The attempt to unclog the area in front of the goalie would break the glassy-eyed sameness of what we have now – a game dominated by netminding and team defence, in which virtually every goal seems to come off a cycle down low and requires that the puck carom to a player in a shooting position, usually off a deflected pass. There is so much more randomness and luck involved in scoring a goal than pure offensive brilliance and it’s not because of a lack of skill. The skilled players just don’t have enough room to demonstrate those talents.
Suggests limiting slot to two defenders like the 3-second rule in basketball.
It got pretty bad down the stretch this year -- offense/shot blocking that is. Didn't really affect my enjoyment of the games, though. I can't see any way that a rule like that is even remotely practical.
TheHammer24 wrote:I just never felt like it was a problem. I've never once thought, Damn so much shot blocking this game!
I come away admiring those guys for laying their bodies on the line over it being a nuisance to the game. If they want to increase scoring just remove defenders from the game.
Better yet, enforce what they wanted to enforce after the lockout instead of allowing clutch and grab back into it.
TheHammer24 wrote:I just never felt like it was a problem. I've never once thought, Damn so much shot blocking this game!
I come away admiring those guys for laying their bodies on the line over it being a nuisance to the game. If they want to increase scoring just remove defenders from the game.
Better yet, enforce what they wanted to enforce after the lockout instead of allowing clutch and grab back into it.
TheHammer24 wrote:I just never felt like it was a problem. I've never once thought, Damn so much shot blocking this game!
I come away admiring those guys for laying their bodies on the line over it being a nuisance to the game. If they want to increase scoring just remove defenders from the game.
Better yet, enforce what they wanted to enforce after the lockout instead of allowing clutch and grab back into it.
Yeah. A guy going down to block a shot elicits a cheer from me; I find it exciting.
You guys really don't notice it? Its not so much "shot blocking" as it is five guys between the hashmarks and the goal line crowding the front of the net. The Montreal series a couple years ago should be a pretty first hand example. More and more teams are doing it. I don't want to legislate it out of the game, but I definitely notice it.
Kraftster wrote:You guys really don't notice it? Its not so much "shot blocking" as it is five guys between the hashmarks and the goal line crowding the front of the net. The Montreal series a couple years ago should be a pretty first hand example. More and more teams are doing it. I don't want to legislate it out of the game, but I definitely notice it.
I just can't see a way for the game itself to evolve to beat it. That is the only thing about that collapsing defense is that it forces the play outside which is nigh impossible to break through.
I considered that Montreal series to be something that I can't even go with purely because of how strongly Halak played. They collapsed there defense and did a great job of shutting Malkin and Crosby down.
I don't want the game to change because a certain team can beat another team by playing defense. The clutch and grab thing I think magnifies the shot blocking and good defense. That's allowing everything in the game to slow down at certain points, and the refs have just stopped calling it.
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.
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.
TheHammer24 wrote:What benefit is there from 1-ref systems?
Not afraid of stepping on another ref's toes.
That's a poor empirical observation, in my opinion. I think two refs actually increases the frequency of penalties, as the number of possible penalty killers doubles.
TheHammer24 wrote:What benefit is there from 1-ref systems?
Not afraid of stepping on another ref's toes.
That's a poor empirical observation, in my opinion. I think two refs actually increases the frequency of penalties, as the number of possible penalty killers doubles.
I don't. I think 2 refs are a huge reason for the inconsistency we see in refs. There are 2 differing philosophies on the ice as to what is and isn't a penalty. 1 ref would clarify penalties more.
As for toe stepping, I think the Briere offsides is an example of refs not overruling a call despite being in position.
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.
