TheHammer24 wrote:Biere was an offisides, and you need two linesmen. Moreover, the other linesman was at the far blue line, so not in position to make the call.
I reffed. There's no fear of toe-stepping, believe me. Every ref does have their own style, and only one is needed to call a penalty. So two-ref systems increase penalties, in my opinion.
Refs can overrule that of a linesman.
The 2 ref system has also dipped into that of pre-lockout hockey so it is ineffective. I think you can control a one-ref system to call tighter games than you can a 2 ref system.
TheHammer24 wrote:Biere was an offisides, and you need two linesmen. Moreover, the other linesman was at the far blue line, so not in position to make the call.
I reffed. There's no fear of toe-stepping, believe me. Every ref does have their own style, and only one is needed to call a penalty. So two-ref systems increase penalties, in my opinion.
Refs can overrule that of a linesman.
The 2 ref system has also dipped into that of pre-lockout hockey so it is ineffective. I think you can control a one-ref system to call tighter games than you can a 2 ref system.
On an offside? No they can't. Even if they technically can, that has never happened, ever.
TheHammer24 wrote:Biere was an offisides, and you need two linesmen. Moreover, the other linesman was at the far blue line, so not in position to make the call.
I reffed. There's no fear of toe-stepping, believe me. Every ref does have their own style, and only one is needed to call a penalty. So two-ref systems increase penalties, in my opinion.
Refs can overrule that of a linesman.
The 2 ref system has also dipped into that of pre-lockout hockey so it is ineffective. I think you can control a one-ref system to call tighter games than you can a 2 ref system.
On an offside? No they can't. Even if they technically can, that has never happened, ever.
Yes he can. But you are right that it very very rarely happens. I remember Kerry Fraser mentioned that it was possible. And that it doesn't happen for fear of stepping on people's toes.
I rather have 1 ref be in complete control than 2 having to work in a silent unison.
The only effective way I can think to limit shot blocking is to reduce pad size. For one, I don't think there's any way in hell players should be allowed to tie the extra padding around their skate. If you want to stand in front of a 100 MPH shot, go for it, but you shouldn't be able to feel invincible while you do it.
Staggy wrote:The only effective way I can think to limit shot blocking is to reduce pad size. For one, I don't think there's any way in hell players should be allowed to tie the extra padding around their skate. If you want to stand in front of a 100 MPH shot, go for it, but you shouldn't be able to feel invincible while you do it.
I doubt players blocking shots ever feel invincible.
Staggy wrote:The only effective way I can think to limit shot blocking is to reduce pad size. For one, I don't think there's any way in hell players should be allowed to tie the extra padding around their skate. If you want to stand in front of a 100 MPH shot, go for it, but you shouldn't be able to feel invincible while you do it.
I doubt players blocking shots ever feel invincible.
Players don't necessarily have to be attempting to block a shot in order to have a puck hit the skate, ankle, etc and be injured pretty badly. The number of innocent bystanders would increase..
Honestly i would love scoring to go up a little, but its very hard to create skilled goals by modifing rules.
To get more goals why don't they make certin penalities a full 2 minute penalty even if you score you get the rest of the time to try and score another. 2 minute Boarding, high sticking cross checking would be these kinds of penalties. Delay of game, to many men would be the origional 2 mins one goal and its done. PPGs always seem to be higher skill level goals. PK players and PP skill players would be at a premium.
Malkamaniac wrote:I just think if you want to increase scoring, stop the clutch and grab, reduce goalie pad size again and enlarge the nets.
Taking the trap out of the game or changing the rules because a team can't score against another one is crazy to me. It kind of pees on the face of everything a team tries to do when it influences and places a system for it's players to play.
While I agree to an extent, I don't want the nets bigger. I think more than anything call penalties like they did immediately post lockout and again scoring will increase. Refs need to do their job effectively. And personally, that means 1 ref systems.
I was more or less saying that there's other way's to increase scoring and increasing net size was one of them. Taking defense away because teams can play it so well is mind boggling.
I always figured shot blocking was a great way to earn rep with teammates. You see a guy lay down for a Shea Weber slap shot and you immediately know he's willing to do whatever it takes to win.
Call the obstruction penalties according to the rulebook, and you will increase speed and space. A faster, more wide open game will make it easier to change shooting angles. More shooting angles means fewer blocked shots.
No need at all to change the rules... Just enforce the ones already in the rulebook.
Malkamaniac wrote:I just think if you want to increase scoring, stop the clutch and grab, reduce goalie pad size again and enlarge the nets.
Taking the trap out of the game or changing the rules because a team can't score against another one is crazy to me. It kind of pees on the face of everything a team tries to do when it influences and places a system for it's players to play.
While I agree to an extent, I don't want the nets bigger. I think more than anything call penalties like they did immediately post lockout and again scoring will increase. Refs need to do their job effectively. And personally, that means 1 ref systems.
I was more or less saying that there's other way's to increase scoring and increasing net size was one of them. Taking defense away because teams can play it so well is mind boggling.
I understand that. I was just saying that I personally don't want the nets bigger.
I don't think the NHL is going to admit the refs aren't calling the rules correctly. They'll add a rule and then make sure the refs enforce everything. They'll then argue that the change in game speed is due to the new rule, not because the refs are doing their job.
Froggy wrote:Call the obstruction penalties according to the rulebook, and you will increase speed and space. A faster, more wide open game will make it easier to change shooting angles. More shooting angles means fewer blocked shots.
No need at all to change the rules... Just enforce the ones already in the rulebook.
Froggy wrote:Call the obstruction penalties according to the rulebook, and you will increase speed and space. A faster, more wide open game will make it easier to change shooting angles. More shooting angles means fewer blocked shots.
No need at all to change the rules... Just enforce the ones already in the rulebook.
More speed = more concussions?
I see your point, and there is some validity to it. the solution to that would be to crack down on the players causing concussions. All the players. Not just Cooke or Torres.
I guess the league needs to decide if it wants the game to be safe and boring, or fun and maybe a bit dangerous.
Although the counter argument could be made that there is no evidence that a more open game leads to more concussions, since there are so many now with all the obstruction rules pretty much ignored
Froggy wrote:Call the obstruction penalties according to the rulebook, and you will increase speed and space. A faster, more wide open game will make it easier to change shooting angles. More shooting angles means fewer blocked shots.
No need at all to change the rules... Just enforce the ones already in the rulebook.
More speed = more concussions?
I see your point, and there is some validity to it. the solution to that would be to crack down on the players causing concussions. All the players. Not just Cooke or Torres.
I guess the league needs to decide if it wants the game to be safe and boring, or fun and maybe a bit dangerous.
Although the counter argument could be made that there is no evidence that a more open game leads to more concussions, since there are so many now with all the obstruction rules pretty much ignored
I agree with everything to said. There is a counter argument for just about every change someone can think of. I guess it is up to league to decide whether they want to tackle the concussion "problems" or the current sag in goals. Personally, I can imagine a majority of deep rooted hockey fans want to see the concussion problem wrangled before anything else. We can't have guys like Crosby, Backstrom, Perron, MacDonald, etc... miss months and years of playing because of it. Also, more goals does not mean a more exciting game - to me atleast.
Froggy wrote:Call the obstruction penalties according to the rulebook, and you will increase speed and space. A faster, more wide open game will make it easier to change shooting angles. More shooting angles means fewer blocked shots.
No need at all to change the rules... Just enforce the ones already in the rulebook.
More speed = more concussions?
I see your point, and there is some validity to it. the solution to that would be to crack down on the players causing concussions. All the players. Not just Cooke or Torres.
I guess the league needs to decide if it wants the game to be safe and boring, or fun and maybe a bit dangerous.
Although the counter argument could be made that there is no evidence that a more open game leads to more concussions, since there are so many now with all the obstruction rules pretty much ignored
I agree with everything to said. There is a counter argument for just about every change someone can think of. I guess it is up to league to decide whether they want to tackle the concussion "problems" or the current sag in goals. Personally, I can imagine a majority of deep rooted hockey fans want to see the concussion problem wrangled before anything else. We can't have guys like Crosby, Backstrom, Perron, MacDonald, etc... miss months and years of playing because of it. Also, more goals does not mean a more exciting game - to me atleast.
I absolutely agree with the Globe and Mail that the shot blocking thing has become utterly ridiculous and needs to be minimized. Anything that systemically diminishes the skill of the game - be it the trap, the clutching and grabbing, etc. - should be removed from the game. It certainly shouldn't be rewarded or it will happen more and more frequently. We're starting to see that with shot blocking.
I'm sorry to say this but hockey doesn't need die hards like you and me to survive. It needs casual fans to survive and the casual fan doesn't plunk down his $120 to watch Craig Adams block shots. Rather he pays to watch Geno Malkin and Sidney Crosby do wondrous things with the puck - including scoring goals.
I liked Bob Gainey's rule suggestion in 2008 of making it a delay of game penalty if a player blocks a shot without having at least one skate blade on the ice. That means if you want to block shots, you are going to have to do it FACING the shooter and instead of having a blocking area of six feet, it's more like two feet - thereby opening up the game. I would like to see the NHL implement that rule before this becomes the Dead Puck Era Part Deux.
I agree with the post above 100 percent (old man rush post) even the bob gainey rule change.
This post season the ugliest of the ugly goals are being scored. Its just get the shot off from the point, hope for a deflection or tip in or hope the puck has eyes and finds his way through. Not very entertaining. All the articles i googled take of scoring is down, power plays are down. Althought most NHL playofs have lower average scores this postseason its a much bigger drop off.
We all know playoffs are different and respect the different game we see in the postseason. But if you are trying to turn the casual fan into a hardcore fan you need a little more concistancy.
