The below was a post I put on Facebook as a note (as I had done at times) prior to having a blog. I might be putting a few more such posts on the blog now from FB here and there. This one written last August was in regards to the NHL looking at potential changes to the game I love. I still feel pretty much as I did about the contents now as I did when I wrote it and maintain that the game doesn't need to be changed to fit the desires of those that aren't really fans, and it doesn't need changed for the sake of change, but there is nothing wrong with looking into ways of improving the game and in making it safer just as long as the changes that do come about make sense and improve either the quality or the safety of the game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The NHL will be holding a camp in mid August once again to examine the state of the game and also look at proposed rule changes to continue improving the game. During the two days scrimmages from some of the best prospects will be held to see firsthand the proposals in action. (I don’t know if prospects have been used in the past for this but I think that’s a great idea for the league, the teams, and those prospects…) While the game is constantly being looked at for ways to improve it, and despite the last time a number of rule changes were made it ended up being full of good changes, not many changes if any should be expected for the upcoming season. However you never know what they’ll decide until they see it in action but I’ll give my initial thoughts on those that were mentioned in the NHL.com article put on their website Friday. (http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=535225&navid=DL|NHL|home)
One of the first things that I’ll mention is the broad idea of “reducing coaches’ ability to influence games through line changes”. I think that this is something that I’m against in the broad sense. Perhaps there are finer points they may wish to look at (such as the no change after off-sides mentioned in the article which I’ll touch on later), but overall that is part of what the coach does being the coach. He puts lines together, decides who plays and how much, and yes, who should be on the ice at given times. That is his job.
One of the things they want to look at is changes to icing. They are going to take some time to look at the USHL’s hybrid icing rules which I’ve seen a couple times in action. This isn’t an “icing when it crosses the line” or an “icing when the puck is touched” rule, but is one where the referee can determine that the defender will win the race and blow the whistle before the puck is touched or he can let them race it out if close. This is a rule that I would be ok with, though I would be ok with any of the three choices above as long as the rule is set out. My preference would probably be the no-touch followed by the hybrid however. One big reason is that at the ends of games when a team is down and the puck is iced they could lose 5 or more seconds before the whistle is blown. There is great opportunity to make close games more exciting at the end with no-touch icing, much more opportunity than the infrequent chances created by someone beating a defender to the puck in the current system. However, perhaps the hybrid brings in the best of both worlds. It does leave the worry of injuries from races for pucks however that proponents of no-touch often bring up. Another topic regarding icing is disallowing icing during shorthanded play. Personally I don’t mind things as they are now, however I might be open to this change and I know others have wondered why it is allowed even short-handed.
There are a couple of mentions of changes following an off-sides call, both of which I’m against. The first mentioned is that the offending team cannot change players after an off-sides call. While good for icings I just don’t like this rule for off-sides and think it is a poor fit. With delayed off-sides and teams changing during that, it could become difficult to know just who was on the ice when the offense occurred … and does the offense occur when the puck enters the zone or when the whistle is blown? The other proposal that will be looked at in the scrimmages combines that with moving the faceoff into the offending team’s zone. This I think is a doubly-bad idea as the punishment for a simple off-sides is then two-fold. The thought of not being able to change after an icing is in at least part a punishment for tired players trying to buy time by throwing the puck down the ice. Off-sides are often just one player a fraction of a second ahead of his teammate. This second proposal seems harsher punishment than standard icing while being a lesser “offense”.
A couple of changes regarding face-offs were also mentioned to try to “find ways to improve the fairness and integrity of face-offs.” I’m not a fan of either one and while referees could be directed to do something like “make no hand motion, just drop the puck from x level” to improve fairness, I don’t think that face-offs are that big of an issue myself. Anyway the first of those proposals are to place the puck on the ice and have players go at the whistle. I don’t like this a bit as it isn’t as fun as watching the puck drop and the two players start to battle over it … at least not how I’m picturing it. The second is that if a player makes an infraction and is thrown out then his opponent chooses his replacement. Could be interesting but you know that everyone would be choosing defensemen who don’t take face-offs, and I think almost guaranteeing a face-off win to the opposing team is a bit harsh for the minor things players get tossed from the circle for. Even worse is the idea of moving the violator “back from the dot for the drop of the puck rather than replaced by linemates.” Even if we’re talking being moved back only a foot or something that is still a huge disadvantage for a minor offense and bad idea.
They are also going to look at overtime and shootout options. They are going to look at finishing the scrimmage 4-on-4, then 3-on-3, then 2-on-2 and then the shootout. First off if there are that many “extra sessions” after a regulation tie I don’t think it would ever work nor do I think a single soul would like it. 2-on-2 is such a joke I won’t even touch it. 3-on-3 isn’t much better. I think that if they want to reduce the number of shootouts they need to increase things to an 8 or 10 minute 4-on-4 overtime and then a shootout that starts with 5 shooters, not 3. Another overtime topic they are going to look at is having the teams switch sides for the long change in overtime. I’m fine with this and it is that way in the playoffs anyway, plus it can provide more chances from the benches being further away.
Markings on the ice are another thing they are going to look at. Of the markings they mention a bigger crease, wider blue lines, painted line-change zones, face-off dots down the middle of the ice, and a second goal line behind the original. No mention of the removal of the trapezoid, though I think they should look at removing it and allowing goalies to play pucks in the corners again, but perhaps that will still be discussed or looked at and depending on icing rule changes perhaps it becomes a nearly un-needed conversation. Of the proposed additions/changes I have absolutely no clue why the change to the goal crease is proposed and I don’t really care about the “second” goal line. Painted line-change zones might be a good thing but isn’t a great revelation, and wider blue lines might make the attacking zone bigger but is it really needed, but the one of most interest is the face-off dots down the middle. At first I thought “why?” and didn’t like it but then I got to thinking about the face-off dot in the attacking zone in front of the goalie rather than to either side. It sure could create some excitement not knowing if it will go immediately to the goalie’s left or right rather than knowing it to be on one side or the other, but this is one I’d really have to see in action a few times to even grasp the full reality of it.
Another change mentioned is that on delayed penalties the whistle won’t blow until the puck is cleared from the offending team’s zone. This is a change that I would like to see in practice. Could produce some good action and is worth looking at. They also mention some special teams “innovations” that they will be looking at but don’t really say what those innovations are.
The last thing in the article that I will comment on is during one session they will have one of the referees off the ice. I still have to ask the question why not just have the one referee and then the linesmen but the linesmen have more power to make calls rather than just whistling off-sides and icings. Three refs on the ice, one main guy and two others, all able to make the calls while seems a lot better to me than 2 refs on the ice able to make calls, and 2 able to drop the puck and whistle off-sides but little else. That seems to be the answer you never hear and perhaps I’m just missing the why not of the whole idea.
Overall there are some things I think are worth looking at but a number of things that just make me scratch my head and wonder why. I think the game is in great shape though as it is and while you never know what the next change will be that improves the game, and while I know that everyone involved must continue to look at the game and see if it can become even better than it already is, I don’t think there is anything in this group of changes that is just going to wow anyone or bring in more fans. Still, I’m happy that they continue to look at things and aren’t stagnant or just reactive about things and I’m certainly happy with the post lockout changes so I know that changes can be good for this game if done correctly and for the right reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment