a...

Detroit.. red octopus (to differentiate form the regular octopus)
Florida.. red rat (see above)
Calgary... hound tongue
Carolina.. pork sandwich (may be a little messy)
Islanders... turtleneck
Chicago... dollar bil
New Jersey... stuffed albatross
Buffalo... slug is to easy.. so is chicken wing... will come back to this one
Vancouver... 1915 sports almanac
Anahiem... copy of MD I, II or III, depending on the period
Washington... nothing thrown, must play the bongos on the refs head
Philly... both batteries and snowballs are ok
Toronto... vouchers for 1st round draft picks

eh...
You get the idea...

 

[Bizzle McDizzle]

I am going to make the bold proclamation that Bizzle wins this thread.

oh snap!

I'd like to thank God, my lord and savior, for giving me the strength and wisdom to type stupid things. Of course my moms, for all the breastfeeding and diaper changing. Lets see... My pops for forcing me to take that typing class in high school - <points to crowd> YOU THE MAN, POPS. Lets see who else.... my wife, my agent, my financial adviser, my spiritual guru, my chiropractor, my auto mechanic.. huh.. what? they're playing me off? Already? crap, ok, ok, real quick.. my 4th grade science teacher, the Tijuana hooker in 1991, my fiends sist.............

 

[Darkstone42]

A lot of these things come down to prudence on the part of the NHL employees. All the disciplinary stuff, for example, can simply be handled by holding officials at every level accountable for upholding the integrity and safety of the game. No rules need to put into place for trash-talking, just give the same penalties you would issue during the game for a physical altercation before the game. When reviewing hits to the head, make sure you look at every angle and get it right. Body language often conveys intent rather accurately. When handing out disciplinary action, be consistent. If that means keeping a list of previous suspensions, averaging them out, and determining a flow chart based on action, intent, and history, (with a small weight given to consequence) so be it. Coaches' challenges shouldn't be necessary if on-ice officials get it right or the War Room is paying attention.

As far as overtime, I think it should be 10 minutes of 4-on-4, with the winner in regulation or overtime getting 3 points, followed by a shootout in which the winner gets 2 points and the loser 1 point.

That's all I have to comment.

 

[Ho_Brah]

NHL trash talking..

[YOUTUBE]z0KPHqU-K00[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Eddie_Shack]

lets make it regional... add some spice to it.

(applies to both home and away coaches, home town advantage, you know...)

for coaches challenge, must throw a...

Detroit.. red octopus (to differentiate form the regular octopus)
Florida.. red rat (see above)
Calgary... hound tongue
Carolina.. pork sandwich (may be a little messy)
Islanders... turtleneck
Chicago... dollar bil
New Jersey... stuffed albatross
Buffalo... slug is to easy.. so is chicken wing... will come back to this one
Vancouver... 1915 sports almanac
Anahiem... copy of MD I, II or III, depending on the period
Washington... nothing thrown, must play the bongos on the refs head
Philly... both batteries and snowballs are ok
Toronto... vouchers for 1st round draft picks

eh...
You get the idea...

Atlanta: a basketball, football, or baseball
Boston: Hot dogs and beer
Columbus: Coach fires cannon
Montreal: Coach is not allowed to challenge, but refs will review play once SWAT team is called out to quell riot
Rags: Wad of hundred dollar bills hurled at ref's head
Tampa: Taser/cattle prod
Nashville: Coach must spit tobacco juice
Phoenix: Bettman's choice



I like where you are going with this...

 

[Eddie_Shack]

A lot of these things come down to prudence on the part of the NHL employees. All the disciplinary stuff, for example, can simply be handled by holding officials at every level accountable for upholding the integrity and safety of the game. No rules need to put into place for trash-talking, just give the same penalties you would issue during the game for a physical altercation before the game. When reviewing hits to the head, make sure you look at every angle and get it right. Body language often conveys intent rather accurately. When handing out disciplinary action, be consistent. If that means keeping a list of previous suspensions, averaging them out, and determining a flow chart based on action, intent, and history, (with a small weight given to consequence) so be it. Coaches' challenges shouldn't be necessary if on-ice officials get it right or the War Room is paying attention.

As far as overtime, I think it should be 10 minutes of 4-on-4, with the winner in regulation or overtime getting 3 points, followed by a shootout in which the winner gets 2 points and the loser 1 point.

That's all I have to comment.

Perfectly summed up. I never understood the need for a special rule on blindside head shots. There's already a rule on the books for intent to injure, so why not use that? Campbell acted like these hits were out of his control because there was no rule against them. Please.

 

[elocomotive]

*raises hand

no thanks
shootouts are bad enough as a way to determine an extra point, 3-3 is no better.

How is 3v3 "no better?" It is closer to actual hockey is it not? I don't understand when people who dislike the shootout (which I'm neutral on - it's artificial, but it does provide some exciting moments) put forth this argument.

Since we can't have NHL players playing out 5- and 6-period games during the season, it seems like the best alternative if the NHL is saying no ties.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

How is 3v3 "no better?" It is closer to actual hockey is it not? I don't understand when people who dislike the shootout (which I'm neutral on - it's artificial, but it does provide some exciting moments) put forth this argument.

Since we can't have NHL players playing out 5- and 6-period games during the season, it seems like the best alternative if the NHL is saying no ties.

I would say you see actual three-on-three hockey in the NHL about as often as you see penalty shots, so I'd say it's just as gimmicky and fake.

Personally I never had that big of a problem with ties, so shootouts, four-on-four, etc always seemed unnecessary to me.

 

[beantownmaniac]

I would say you see actual three-on-three hockey in the NHL about as often as you see penalty shots, so I'd say it's just as gimmicky and fake.

Personally I never had that big of a problem with ties, so shootouts, four-on-four, etc always seemed unnecessary to me.

It's just Bettman trying to "improve" hockey

 

[Eddie_Shack]

It's just Bettman trying to "improve" hockey

The three-on-three idea was actually Ken Hollands. His heart is definitely in the right place, he's trying to keep shootouts to a minimum. I just don't feel any better about seeing a game end with three-on-three than I do seeing it end in a shootout.

I guess if you could potentially throw out Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, and Nick Lidstrom all at once it's a smart rule to lobby for, I just don't personally care for it.

 

[HonusWagner66]

8 minute 4-on-4 OT. Winner get 2 points, loser gets none. If it's tied after that, the game's a tie and each team gets 1 point.

4-on-4 would result in more scoring and thus fewer ties than 5-on-5, and still gives an impression of some form of hockey deciding the game. 5 minutes is too short a period, while 10 is probably a little too long. 8 is a nice compromise.

Do it.

 

[Ho_Brah]

8 minute 4-on-4 OT. Winner get 2 points, loser gets none. If it's tied after that, the game's a tie and each team gets 1 point.

4-on-4 would result in more scoring and thus fewer ties than 5-on-5, and still gives an impression of some form of hockey deciding the game. 5 minutes is too short a period, while 10 is probably a little too long. 8 is a nice compromise.

Do it.

I like it.