Around the NHL: 2014-2015

[Doohicksie]

Let them keep playing if the puck hits the nets and falls back into play, 

 

I would agree with this, except that I would put the stipulation that the puck must first hit the ice behind the goal line (but not in the goal).  What I don't want to see is a puck landing right in front of the goal line an being shot directly in.  Maybe a rule saying it would need to touch two non-goalie players before a goal can be scored would accomplish the same thing.

[shrader]

My ideas on improving offense:

-Make the goalie pads smaller. The recent change was weak.

-Make the nets SLIGHTLY bigger.

-No icing the puck on the penalty kill. Get it out of your zone the normal way.

-Call the penalties when they happen. More power plays should mean more scoring. If you enforce the rules more guys will be less likely to try and bend them.

 

Yeap.

Calling the penalties will have the biggest impact.

Your first two points can probably be compressed into just one with larger nets. They goalies will argue about safety issues with the pads, so they should just skip right to the bigger nets. It has the same intended purpose, giving the shooter more to shoot at. I've been pushing that idea for a while now. Today's players are snipers, even the weaker ones, give them more to shoot at and they'll hit it.

 

I've also liked your 3rd proposal for a while. THe problem though is that if they can't get the puck out of the zone by icing it, they'll put it into the benches instead. College experimented with it and that's exactly what happened. If you want to account for that issue, I think the league needs to expand the "no line changes on icing" rule. Don't let them change after any unnatural stoppage of play. If you put the puck out of play, if you take a penalty, if you are whistled for offside... you don't get to change. Just imagine the scenario where a defenseman takes a penalty and you are faced with a shorthanded faceoff in your own zone with 3 forwards and one defenseman. Things will get interesting.

 

The last point might make sense in an ideal world, but it can never be implemented. There's too much human error involved in the process.

[LTS]

It's strange isn't it?

 

As all the equipment improved, the training improved, the skill of players improved the overall game itself did not.

 

Better sticks create harder shots.

Better skates create faster players.

Better training creates faster and stronger players.

These necessitate protective equipment changes.

Players no longer fear puck or body.

 

Goalies still forced to stand there and take the shots so they want protection (really, 108mph?!)

 

Game over.

 

As much as I hate to say it, I think the only way to improve the game is to increase the rink size (that;s some money right there) AND the net size.

 

Another thought that popped into my head.. what if the crease size increased?  If players were all forced to stand a little further from the net then perhaps there would be more space for shots to get through?  I have to think about that one. While it sounded nice I am going to guess there are serious problems with that idea. :)

[dudacek]

You don't increase the rink size, you do what they did 100 years ago: you reduce the number of skaters.

The people who don't want that don't really want flow.

[darksabre]

You don't increase the rink size, you do what they did 100 years ago: you reduce the number of skaters.

The people who don't want that don't really want flow.

I think you're probably right. You want to create more time and space for players to move but you don't want to make the ice so big that players are waiting longer for passes and trying to cover more distance.

[Stoner]

You don't increase the rink size, you do what they did 100 years ago: you reduce the number of skaters.

The people who don't want that don't really want flow.

Two questions. Would the PA be in favor of that? I think I've heard that would be a sticking point. Also, wouldn't the Ken Hitchcocks and Lou L.'s in the league just find new ways of defending it?

[rickshaw]

Lots of great ideas. Don't agree with larger ice. Just have more defense packing in the middle of the rink. Still shots from outside.

 

Have full 2 min pp's for sure, no matter what. Make hooking and holding different than boarding or slashing. 3 mins for rougher type penalties. How can a little interference be the same as blasting a guy from behind into the glass? 

 

Going 4 on 4 is the best idea, but the PA won't have it because too many guys lose jobs. It is what it should be, but like the sometimes 3 point game, it won't happen. They'll never drop players without adding teams and they won't drop loser points because the standings and races won't go down to the end like they do now. 

 

Missed PS should still result in PP I agree with that too. Long changes twice as well is a good idea. I'd actually like the fast face-off to really exist. No matter what, the linesman counts to a number agreed upon. Once he hits that number, puck drops. Boom. 

[dudacek]

PA would definitely be against it. It would be like shrinking the league by four teams.

 

From a hockey perspective, it's not ice, but I've played three on three and four on four on a variety of ball hockey surfaces (small gyms to full arenas).

It's like D4rk says, goals are always about having time and space close to the net.

No matter how big you make the ice, the Lous and Hitches will always be able to crowd five defenders in the scoring area, except if you only give them four to work with.

Edited April 9, 2015 by dudacek

[TrueBlueGED]

PA would definitely be against it. It would be like shrinking the league by four teams.

By George you've got it! Expand to 34 teams, shrink to 4v4 play. I'm in!

[darksabre]

By George you've got it! Expand to 34 teams, shrink to 4v4 play. I'm in!

Perfect.

Would it mean the death of the stay at home defender?

[Hoss]

By George you've got it! Expand to 34 teams, shrink to 4v4 play. I'm in!

Was going to mention this. Exactly.

[TrueBlueGED]

Perfect.

Would it mean the death of the stay at home defender?

Eventually I'd imagine so. But in the near term I think there's enough dinosaurs running teams that guys devoid of offensive ability would still have jobs.

[ubkev]

Introduction of the illegal defense. Basically anything that Lou and Hitch do becomes illegal. Torts too, he liked the 6 goaltender system.

[TrueBlueGED]

Introduction of the illegal defense. Basically anything that Lou and Hitch do becomes illegal. Torts too, he liked the 6 goaltender system.

I want illegal defense too, but I can only imagine the officiating controversies :lol:

[ubkev]

I want illegal defense too, but I can only imagine the officiating controversies :lol:

Isn't that part of the reason that they got rid of it in the NBA?

[Taro T]

My ideas on improving offense:

-Make the goalie pads smaller. The recent change was weak.

-Make the nets SLIGHTLY bigger.

-No icing the puck on the penalty kill. Get it out of your zone the normal way.

-Call the penalties when they happen. More power plays should mean more scoring. If you enforce the rules more guys will be less likely to try and bend them.

 

Yeap.

Calling the penalties will have the biggest impact.

PA would never go for #1, it's a safety issue for goalies; but slide each post out 2 inches and the crossbar up 4, and even monsters like Lindback have a hard time blocking the whooe net via butterfly and reaction goalies (like Enroth) have a more even playing field. The cost of new nets is an argument against it, but not a good one now that youth organizations are going to cross-ice (and smaller nets and (BIG $ item) removable dasherboards. Use current nets up through either pee wee or bantam and then go up to the 'new' NHL ones at higher levels.

 

Agree that no icing during pk would help scoring, but might be opposed by the PA again on safety issues. Forcing guys that are pinned in to not be able to ice the puck MIGHT lead to more injuries.

 

Tough to get the dinosaurs running the league to seriously enforce the rules unfortunately. One tweak they could get on board with though could be going back to 4v4 / 3v3 / 4v3 on coincidental minors. That would open up a lot of ice for brief periods. Few things were as exciting as watching 2 minutes of 3v3 firehouse hockey. It still ticks me off that the Sabres didn't vote along with the Habs, Nords, and Eulers when the rule changed. (Wouldn't have been enough to carry the day, but the Sabres were pretty good at 3v3 too for a long time; get about 3 others to go along and the Gretzky - Kurri rule wouldn't have been implemented.)

 

 

Spitballing no chance ideas for fun.

 

Let them keep playing if the puck hits the nets and falls back into play,  

Serve two full minutes of every penalty regardless of whether a goal is scored or not.

Make the long change two periods vice one

Shorten the neutral zone and move the goalie net further from the wall to encourage more play behind the net

Don't like the 1st idea.

 

Fully on board w/ recinding the Rocket Richard rule. Would even go 1 step further and let a team that scores on a delayed penalty get to have the power play as well.

 

Like the idea of swapping ends twice rather than once. (Really good outside the box idea.)

 

Making the area behind the net bigger (and the offensive zone as well) will have the opposite effect of what you're looking for. It did both times they moved the goal line. If anything, they should now move the goal line back to 10'. They didn't go back to 10' but only 11' because they thought it would be too dangerous to have the goal line so close to the boards on icings. BUT now that they've gone to hybrid icing, that excuse largely goes away. Move it back to 10' and the rebounds off the boards end up in front of the net that much quicker and at better angles.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Taro T

[darksabre]

Eventually I'd imagine so. But in the near term I think there's enough dinosaurs running teams that guys devoid of offensive ability would still have jobs.

 

What if we modified off-sides? Make it so one player can enter the offensive zone before the puck? That'd get things moving a little more. 

[Hoss]

What if we modified off-sides? Make it so one player can enter the offensive zone before the puck? That'd get things moving a little more.

Or maybe offensive players can enter the zone once the puck hits center ice in their team's control?

[Tondas]

I'm not opposed to increasing the width of the rink to keep 5 skaters and make the game like it used to be.  However I think the width of the net should remain proportional to the width of the rink.  Therefore, if the rink goes to 100 feet, the net should go to 7 feet (rounded).

Edited April 9, 2015 by Tondas

[darksabre]

Or maybe offensive players can enter the zone once the puck hits center ice in their team's control?

Perfect.

[Taro T]

Or maybe offensive players can enter the zone once the puck hits center ice in their team's control?

Cool outside the box idea. Only issue I'd have is, these guys have issues far more often than one'd expect with offsides and icing. Going to, essentially, a displaced offsides would be EXTREMELY difficult for a linesman to call. If they could figure out how to get that call right, that would definitely open up the game.

[Hoss]

Cool outside the box idea. Only issue I'd have is, these guys have issues far more often than one'd expect with offsides and icing. Going to, essentially, a displaced offsides would be EXTREMELY difficult for a linesman to call. If they could figure out how to get that call right, that would definitely open up the game.

 

For sure. Every rule will have a definite downside. To get this done properly they would almost certainly have to have one linesman planted at center ice on one side of the boards with another planted on the opposite side of the boards at the blue line... Would be tough.

 

Also could try something with a puck sensor and some sort of communication device to the officials. It's complicated but a fun idea.

[Trettioåtta]

Sure glad we traded MacArthur for a third round pick :p

[carpandean]

What if we modified off-sides? Make it so one player can enter the offensive zone before the puck? That'd get things moving a little more. 

Or maybe offensive players can enter the zone once the puck hits center ice in their team's control?

 

We had an idea thread a while back, in which I suggested making the blue line three or four feet wide.  Players would be allowed to cross into the blue line at any time and as soon as the puck crosses the outer (neutral-zone side) edge, they could enter the zone (obviously, if it goes back across the outer edge into the neutral zone, then they would have to tag up.)  It should make it easier to stay onsides when the player with the puck has to make an extra move around a defenseman.

Edited April 10, 2015 by carpandean

[darksabre]

We had an idea thread a while back, in which I suggested making the blue line three or four feet wide.  Players would be allowed to cross into the blue line at any time and as soon as the puck crosses the outer (neutral-zone side) edge, they could enter the zone (obviously, if it goes back across the outer edge into the neutral zone, then they would have to tag up.)  It should make it easier to stay onsides when the player with the puck has to make an extra move around a defenseman.

 

Right, with the idea being to promote more offensive zone activity. Although a huge blue line might be unsightly. But the concept is sound.