Monday, March 9, 2009
GM Pow-wow In Fuzzy Napals
Anyways, jokes aside, I doubt we'll any MAJOR changes like when the Shootout was implemented, but I suppose in honor of their Boy Scouts meeting today we can have some fun and propose some interesting changes I wouldn't mind seeing.
First things first, here is at least one rule change I know they are fo sho discussing:
When a delayed penalty has been called on a team and the puck is IN their zone, the puck must be cleared out of their zone before play will be stopped to assess the delayed penalty.
That's not copied from anywhere, that's my explanation. Note that this is only if it occurs in the team that committed the penalty's zone. Confusing to new NHL followers no?
I could live with the change, I don't love it but it does increase scoring opportunities. I doubt it gets passed though.
Now for some fun. I've been throwing around a couple ideas and decided to put them out there to you, our 5 readers.
1. See, I'm not a big big fan of the shootout. Hockey is the ultimate team sport, so for OT, I'd to see something like this:
4 on 4 for 4 min. No goals? 3 on 3 for 3 min. No goals? 2 on 2 for 2 min. 1 on 1 for 1 min. I mean at max it adds 10 minutes to the game. As opposed to 4 on 4 for 5 min then straight to the shootout.
I played in a tournament like this when I was younger up in CanadIA. It was AWESOME. We made it to 2 on 2 before my team won. I mean, take last night for example: Imagine 2 on 2, Ovechkin and Semin vs. Crosby and Malkin. How awesome would that be? I personally think it'd be way more exciting than a shootout.
2. This one I heard on the radio this morning and thought it was a pretty decent minor tweak.
When a penalty is called, the shorthanded team must keep the the players who were on the ice for the penalty...on the ice...at least for the start of the penalty kill.
It's similar to the new icing rule where the icing team cannot make a line change. I think it's a decent suggestion. You could have an extremely tired group players on the ice starting off the kill, many of which may not kill penalties. Also, think about the possibility of your Center being in the box...and now the faceoff is in your zone...chances are you lose that faceoff.
Of course this can't be put in place if that whole "clearing the puck before the whistle is blown" is. Then we are REALLY just over doing it trying to increase scoring chances.
That's all I can come up with for now...plus I have a meeting. Vance, feel free to add more. And commenters...comment...make additional suggestions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I don't like the 3rd option. At one point, if you keep taking away the coach's tools, there's no need for a coach anymore is there?
I mean, it's an important part of coaching to chose which players will be out on the PK, in what order. I think it should stay that way.
The first option is think is a decent idea. As it is now the rule is vague (penalized team must get puck possession to get the whistle) and it creates fuckups. Whatever rule takes away from the refs power of interpretation is good in my book.
I would find taking away the additional player in regular intervals to be as gimmicky as the shootout...It'll come down to what, the goalies in a thumb war?
Brodeur's thumb is far too fat to match up with the salad fingers of Ryan Miller.
Also according to P Diddy over at teh Yahooz, Kenny Holland (why is it that only hockey names always get the -ny, -ie added to their names?) is proposing a change to the playoff seeding tie breaker. Instead of overall wins being the first tie breaker, he wants regulation wins to be the tiebreaker, putting more emphasis on regulation time. I like it.
also apparently I enjoy using the word tiebreaker, sometimes with a space, other times without. tiebreaker, tie breaker. tiebreaker. tie breaker. tiebreaker
Vance, I agree about the regulation wins idea. Already bitter seeing Brodeur take away Parent's regular season win record thanks to the gay-ass shootout.
Not really sure how I feel about the rest of these changes.. can't they leave the game alone? NHL execs (and sponsors alike) bitch about not being able to draw the casual fan, and here they go changing the rules every other year.
I thought it was already enough (and a good idea) that they bring the faceoff back into the offending team's zone after a penalty kill... surely that generates more chances on its own.
Now they're talking about leaving the same players out and having to clear the zone? That's absurd.
OK, it's not ABSURD... but it's kind of silly to keep tweaking the rules like this year after year.
Post a Comment