Hockey Fan Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Alright, we've heard all of the ideas bouncing around that some say will make the game better: angled goal posts, bigger nets, no-touch icing, etc.

What are the 3 changes you would make?
How would those changes improve the game?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I'll kick it off. My three changes:

1. Outlaw headshots
I would remove all of the ambiguity of the current rule currently in place, and totally outlaw hits to the head. Was it from behind? Was it from the side? Was the player looking? It shouldn't matter. This is a matter of player safety, with serious long term and debilitating effects to consider.

Improvement to the game:
The game (and the lives of its participants) would be improved by reducing the number of head injuries.

And don't give me that "you need to keep your head up like they did in the 60s, 70s and 90s" business. The players weren't remotely as big, strong and as fast they are now. They didn't wear padding which serves nicely as a weapon, and the game itself didn't occur at close to the pace it does today. Also, we didn't know then what we know now about concussions.

2. Reduce roster sizes by 1
If you were an NHL coach, and were only allowed to dress 17 skaters instead of 18, which of the bottom guys on the roster would you get rid of: the AHL tweener who can play a bit, or a goon like Steve MacIntyre, who can't play more than a few minutes per night? I'll tell you the most likely answer based on what the league was like before 18 man rosters: the Steve MacIntyre/Stu Grimson/Eric Godard/Trevor Gillies/etc type of player is history.

Improvement to the game:
The game would be better off with a big pile of non-NHL players not being in the NHL. Think of major league baseball clubs dressing players that can't hit or throw remotely close to the major league level. Think of NBA teams carrying players that can't dribble the ball or shoot close to the hoop. Think of an NFL team dressing a receiver that can't catch the ball...

Additionally, this would represent salary cap space better directed to guys who can, you know, PLAY HOCKEY.

3. Implement tougher drug testing
It's obvious that the drug testing currently in place is a joke:

-players are not tested in the off-season, which is the time of greatest benefit for PEDs like steroids. Since the program greatly concentrates on testing for steroids, not testing in the off-season won't catch very many cheaters.
-looking at what hasn't been banned is also interesting, such as rigs used to assist players in passing urine tests.
-players are also not tested for any stimulants, so PEDs like ephedrine are completely fine.
-the blood test administered to the players doesn't detect HGH use.
-players are not tested at all during the playoffs.

Improvement to the game:
It's tough to put into words, but really can only arrive at a lame message, like "at least the league would be *trying* to keep its players honest. Is the league any better off by basically looking the other way? I don't think so.

Daryl
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Drop the instigator rule
remove the trapazoid
regulated equipment. Eg, all players wear similar shoulder, elbow pad etc. Protective but not "football" shoulder pads. This would include wood sticks. No more composite. Less is a whole lot more IMHO.

rb:beer
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
regulated equipment. Eg, all players wear similar shoulder, elbow pad etc. Protective but not "football" shoulder pads. This would include wood sticks. No more composite. Less is a whole lot more IMHO.

rb:beer
On this site, I've been advocating changes to equipment for years.

IMO, the goaltender equipment in use today has gone beyond the limits of offering protection, to crossing into the range of being performance enhancing.

I wouldn't necessarily call for all to be the same length, due to the difference in size between players, but like the idea of getting rid of the cheater on trappers, limiting the width and length of the blocker, and the biggie:

I propose that goalie equipment have some amount of weight added to them over the course of a few years, so that the weights cannot be less than X pounds for each size the goalie wears. Size would be determined by the amount of padding required to protect the goalie, not his wishes to gain an advantage by wearing bigger pads (ala Garth Snow).

I am also DEFINITELY in favor of dropping the composite sticks for wooden, but that's a story for another day.

Daryl
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
On this site, I've been advocating changes to equipment for years.

IMO, the goaltender equipment in use today has gone beyond the limits of offering protection, to crossing into the range of being performance enhancing.

I wouldn't necessarily call for all to be the same length, due to the difference in size between players, but like the idea of getting rid of the cheater on trappers, limiting the width and length of the blocker, and the biggie:

I propose that goalie equipment have some amount of weight added to them over the course of a few years, so that the weights cannot be less than X pounds for each size the goalie wears. Size would be determined by the amount of padding required to protect the goalie, not his wishes to gain an advantage by wearing bigger pads (ala Garth Snow).

I am also DEFINITELY in favor of dropping the composite sticks for wooden, but that's a story for another day.

Daryl
Well, I hear you where the goalies are concerned however goal production is not the main issue in our game today. Player safety is. Dropping the instigator rule and regulating skater equipment to me is what separates us from a more fluid and honest game. Guys like Matt Cooke will have to be fully accountable on the playing surface. And when I say drop the instigator rule, I mean when it's in regards to answering the bell from one of our brothers. As in, Matt Cooke blindsides Savard, I am not penalized for going after him. It was a tasteless hit and he would have thought twice about it and every other cowardly hit he's laid if from day one he had to pay a price. Sitting him out, resting his soar shoulder for 10 games is not a price. Having to physically pay for your actions immediately is.

Now, your goalie equipment idea is starting to get through to me, only if you ban the composite sticks and make wood mandatory. With 15% less on your shot we may in fact see a reduction in goals so perhaps it will be something that really must be addressed.

Bottom line to me is this. If you want this game to evolve even further you have to take a page from the past. If we continually let outside influences like equipment makers and technology completely shape our game it will do just that. When do we (hockey and the people involved) take ownership of this situation and demand that our game is ours and adopt a "keep it simple stupid" philosophy.

rb
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Oh, I'm with you about player safety. If you look at my rules suggestions, they're mostly focused on that issue.

Instigator rule
---------------
My issue is this: the players have demonstrated a piss-poor ability to police the game themselves. Historically, dirty hits begot fights, which begot more fights or worse/dirtier hits and stick work. I don't believe, given the sport's past, that much evidence exists to suggest that the player's can manage the issue.

Guys like Matt Cooke will never be held accountable on the ice, instigator rule or not. If a guy in his weight class jumps him, he turtles, and a heavyweight will never do it because of

a) The "code", and
b) Enforcers are hardly ever on the ice for their 3 minutes unless other goons are out there already.

Now. The league can do something about it tomorrow, if they so choose. The Matt Cooke-types can face heavy suspensions, which is a heavy hit to the pocket book, or the league could also hold the player's team accountable. If teams start facing the prospect of being without the player AND facing repercussions from the league, they would take steps to make players change undesirable behaviour, or they might start finding them to be too much of a liability, which would effectively drum them out of the league.

I want the players' safety to be increased, but I just don't see how massaging the rules in an attempt to increase fighting will do that.

Daryl
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,225 Posts
Drop the instigator rule
remove the trapazoid
regulated equipment. Eg, all players wear similar shoulder, elbow pad etc. Protective but not "football" shoulder pads. This would include wood sticks. No more composite. Less is a whole lot more IMHO.

rb:beer
Just wondering, but why?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Oh, I'm with you about player safety. If you look at my rules suggestions, they're mostly focused on that issue.

Instigator rule
---------------
My issue is this: the players have demonstrated a piss-poor ability to police the game themselves. Historically, dirty hits begot fights, which begot more fights or worse/dirtier hits and stick work. I don't believe, given the sport's past, that much evidence exists to suggest that the player's can manage the issue.

Guys like Matt Cooke will never be held accountable on the ice, instigator rule or not. If a guy in his weight class jumps him, he turtles, and a heavyweight will never do it because of

a) The "code", and
b) Enforcers are hardly ever on the ice for their 3 minutes unless other goons are out there already.

Now. The league can do something about it tomorrow, if they so choose. The Matt Cooke-types can face heavy suspensions, which is a heavy hit to the pocket book, or the league could also hold the player's team accountable. If teams start facing the prospect of being without the player AND facing repercussions from the league, they would take steps to make players change undesirable behaviour, or they might start finding them to be too much of a liability, which would effectively drum them out of the league.

I want the players' safety to be increased, but I just don't see how massaging the rules in an attempt to increase fighting will do that.

Daryl
Hmmm - you've got me thinking bud. Perhaps I need some time to re-evaluate my own ideal surrounding this....

a soul searching I will go

z
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Just wondering, but why?
Because it serves no purpose IMHO. If the goalie wants to go behind the net, who cares? Apparently the league. And if they're so concerned about gaining new fans, why has even "more" lines on the ice that confuse the casual fan? Get rid of it and forget it happened I say.

z
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,225 Posts
Because it serves no purpose IMHO. If the goalie wants to go behind the net, who cares? Apparently the league. And if they're so concerned about gaining new fans, why has even "more" lines on the ice that confuse the casual fan? Get rid of it and forget it happened I say.

z
I personally like it. Keeps goalies in the goal more, which is a good thing to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
I personally like it. Keeps goalies in the goal more, which is a good thing to me.
But if goalies wish to venture out of their nets and take that risk it is their choice. Personally i love watching goalies go out and play the puck. It makes for a 3rd defense man at times. Especially for tenders like Brodeur who can really handle the puck well. I just think if a goalie is going to venture out of the net they should be fair game to some extent.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Personally, I'm with datsun (rb) on the trapezoid issue, for two major reasons.

1. The league essentially put the rule in place to handicap two goalies (Brodeur and Turco) who they felt were impacting play with their ability to cut off pucks in the corner. IMHO, the game isn't at all better when we place such limits on a player's athleticism, nor did the game require yet more paint on the ice.

2. With goalies being forced to stay in their nets, defensemen have to play all of the pucks in the corner, leaving them vulnerable to heavy hits from forwards who barrel in on them at full speed, increasing the chances of injury.

Daryl
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,661 Posts
But if goalies wish to venture out of their nets and take that risk it is their choice. Personally i love watching goalies go out and play the puck. It makes for a 3rd defense man at times. Especially for tenders like Brodeur who can really handle the puck well. I just think if a goalie is going to venture out of the net they should be fair game to some extent.
I don't think they should be fair game in terms of being hit like any other player. But I do think that if a goalie goes out to play the puck and incidental contact occurs it's the goalie's fault and the other player shouldn't be penalized.

I've always thought the rule was ridiculous to begin with. It's an unfair limitation on teams who have good puckhandling goalies. That's all it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
I don't think they should be fair game in terms of being hit like any other player. But I do think that if a goalie goes out to play the puck and incidental contact occurs it's the goalie's fault and the other player shouldn't be penalized.

I've always thought the rule was ridiculous to begin with. It's an unfair limitation on teams who have good puckhandling goalies. That's all it is.
Sorry i guess i should have made it more clear. When i said to some extent i meant incidental contact, hahaha my mistake.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
I don't think they should be fair game in terms of being hit like any other player. But I do think that if a goalie goes out to play the puck and incidental contact occurs it's the goalie's fault and the other player shouldn't be penalized.

I've always thought the rule was ridiculous to begin with. It's an unfair limitation on teams who have good puckhandling goalies. That's all it is.
agreed...

z
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,225 Posts
I don't think they should be fair game in terms of being hit like any other player. But I do think that if a goalie goes out to play the puck and incidental contact occurs it's the goalie's fault and the other player shouldn't be penalized.

I've always thought the rule was ridiculous to begin with. It's an unfair limitation on teams who have good puckhandling goalies. That's all it is.
It's not like the goalies can't come out of their crease. Goalies who have good stick skills can still show it. I like watching players hustle and play dump and chase hockey. Goalies coming out every dump in the zone just isn't fun for me to watch. With how these goalies flop and react to getting tapped on their heavily padded glove the less they are handling the puck the better imo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,305 Posts
I don't think they should be fair game in terms of being hit like any other player. But I do think that if a goalie goes out to play the puck and incidental contact occurs it's the goalie's fault and the other player shouldn't be penalized.

I've always thought the rule was ridiculous to begin with. It's an unfair limitation on teams who have good puckhandling goalies. That's all it is.
Sure they should i've always maintained if they want to act like a third dman or sixth skater then away from their crease they should be treated like one.

They would know the risk before leaving the safety of their crease.

Incidental contact just leaves another gray area open to interpretation that the game doesn't need.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Sure they should i've always maintained if they want to act like a third dman or sixth skater then away from their crease they should be treated like one.

They would know the risk before leaving the safety of their crease.

Incidental contact just leaves another gray area open to interpretation that the game doesn't need.
I can support your point a little here. Last SCF Thomas shoved Hank Sedin over, could a player do that to a goalie.?

z
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
I think that if the goalie come sout of the blue paint he should be fair game period. No ifs ands or buts about it
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
1: Bigger Nets

2: 3pts for regulation wins.

3: No-touch icing.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top