Yay or Nay on Possible New Rules

[dare2be]

YES - Full minor service - but add to the existing 2-minute-minor with a 2-minute-major...classify certain penalties as minor or major based on severity

what about 2 min majors for all stick work, elbowing, hit from behind etc... the more dangerous stuff. not interference, tripping, hooking

Hmm....interesting idea.

Thank you

 

[Comeds]

Thank you

Sorry, busy today so I only read a few posts when I was replying.

Stop copying Dare's ideas Mattola!

 

[mattola]

Sorry, busy today so I only read a few posts when I was replying.

Stop copying Dare's ideas Mattola!

actually I dont remember reading his post about that. its something I was in favour of some time ago.

- just shows great minds think alike

what does anyone think of the idea the NHL had of making the nets shallower? it gives more room behind the net which I kinda like

 

[dare2be]

actually I dont remember reading his post about that. its something I was in favour of some time ago.



what does anyone think of the idea the NHL had of making the nets shallower? it gives more room behind the net which I kinda like

I'm still invisible, I see. No wonder no one commented on my radical idea of the OT EN PP ....

I like the idea of the shallower nets, only potential drawback I see could be the nets being more easily tippable/off their moorings.

 

[DChero]

I'm still invisible, I see. No wonder no one commented on my radical idea of the OT EN PP ....

I like the idea of the shallower nets, only potential drawback I see could be the nets being more easily tippable/off their moorings.

I can't remember who tweeted it, but it was mentioned that they stood pretty well at the R&D camp. Granted, it's only a small sample size, but it could work.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

I stated it last year, and it used to be the rule until the 80's, how about 4 on 4 hockey for the full 5 minutes of fighting majors?

 

[elocomotive]

Eloco, you just gave me an idea for another way to increase the scoring - move the nets up toward the blue line a foot or two. It makes point shots more difficult to stop, gives forwards more room to work in Crosby's office, and moves the puck closer to the net on faceoffs.

Let's put it into the next R&D camp, Shanny!

I know your real motive here!

Everyone using "Shanny" keeps throwing me, b/c I here the Redskins coach called that 20 times a day on the radio, so whenever I read it I think... "What does Mike Shana... oh... right...

You'd think I'd learn, but no, I'm a stupidhead.

 

[mattola]

I'm still invisible, I see. No wonder no one commented on my radical idea of the OT EN PP ....

I like the idea of the shallower nets, only potential drawback I see could be the nets being more easily tippable/off their moorings.

see Im reading and replying to your post your not invisible

small drawback as technology could make it firm and still safe (Much like the new and improved Trojan Condoms.... that sounded like an ad so I threw that in there)

I think the race around the net would be pretty cool as well. or would the naysayers complain it would give even more running room for the Torres of the NHL?

 

[DChero]

Has anyone seen Dare?

 

[KennyBanyeah]

I stated it last year, and it used to be the rule until the 80's, how about 4 on 4 hockey for the full 5 minutes of fighting majors?

[YOUTUBE]WDgq-K2oYLo[/YOUTUBE]

Then you could have teams hat are behind that start fights to open more room. Kenny no likee.

 

[ritari330]

Who's dare? On a related note, I haven't seen BEME either

 

[forty_three]

-Punishment line - NAY Stupid and frivolous.

-Hybrid icing - YAY Wouldn't affect much except save a few seconds.

-Hand passes expanded - NAY NAY NAY. HOLY FUCKING GOD NAY!! Step 1: Go to net. Step 2: Wait for someone to throw you the puck. Step 3: Profit.

-Full minor service - NAY. Go the other way. If a team scores a shorty, let their guy out.

-OT change - NAY. Then what? Arm wrestling? Toughen the pansies up and play 5 on 5 until someone scores. No more shootouts. It's how playoff games are decided. Regular season should mirror the playoffs. Can't score a champion on a different set of rules than you use to determine who gets to compete for the championship. Sorry some of them will get tired. Might make 'em work harder to end it faster.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

-Punishment line - NAY Stupid and frivolous.

-Hybrid icing - YAY Wouldn't affect much except save a few seconds.

-Hand passes expanded - NAY NAY NAY. HOLY FUCKING GOD NAY!! Step 1: Go to net. Step 2: Wait for someone to throw you the puck. Step 3: Profit.

-Full minor service - NAY. Go the other way. If a team scores a shorty, let their guy out.

-OT change - NAY. Then what? Arm wrestling? Toughen the pansies up and play 5 on 5 until someone scores. No more shootouts. It's how playoff games are decided. Regular season should mirror the playoffs. Can't score a champion on a different set of rules than you use to determine who gets to compete for the championship. Sorry some of them will get tired. Might make 'em work harder to end it faster.

THIS

Fuck the shootout. Let these guys play for it. You'd see a lot less coaches hanging back in OT, that's for sure.

 

[awaz]

There seem to be two major initiatives pushing the changes - preventing injuries and increasing scoring. As to the latter, I wish they'd just make the goals 3-4 inches wider per side. It would counter the equipment increases and some of the advantages of the butterfly style that has led them to make so many other changes in recent years. If there is a simpler, more direct option, I think that makes for better rule changes instead of 4 inches off the back, changing the lines, making delay of game penalties, the trapezoid, etc. If they just made that one simple change, they wouldn't have to be tweaking everything so often and they'd see scoring come up a goal or two per game, which is ultimately what they want.

i'm very against that.. i dont think the net shape should change at all.. if you want to make the simple change to increase scoring, cut down on equipment size.. i think it would look very goofy if they changed the dimensions of the net.. the one thing i'd be ok with is shaping the posts differently to direct pucks into the net, doesn't change the shape of the net, but increases scoring a noticable amount i think.. but that must've failed inspection cause i think they talked about that last year

hand passes - i can see the pros of both sides.. always looking for safety, dont get hands in skate blades, or swinging wildly through the air.. i think it should be consistent, it shouldn't matter what zone you're in.. as far as legal or not, i dont think it makes a huge difference, they aren't that common anyway

OT - again, should be consistent.. either play the whole thing 4 on 4 or play the whole thing 3 on 3.. i dont like the idea of changing it unless there is a marked break, like an intermission, before you switch the amount of players.. basically have OT and 2OT.. but i would rather it be consistent, no need to have the stoppage

Hybrid Icing - dont see a huge point.. saving a couple seconds here and there.. doesn't do anything to protect ppl.. go all the way and do a no-touch icing, protect the playlers and save the couple seconds.. the 'race to the puck' is not an important part of hockey

punishment line - i dont see it having any kind of real impact, also adds another judgement call to the refs, and i'm all against that..

and finally, penalties..
not ok with the full 2 minutes.. thats too big of a penalty, especially on ticky tack calls like someone above mentioned.. not ok with full icing being called, again, too big of a penalty.. i would be ok with no-touch icing being called, but letting pk'ers change lines.. gives the PP a few extra seconds each PP, and seemless changes.. increases the penalty, but not so drastically that PPG's would sky rocket

 

[awaz]

THIS

Fuck the shootout. Let these guys play for it. You'd see a lot less coaches hanging back in OT, that's for sure.

i dont mind them having the shootout, if teams played a 2 or 3 OT game in the middle of tough road trip, they'd be fucked..

however, the shootout is FAR too frequent and is such a gimmick.. i hate it too, but i understand why its in there..

i think changing it to a 3-2-1-0 points system would eliminate a bunch of OT and as a result a bunch of shootouts.. once it hits about february teams play so conservative in the 3rd period to make sure they at least get 1 point.. the winner's point is played for in a 5 minute span.. its stupid.. give teams a reward for winning in regulation instead of a shootout

3 Points for regulation win
2 points for a OT/SO win
1 point for OT/SO loss
0 points for a regulation loss

 

[Bizzle McDizzle]

Didn't all minor penalties used to be served for the full two minutes?
in the long long ago before time?

 

[dash]

Didn't all minor penalties used to be served for the full two minutes?
in the long long ago before time?

Yes, indeed...The league changed this rule due to the proficiency of the Habs powerplay in the 50's where they routinely scored multiple PP goals on 2 minute minors.

 

[dash]

i dont mind them having the shootout, if teams played a 2 or 3 OT game in the middle of tough road trip, they'd be fucked..

however, the shootout is FAR too frequent and is such a gimmick.. i hate it too, but i understand why its in there..

i think changing it to a 3-2-1-0 points system would eliminate a bunch of OT and as a result a bunch of shootouts.. once it hits about february teams play so conservative in the 3rd period to make sure they at least get 1 point.. the winner's point is played for in a 5 minute span.. its stupid.. give teams a reward for winning in regulation instead of a shootout

3 Points for regulation win
2 points for a OT/SO win
1 point for OT/SO loss
0 points for a regulation loss

This most excellent post earns a rep...

 

[esls79]

Here's an idea - make regulation wins worth way more than ot or a shootout - who cares about historical relevance - that was thrown out the window with the advent of overtime

5 points for a regulation win, none for a loss
4 for overtime win, 1 for overtime loss
3 for shootout win, 2 for shootout loss

 

[Bizzle McDizzle]

15 points for a regulation win, none for a loss
7 for overtime win, 0 for overtime loss
0 for shootout win, 16 for shootout loss

i like this