3 on 3 OT/GMs recommend

[interstorm]

Ok, so these things are binary...they are checkboxes?

NZ clogged...check. Will not vary.
Shots are blocked: check. Will not increase or decrease.

No -- most certainly an increase or a decrease is possible (and likely). It is just my belief that we're already experiencing so much of these that a change to the goal size is more likely to decrease these than to increase them (especially given how prominent they already are). Your opinion is different. Nothing wrong with that...

[interstorm]

...also - just to close the loop on my thoughts and this thread -- what we've been discussing (the potential downside of bigger goals in blocked shots and NZ trapping) is nothing so large that it should prevent the NHL from exploring it. They tried 3 On 3 OT before bringing it to the NHL -- and I think that is an absurd rule (see my mock conversation earlier in this topic). Do the same with bigger goals either in the AHL or NHL preseason (since there are different skill capabilities between the leagues preseason may be a better choice...just will yield a smaller sample size when winning isn't as important). I just don't see an argument (other than wanting the NHL in the gutter for parity) to not explore.

Mikey - I know you said elsewhere that roster sizes would help. While that may be true, there is no way that happens becauseit will eliminate NHL jobs (unless partnered with expansion but now we're making the solution even more complicated). There also isn't an easy way to test this theory.

The choice is between status quo or something that can be enacted (which honestly there aren't many options). Bigger goals can be.

Try it...what do we have to lose?

[mikey287]

- So lowering save pct./ increasing shooting percentage (effectively what bigger nets hopes to accomplish, it's just a stat grab...as game play would not improve) would "more likely decrease" NZ traffic and shot blocking...? Whether you buy my side of it or not, that's a really tough theory to digest...

- And why are the choices "status quo" and "making nets bigger"? There are many different options to explore...why limit yourself to something that's generally considered heinous by hockey traditionalists...the game wasn't always like this, so why not try to revert back to how things used to be when it wasn't? Right? Wouldn't you start there...? Where you had a good product and see what the deal was there? Right?

[no name]

I think you guys are assuming coaches will change their game plans just because a inch or 2 was added to the net? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If a coach had a way to shutdown even more chances of the opponents they would be doing it already.

Bigger nets mean the shot that used to clang off the post now hits the post and goes in. I don't think coaches will be scrambling around try to shut the game down even more. I don't think you can do that anymore than it already is.

[mikey287]

So, you watch teams like Pittsburgh, the Islanders, Calgary, Dallas, etc. And think they're doing all they can to strangle the game? If you think coaching won't adjust to an artificial increase in shooting percentage, I'm not sure what to tell you...i mean, maybe, but that sounds extraordinarily unlikely...

But even so, even if nothing changes....you didn't improve game play. You just add a couple of goals that would have hit the post this year...who cares? The game isn't better for that.

[interstorm]

- So lowering save pct./ increasing shooting percentage (effectively what bigger nets hopes to accomplish, it's just a stat grab...as game play would not improve) would "more likely decrease" NZ traffic and shot blocking...? Whether you buy my side of it or not, that's a really tough theory to digest...

- And why are the choices "status quo" and "making nets bigger"? There are many different options to explore...why limit yourself to something that's generally considered heinous by hockey traditionalists...the game wasn't always like this, so why not try to revert back to how things used to be when it wasn't? Right? Wouldn't you start there...? Where you had a good product and see what the deal was there? Right?

Do you mean something considered heinous like shootouts?? You're right - we'd never see something like that hard-liners would go for. Increasing scoring isn't just a stat grab, it actually raises the hope (OMG) that something may actually happen when one's team enters the offensive zone. Even if you want to consider that just a stat grab, though, it looks like the same is wildly popular in the NFL.

So you don't like it -- fine. Enlighten me on what realistic options the NHL has to increase scoring (or if you don't want more scoring, at least increase excitement)? Let me know what actually has a chance to pass with the NHL/NHLPA relationship (so forget trimming the roster or making goalie equipment smaller) or something that hasn't been promised yet completely undelivered (calling the NHL rulebook as it is without exception). Also let's keep in mind the new fans and not look to overcomplicate the game (illegal defensive formations/alignments). Tell me, Mikey, because I honestly want to know what other options we have.

[interstorm]

So, you watch teams like Pittsburgh, the Islanders, Calgary, Dallas, etc. And think they're doing all they can to strangle the game? If you think coaching won't adjust to an artificial increase in shooting percentage, I'm not sure what to tell you...i mean, maybe, but that sounds extraordinarily unlikely...

But even so, even if nothing changes....you didn't improve game play. You just add a couple of goals that would have hit the post this year...who cares? The game isn't better for that.

You mean "you think the game isn't better for that". I would like to see more scoring and I think more goals would make the game better. I'd like to see a goalie be forced to make more acrobatic saves (hey, maybe making the goals larger puts a larger emphasis on movement instead of positional blocking and there is some self-correction in equipment). I believe more goals scored (especially 5 on 5) would allow teams to better overcome a bad call (or non-call) by a ref that directly leads to a goal. If that is true, I see that as an improvement to the game experience for the fans.

Just because YOU say the game wouldn't be better doesn't mean that it actually wouldn't be (in other people's minds).

[no name]

Heck I just want to see the leading scorer get more than 90 points to win the scoring title. If bigger nets get me that I am all for it. I honestly don't see the game changing any if you added 1 1/2 inches to the width and 1 inch to the height, except for a few more goals.

Mikey I think we can respectfully agree to disagree on this subject.

[no name]

- So lowering save pct./ increasing shooting percentage (effectively what bigger nets hopes to accomplish, it's just a stat grab...as game play would not improve) would "more likely decrease" NZ traffic and shot blocking...? Whether you buy my side of it or not, that's a really tough theory to digest...

- And why are the choices "status quo" and "making nets bigger"? There are many different options to explore...why limit yourself to something that's generally considered heinous by hockey traditionalists...the game wasn't always like this, so why not try to revert back to how things used to be when it wasn't? Right? Wouldn't you start there...? Where you had a good product and see what the deal was there? Right?

Good points, but you tell the goalies to revert back to wearing 1980s equipment.Tell them to stop playing the butterfly style and stop being so atheltic. Tell the coaches to stop coaching good defensive systems with clutch and grab tatics.

The NHL let all these things get out of hand and now its to late for them to address these issues. So now if we want to make a change it going to ruin the game. Well in a few years if things stay like this or progress without being addressed the NHL will suffer.

[Bathgate]

1. Sorry, but no manner of “adjustments” by the goalies or defenses could prevent at least some increase in goals scored if the goal area is enlarged. It’s common sense. Do it.
2. Glad to see a few are suggesting some tweaking of the 85-year-old offsides rule to make zone entry easier. Been saying that for years. Need more goals off the rush and fewer dump and chases.
3. Not so glad that not one owner or GM has proposed what seems to me to be the obvious OT solution. Give each team a chance at 4 on 3 or 5 on 3 for say 2 minutes. Fastest to score wins. If neither team scores, go to a 2nd “inning”. Not as gimmicky as 3 on 3 or shootouts. Would be very exciting, would end nearly all games quickly and would work well in the playoffs to prevent marathon games.

[mikey287]

So if all anyone wants is power play scoring, then why not just go back to 2006 rules...? That's easy to do...

[interstorm]

@Bathgate:

I agree that larger goals are an obvious option -- so obvious that by not implementing them it raises a lot of question about the NHL wanting to keep parity over all else in the game. As noted earlier (and yes, I keep saying this but it is valuable to remember that a drastic increase isn't needed) adding 3 inches to both the height and width adds about 10% more area to the net.

I see the benefit of making the blue line more of a floating line although I don't like that option. Along with adding rules that make the game more exciting, I also want to simplify them and make it easier for new fans to understand. I don't think we need to change too much at once -- I'd leave this as is (but will note that tag-up offsides was a great addition years ago). I think it would also make the game harder to officiate (and we don't need that).

As for the OT solution, Bathgate, I honestly don't think I like the idea you propose -- feels like NCAA football to me. Again, I hope by increasing scoring we'd cure other ailments and wouldn't need gimmicks (whether a shootout, 3-on-3 overtime or trading man advantages it is a gimmick). I also like the occasional marathon overtime game. Tell me that the game we played against Washington (and Philly, although we lost) wasn't something anyone remembers as a top Penguin moment. The NHL playoffs are supposed to be like a gladiator battle, and that game exemplified it. I'd leave OT, especially in the playoffs, as they are (just with an overall increase in scoring).

A few months ago I noted some other changes I'd look to make:
* Switch benches for teams and having the 'long change' be in periods 1 and 3 instead of 2.
* Add a rule that when line changes occur, the player leaving must be off the ice before the other player enters. I think teams push the envelope too much here and this is a way to open up the ice a little more. It also becomes a black and white thing to call as a penalty (going back to the easy for new fans to understand / refs to officiate).

[no name]

A few months ago I noted some other changes I'd look to make:
* Switch benches for teams and having the 'long change' be in periods 1 and 3 instead of 2.
* Add a rule that when line changes occur, the player leaving must be off the ice before the other player enters. I think teams push the envelope too much here and this is a way to open up the ice a little more. It also becomes a black and white thing to call as a penalty (going back to the easy for new fans to understand / refs to officiate).

both of these ideas are subtle and certinly don't alter the landscape of hockey. Both i think wouldopen the game up just enough to get a few more goals a year.

The line change rule is good, i thought of this myself. As much as i think it could help creating odd man breakes. The coaches would find a way to ruin this. They will just instruct the players to dump the puck and change. A tactic that is used to much already.

I still havn't heard a OT idea i like. I an not looking for the most exciting way to end a game. I want the one that convinces me the right team won the game. Football basketball and baseball seem to have OT that doesn't change their game. A shoot out doesn't tell me we earned that game. In my eyes it was a tie and we got an extra point for having more skilled players at breakaways. 3 on 3 is not as gimmicky but i am not sure i am going to say, yeah that team beat us or we earned a point. 4on 4 for 10 minutes would be the best way in my eyes. But the NHLPA would not go for it, and might be for the best not to. Even though at 4 on 4 i feel the best team at hockey has a chance to win.

3 on 3 for 5 minutes (don't bother with the 7 mins then switching) seems the best way, its still kinda hockey, and should be exciting for the fans.

But the NHL has to focus on gettinf rid of this clutch and grab that made its way back. Its hard to watch like this.

[interstorm]

I think the NFL's overtime is generally considered fine and doesn't change the game because in 15 minutes of play there typically is a score. I think the NHL's problem with overtime is that we don't have enough scoring and thus overtime generally goes without a victor. Back in the 90's they added the rule to give each team a point so they play overtime with nothing to lose (as opposed to conservatively packing it in for the additional 5 minutes to secure a point in the standings). I would say that this extra point now works against the excitement of the game and that it would be better awarding the loser nothing (so there is some pressure, especially if the team isn't historically good at whatever is ending the game after the overtime). Problem there is that (at least in my opinion) it doesn't feel right giving all the points to a team that only won because of a shootout or a 3-on-3 (both are gimmicks in my eyes). In the end, it all goes back to 5-on-5 scoring and that increasing this should allow less ties.

Also regarding the line changes and coaches instructing players to dump it in. That is a very possible solution -- my quick solution without thinking things through is that i'd remove the trapezoid and allow goalies to play the puck (i.e. shoot it back out to the forward for a quick transition). I don't like that rule as I think it can be confusing for new fans to understand (not necessarily confusing, but just another thing for them to have to learn).

Mikey -- Not meaning to be a jerk at all with any of this discussion and I'm honestly waiting to hear what suggestions you have to up the scoring (excitement level) of the game. Also, as noted, looking for realistic suggestions that have a change to get approved by the NHL/NHLPA.

[Pruezy11881]

Goalies today are on average bigger than yester-year. There was a graphic put up during the last 'Yotes game versus the Pens showing the difference in size between Mike Smith and Rutherford when he was a goalie. I wish I could find it...it's a night and day difference though. Couple that with the defensive structure that most coaches implement, it is not conducive to scoring large amounts of goals.

As far a show to change scoring, I would suggest the following as options that should be viable:

1) Call the rules, consistently, as they should be called, obvious choice. These guys are professionals and will learn to play the game as it is called, hence why penalties aren't called the players push the boundaries of legality. If they aren't called that type of play is continued. I agree with some posters who say that this needs to come from the top.

2) Eliminate the trapezoid. We've seen with Flower and other goalies, that misplays will happen even behind the net. There is more of a chance in my mind that a goalie will get caught out of position chasing a puck to the corner, forcing teammates to try and cover...with the likely outcome taking a penalty to avoid being scored on.

3) Shrink the goalie pad size. My brother was/is a goalie. He's about 160-170lbs without his equipment if he's lucky. He looks like a house with everything on. I'm not saying all pads need to be shrunk, but they make thin materials that stop bullets. The upper padding could most likely be reduced in size. Blocker size could be shrunk a bit, as well as the cuff and catching area of the glove. Let pads...I don't know how much that can be taken away from them...maybe another inch? What if the leg pads were no longer purely 'flat' on the front surface, but more of a non-extreme, rounded look? It may allow for less rebound control and weird bounces off the pads. And not as tall? Meow can probably chime in here as the goalie guru.

4) Move the top of the crease closer to the goal line. Good goalies come out of the crease to cut down angle anyways. But if their 'protected' area is smaller when the offensive team is controlling the puck in the zone, if will force the goalie to play deeper in the net. Them playing deeper in net will open up more open shooting area.

These are some things that I don't think are outlandish changes to be implemented but could potentially make a little bit of an impact in scoring. Then maybe these OT changes wouldn't need to be made to be 'gimmicky'. Thoughts?

Edit:

5) No more laying on the ice to break up plays, with the only exception of a player coming in on the goalie in a breakaway situation and the only way to have a chance at the puck by the defender is to attempt to superman. Going down to one or both knees is allowable. This would allow a higher percentage of shots to get through to the net. This could also work in the odd man situation where the defender can't just slide to break up a play. The result would be a higher conversion rate in the 2 on 1, 3 on 2, or 3 on 1 situations.

[interstorm]

@Pruezy11881

Sadly I think we've been promised #1 before and for whatever reason it just ain't happening. While I'd like to see it, I've given up hope there. I don't know if independently #2 will lead to more goals but I hate that rule anyway. The NHL went from showcasing goalie stickhandling (during the skills competition) to doing their best to shut it down -- both of those are dumb in my mind. #3 is obvious but is something that will be (has been) met with resistance from the NHLPA. I think every fan of the game would love to see smaller pads but the moment health issues come into play the battle is (rightfully) lost. Now of course we don't need a piece of equipment called a cheater -- but it seems like this path has proven difficult to go back on. #4 is interesting but I could see concerns over a goaltender's health here as well (which means the NHLPA could resist). If it forces a self-correction (due to self-preservation) then this may not be a bad idea to explore.

[Pruezy11881]

In regards to point #1 though...why not add another set of eyes on the ice. Three sets of eyes couldn't miss and not call the necessary penalties. Add another ref on the ice. Have three refs along with the linesmen. One ref is always in front/on the play. The second ref could hover just outside the blue line, having a different set of responsibilities, and then the third ref stays entirely behind the play, keeping an eye on things from a different point of view. As possession changes and moves to the opposite end of the ice, there will still be one or two sets of eyes on the play and one trailing. Therefore less things should be let go because there is less responsibility on two people. It could work. The NFL has 22 players to look after. But between the head referee, and all of the umpires and judges, they all have responsibilities to look out for and most of the guys in stripes can see a penalty and throw a flag. It may be a penalty-fest for a little while when it comes to the clutch, grab, and hooking, but just like the defending players in football, they will adjust and the game will flow better. But as I said, this will have to come from the top. I know these guys are old-school, good ol' boys but if they won't accept change then eventually the product goes away and then there is no fans and no money. Offense unfortunately, is what sells. The NFL has proven that over and over again. That may be a p*ss poor comparison, but in principle, it very similar and makes sense.

[interstorm]

why not add another set of eyes on the ice.

I may be overly cynical, but I don't think the lack of consistent officiating has much to do with the number of refs on the ice. Sure -- there definitely are blown calls that should have been made. I believe, however, for every 1 of those we have 10+ where the ref sees the play but just decides to let them go.

[shoeshine boy]

In regards to point #1 though...why not add another set of eyes on the ice. Three sets of eyes couldn't miss and not call the necessary penalties. Add another ref on the ice. Have three refs along with the linesmen.

there are already too many refs getting in the way of the play. another official will only add to that. refs see more than they call. only they know why they let some things go and not others. sometimes you let something go because you saw someone on the other team do something else a second ago, tit for tat if you will. I was watching Wild v. Jets the other night and saw a Jets player trip a Wild player behind the net. there was a ref RIGHT THERE and there's absolutely no way he didn't see it but yet he called nothing. did he have a reason for not calling it? I'm quite sure he did but I never saw why. game management is part of officiating in EVERY MAJOR SPORT. having said that though I do agree that the NHL needs to return to a stricter standard. the clutching and grabbing is almost as bad as it was pre-Sid. let's start calling those holds and obstructions and set those scorers free, make the D skate rather than just grab at people.

[no name]

I am all for the game being called like it was after the 06 season. Ok 06 was a bit crazy with all the calls being made but 07 i remeber the game having speed and being a bit open with back and forth hockey being played. Scoring was modest at best but i liked the product on the ice.

But i really believe that the NHL mandated the refs to allow this clutch and grab to get back in the game. Penalties that are missed are just to blatent to say they missed them. Also the calls bing made are just apart of a reward system to keep the game close. It all comes down to parity i think. I really believe that. You can't tell me the NHL doesn't have control over the refs and how thy call the games. DO you think the NHL is powerless over the refs making calls like this??? They have to just sit back and accept the way the refs are calling the plays. After 05 they told them to call the game different so they did.

Its all about keeping as many teams in the playoff hunt as possible so you sell more tickets. Bottom line. who cares about the fan, the NHL only cares about getting the dollar bill in their pocket. (its a business i guess they should be) Break the game down to a low scoring 1 goal game so every game is a toss up.

As soon as the league ads more scoring the cream of the NHL will rise to the top and the disparity between the good teams and bad teams will grow and they fear less fans will show up once more teams are eliminated from the playoffs earlier.

Only way things will change is if the NHL makes less money than before. Imagine if NBC said we are dropping your sport cause no one is watching cuase our viewers are saying hockey is boring.

I guess i am just in the minority to that think the game needs changed a bit.

[pressure=9Pa]

Goalies today are on average bigger than yester-year. There was a graphic put up during the last 'Yotes game versus the Pens showing the difference in size between Mike Smith and Rutherford when he was a goalie. I wish I could find it...it's a night and day difference though. Couple that with the defensive structure that most coaches implement, it is not conducive to scoring large amounts of goals.

As far a show to change scoring, I would suggest the following as options that should be viable:

1) Call the rules, consistently, as they should be called, obvious choice. These guys are professionals and will learn to play the game as it is called, hence why penalties aren't called the players push the boundaries of legality. If they aren't called that type of play is continued. I agree with some posters who say that this needs to come from the top.

2) Eliminate the trapezoid. We've seen with Flower and other goalies, that misplays will happen even behind the net. There is more of a chance in my mind that a goalie will get caught out of position chasing a puck to the corner, forcing teammates to try and cover...with the likely outcome taking a penalty to avoid being scored on.

3) Shrink the goalie pad size. My brother was/is a goalie. He's about 160-170lbs without his equipment if he's lucky. He looks like a house with everything on. I'm not saying all pads need to be shrunk, but they make thin materials that stop bullets. The upper padding could most likely be reduced in size. Blocker size could be shrunk a bit, as well as the cuff and catching area of the glove. Let pads...I don't know how much that can be taken away from them...maybe another inch? What if the leg pads were no longer purely 'flat' on the front surface, but more of a non-extreme, rounded look? It may allow for less rebound control and weird bounces off the pads. And not as tall? Meow can probably chime in here as the goalie guru.

4) Move the top of the crease closer to the goal line. Good goalies come out of the crease to cut down angle anyways. But if their 'protected' area is smaller when the offensive team is controlling the puck in the zone, if will force the goalie to play deeper in the net. Them playing deeper in net will open up more open shooting area.

These are some things that I don't think are outlandish changes to be implemented but could potentially make a little bit of an impact in scoring. Then maybe these OT changes wouldn't need to be made to be 'gimmicky'. Thoughts?

Edit:

5) No more laying on the ice to break up plays, with the only exception of a player coming in on the goalie in a breakaway situation and the only way to have a chance at the puck by the defender is to attempt to superman. Going down to one or both knees is allowable. This would allow a higher percentage of shots to get through to the net. This could also work in the odd man situation where the defender can't just slide to break up a play. The result would be a higher conversion rate in the 2 on 1, 3 on 2, or 3 on 1 situations.

#5 interests me. Basically if the defense goes to the ice to break up a play (pass or shot), it has to be head/arms first instead of skates first? That would free up some space, and still allow for some acrobatic defensive plays. I don't know if I like it or not on first blush, but it made me think.

[Skatingpen]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 17113.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[shoeshine boy]

my local Over35 league used to have this. we changed it because guys said that it wasn't "real hockey". it used to almost always produce a winner but eventually teams started playing not to lose rather than playing to win.

[Pruezy11881]

Felt as good a place as any...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-board-approves-op ... s-1.316896

[no name]

Picture this, 4 on 4, but one player from each team can't enter the defensive zone???? SO if you enter the zone you got a 4 on 3 in the zone, but there is one guy waiting for a breakaway from the other team.

I guess 3 on 3 for 5 mins will end the game without a shootout. I hate the shootout. I am with the other poster who said 4 on 4 for 10 minutes.