Jump to content

Around the NHL 2017


spndnchz

Recommended Posts

Refresh my memory, what is that again?

 

You couldn't pass over two of the blue and center lines. So, a pass from your own end to the far side of the neutral zone would be whistled. Or from your side of the neutral zone to the opposing zone (assume the player stayed onside before receiving the pass). This was removed in 2005 to speed up the game; as bad as the current trap is now, only having to protect half the neutral zone at a time made it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You couldn't pass over two of the blue and center lines. So, a pass from your own end to the far side of the neutral zone would be whistled. Or from your side of the neutral zone to the opposing zone (assume the player stayed onside before receiving the pass). This was removed in 2005 to speed up the game; as bad as the current trap is now, only having to protect half the neutral zone at a time made it worse.

I'm on the fence about which one results in more exciting hockey. It's not like teams make an abundence of these passes anyway (some coaches even get run out of town for stressing the use of them :devil:), and once teams learned how to defend it, the scoring increase of the so call "no touch" years went right back down anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pups.

 

I grew a beard this summer for the first time since a then-fashionable '90s goatee.

There was so much grey, the family started calling me the Dos Equis Most interesting man.

 

My beard has gone from a little grey to almost, but not completely in the last 4 years. (37 -> 41). My hair isn't far behind. I had a few greys at 24 though, it could have been worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My beard has gone from a little grey to almost, but not completely in the last 4 years. (37 -> 41). My hair isn't far behind. I had a few greys at 24 though, it could have been worse.

I didn't shave for 13 days, once. It was unbearable. 4 days and I've got the trimmer in hand, if not the razor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on the fence about which one results in more exciting hockey. It's not like teams make an abundence of these passes anyway (some coaches even get run out of town for stressing the use of them :devil:), and once teams learned how to defend it, the scoring increase of the so call "no touch" years went right back down anyway.

 

 Allowing 2-line passes forces the d-men to back off the red line which creates more space in the neutral zone.... this is especially noticeable on power plays where d-men need to keep everyone in front of them, makes zone entries easier.

 

I do think they should move the bluelines back in a few feet and move the goal line back to where it was and remove the trapezoid letting goalies play the puck where ever it is... and play pucks off the netting.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Allowing 2-line passes forces the d-men to back off the red line which creates more space in the neutral zone.... this is especially noticeable on power plays where d-men need to keep everyone in front of them, makes zone entries easier.

 

I do think they should move the bluelines back in a few feet and move the goal line back to where it was and remove the trapezoid letting goalies play the puck where ever it is... and play pucks off the netting.     

 

The what now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The no offsides would be interesting because the game immediately becomes a full ice game.  It makes the ice bigger without actually making the ice bigger.  Right now the ice gets broken into three sections most of the time and no less than 2 because the lines matter. 

 

Not only can players receive a pass further down the ice but in the offensive zone the D are no longer required to play right at the blue line.  This shrinks the defensive coverage area and makes it easier to defend.  If the D could back up the ice 4-5 more feet it creates space as the winger covering the point would have to move up or risk opening up the point shot on net.

 

If nothing else play it somewhat like basketball.  You can't bring it back past the red-line once you cross it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The what now?

 

How often does the game stop because the puck barely nicked the netting and returned to the ice.   Just keep playing!    Why stop the play?   What is so different about the puck hitting the netting vs the glass...  the netting is just an extension of the glass... keep play moving, the fewer whistles the better.    

 

The only caveat would be that you can't score directly off the net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The no offsides would be interesting because the game immediately becomes a full ice game.  It makes the ice bigger without actually making the ice bigger.  Right now the ice gets broken into three sections most of the time and no less than 2 because the lines matter. 

 

Not only can players receive a pass further down the ice but in the offensive zone the D are no longer required to play right at the blue line.  This shrinks the defensive coverage area and makes it easier to defend.  If the D could back up the ice 4-5 more feet it creates space as the winger covering the point would have to move up or risk opening up the point shot on net.

 

If nothing else play it somewhat like basketball.  You can't bring it back past the red-line once you cross it.

Good thought experiment indicated here.

 

The thing that had occurred to me was also related to basketball. They outlawed zone or most zones in the NBA, right? The NHL should look at something like that. Something that will tend to open up the game more.

 

Who doesn't wanna see Eichel in an isolation with a hapless 5/6 d-man?

 

How often does the game stop because the puck barely nicked the netting and returned to the ice.   Just keep playing!    Why stop the play?   What is so different about the puck hitting the netting vs the glass...  the netting is just an extension of the glass... keep play moving, the fewer whistles the better.    

 

The only caveat would be that you can't score directly off the net.

 

It's crazy. But I like sorta it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thought experiment indicated here.

 

The thing that had occurred to me was also related to basketball. They outlawed zone or most zones in the NBA, right? The NHL should look at something like that. Something that will tend to open up the game more.

 

Who doesn't wanna see Eichel in an isolation with a hapless 5/6 d-man?

 

 

It's crazy. But I like sorta it.

Just make it so once you get to center ice you can enter the zone. Puck crosses center ice, you can cross the blue line. Will solve all the issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't shave for 13 days, once. It was unbearable. 4 days and I've got the trimmer in hand, if not the razor.

 

 

I haven't shaved in over a year. I'm starting to look like Brent Burns, although I do at least have all my teeth.

 

 

Just make it so once you get to center ice you can enter the zone. Puck crosses center ice, you can cross the blue line. Will solve all the issues. 

 

 

I like this idea. It effectively eliminate the egregious cherry picking while still keeping the game from getting stopped 20+ times for ticky tack offside calls. Win/Win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...