Proposed rule changes

[smackitsakic]

So as i was looking over this board today i realized something - we haven't had an actual hockey thread for a while. It's time.
The NHL sounds like it is close to being back, some talks are even saying the end of the month. If, and when, the NHL does come back we have been told to expect a different game, one with radical changes to make it more exciting. Obviously, anything that happens in the NHL is eventually going to get implemented by the WHL.
With that said, what are you Bronco fans in favor of? Bigger ice? No red line? Bigger nets? Smaller pads? Larger offensive zones? How about 4 on 4? Shootouts? Tag up offsides?
Personally, i don't think the changes need to be as huge as some of the talks are. The game needs to be made more exciting, but making it a different game isn't going to do anybody any good.
I don't like bigger ice, the NHL's is already big. While it does allow the fast players to show their stuff, it also leads to a lot of wasted time skating.
The no red line needs to be brought in. I know that in all of the tournaments i've watched that were red line free were awesome, especially with the Euro teams who were used to it.
Bigger nets - garbage. Why the heck would you make the nets bigger when all you have to do is make the pads smaller? It's like what they're doing in golf. The equipment just gets better and better so the pro's hit it further and further and the courses are made longer and longer. If you regulated the equipment to a more reasonable level, you wouldn't have to have 8 different levels of tee boxes and a ninth for the pro's. Having 8,000+ yard courses is useless as far as i'm concerned. I think that the game needs to stay the same, especially for record purposes. While they are made to be broken, they should be broken in an equal level.
Shootouts? Why not? Who wants to watch 2 teams play their hearts out for 2+ hours and then head home with the same result that was at the start of the game? Yes, it's a team game, but in the regular season who cares about ties?
Tag up offides? Why was this ever taken out of the game in the first place? I don't understand the disadvantage of it. It speeds up the game and allows you to become more aggresive on the forecheck. If you miss your timing, your whole team doesn't have to retract out of the offensive zone.
Torpedo! haha. I talked about this a lot on the old Bronco board and i still completely stand by the torpedo system, especially if it's implemented with the right team at the right time. All of these rule changes that are meant to speed up the game and make it more exciting and offensive are going to continually favor the torpedo system. In a non-trap, no clutch/grab hockey game, the torpedo would be nearly unstoppable if one team used it and the opposition didn't.
In the words of Ryan Seacrest - Smackitsakic, OUT!

[Toswammi]

I'm not to pumped about some of the ideas floating around, but hears my opinion on what you brought up
Bigger Ice: Go to Sweden, bigger ice doesn't mean jack when you know how to trap/line 5 at your own line. Besides unless the boys/girls from extreme home makeover come to some of these rinks, there is no way you are going to enlarge the ice surface
No Red Line: This will happen eventually, i'm split on this one. On one side you get more quick strike attacks, but you also get those floaters waiting even higher, and not coming in the d-zone. For a skilled team its awesome for a team like we had last year, well thats a lot of icings.
Bigger Nets: Hey while on the idea of stupid ideas, why not make a basketball hhoop twice its size, or how about a soccer net twice as big (nevermind soccer might need it) but i see no need to dramatically change this game. The same goes for all those pass line ideas tryed out in Toronto a few weeks back.
Smaller Pads: Its happening, no need to even talk about it. It will increase scoring and show to everyone who is good and which goaltenders put up good numbers sheerly by the size of the equipment.
Shootouts: This is something i really don't care much for, it changes the way overtime will be played for some teams, and after every Canadian National team disaster, I've grown to hate shootouts.
4 On 4: Whats wrong with 5 - 5.
Penalties: Hey hear is an idea, lets get some competent refs to call the game right. A penalty in the first is still one in the third. For our part, we will have to stop criticizing when too many penalties, or when one is called late, but a penalty is a penalty. Also call the book. Is it not a penalty when the puck is covered by the goaltender and he is not in the net?
Tag Ups: Thank god this coming back.
Goaltenders Playing The Puck: If you want to increase the effectiveness of a forecheck, don't restrict where the goalie can play the puck, let him go and do his thing, afterall it is a definate advantage to have a tender that can play the puck. But if he gets caught then he can get hit, like any other player, except he has twice the padding of course. This will also stop that play where the tender runs a pick on the forechecker persueing the defender and puck behind the net. Umm back to the penalty thing, that is interference on the goalie, and not the player right?

[Willis on the Welfare]

In the words of Ryan Seacrest - Smackitsakic, OUT!

I leave for a few months, come back and there is Subway downtown waiting for Kimbi Daniels to drive into it, a Tim Horton's which is nicely situated about halfway between the city and rural RCMP detachments, not to mention a gigantic credit union with a pretty water fountain. Very classy, except I have to piss everytime I cash my cheque. Plus Smackit is quoting Ryan Seacrest!!! HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD!!!

Yes, I'm back, I know I said never again, I owe you all a beer. I gambled, I lost, I regret nothing.

Smitti, you don't know me and you certainly didn't talk to me a few weeks ago. You're right on one thing, I do have a Ron Jeremy cucumber.

RULE CHANGES!!!

I did have a point in replying to this post. You can take out redlines, push back blue lines, get sexy tanlines and in the big picture it won't make a lick of difference. Hockey does need something, but it isn't bigger nets or smaller equipment (although the smaller pads would help).

Every sport in it's prime has had a poster boy. NFL has had Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Johnny Unitas, Joe Namath, I could go on.
Even in Canada we watched basketball and wore Air Jordans when Michael was in his prime. Pro wrestling had Hulk Hogan in the 80's. Hulk left, no one watched, then along came Stone Cold and the Rock and then wrestling was huge again in the late 90's.
Hockey had Wayne and Mario, now it has nothing. Ask Pierre McGuire who he thinks are the best in the game. He says Rick Nash and Joe Thornton. Great, but will the average Joe stop channel surfing when they're playing? Not the way they did for Wayne. Are kids wearing Nash and Thornton jerseys? Are Nash and Thornton worthy of being on a kid's lunch kit?
Hockey will be saved when it's savior arrives. Maybe it will be Crosby, maybe Tovares or Kessel, maybe it will be that kid across the street shooting tennis balls at the side of his house.
You can tinker with the rules all you want, but hockey needs a poster boy. Just make sure when the next Gretzky arrives, the next Dave Semenko is on the same team, cause we'll need him around for a few years of rebuilding.

[Smitti]

This makes my week, Willis is back! Glad to see you signed-up for highspeed on the meesly cheque you get from the G of C. These proposed rules changes are interesting. I guess I'll have to check the dub site to see exactly what they are. Bigger nets sounds idiotic though...it will just get companies that make goalie equipment back to the drawing board to see if they can double the size of the goalie equipment to make-up for the discrepancie. You know what I heard the other day...I heard that there could be one maybe two more expansion teams within the next couple years. I read on this bit on the RD links...anyhow, just what we need - more teams to waterdown the product...pretty soon this league will be saturated with junior A talent. I just wish we could have the same quality of talent we did when we had Lambert, Schneider, Ulmer, Holt, etc. These were the good old days...I'm getting too old. Better go empty my bedpan...I'm out.

:thumb:

[Flathead]

You can tinker with the rules all you want, but hockey needs a poster boy. Just make sure when the next Gretzky arrives, the next Dave Semenko is on the same team, cause we'll need him around for a few years of rebuilding.

IMO, You will not see another Gretzky or Semenko until you get rid of the instigator penalty.
Shoot outs, no thanks will not watch them. No team effort in a shoot out.
No Red Line, it works for short tournments, but teams adapt to it and it does nothing, I believe the Sweedish elite league is bringing back the red line because it doesn't increase scoring like it was thought to.
Bigger Nets, what horseman said.
Smaller pads, about time, the goalies were getting out of control with the equipment size.
Tag up offside, great rule not sure why it was taken out?
Goalies playing the puck, let them play the puck. Don't think that they should be free for the hitting though, way to awkward in that equipment and it's just asking for an injury.
My thing is the instigator rule, get rid of it and all the clutching and grabbing and stick work would disappear. Nobody touched Wayne back in the day, if they did they knew where Semenko was at all times.

[Scout]

I got an e-mail on a new design of net being tested. I wish i still had the e-mail as the picture was weird. It had the net with a smaller width but the top was not flat but sort of rounded. They have been trying to push this new net. Stupidest thing i ever saw.

Scout
welcome back Willis

[Broncs in RD]

I think the new net idea is proberally the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Tag-up thank god this is coming back, I like the red line where it is don't take it out, why go euro that pisses me off. Shootouts great idea for regular season leave it out of the playoffs. My thoughts not yours I'm out

[HAF]

Brad posted some pictures of the proposed nets and pads they are wanting to go with on the Ams site. Here is the link. I think it would be interesting to see how much effect it would have.



http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=237246&messageid=1118184355

[smackitsakic]

Personally, i don't understand what is so wrong about this shootout idea. When a player is hauled down on a clear cut breakaway, you're not looking at the ref with anticipation in hopes of their being a 5 on 4 powerplay for 2 minutes, you're looking at the ref with anticipation of seeing a penalty shot. At spontaneous times throughout the year in the NHL, there are penalty shots - what is the announcer saying every time? "You're about to witness the most exciting play in hockey."
Shootouts are not team-based, but lets be honest here, how many of us, after both teams played their hearts out, go home satisfied knowing that the game settled nothing? Nobody, i'm sure, can safely lay claim to that. There was talk about possibly trying 5 mins of 4 on 4 and then 5 mins of 3 on 3. Maybe if we play 2 on 2 we can be at the Civic Center till midnight. :clap: Shootouts are fast, they are fun, and they get the job of breaking a tie done. If it's not going to be in play in the playoffs, what really matters? The only thing that is going to come of it is more points in the standings b/c there will always be an extra point handed out for "ties."
Now on the other hand, i'm sitting here thinking about basketball. Basketball doesn't have ties, but if they did, what would it be like if they settled it by a slam dunk contest? It'd be awesome! The difference there is you have half the players to choose from. I dunno, i just don't see where the problem is with not having any ties and settling it in an exciting way.
Willis, your comments - This is what the problem is with hockey today, we have no poster boy and we won't have a poster boy until the game is brought back to the way it was when Gretzky played. You just can't have super super superstars these days with all of the clutching and grabbing going on. Rick Nash and Jarome Iginla are so far ahead of some of the defenceman in the game (like Mike Commodore!) and yet their skills are nullified b/c they get held up and dragged down without any reprocussions. The days of seeing 50 goal scorers are over, at least for now. Just imagine what some of these players could do if they were actually able to sit in the slot waiting for a pass without getting stuck and slashed to the point where they were forced to evacuate the area. Half of these guys have to score their goals from ridiculous angles b/c that's the only place they can go on the ice without getting owned and yet they still score 40+ goals per season. Imagine how many some of these guys will be potting from better angles with larger corners to pick. This can all eventually come together by simply calling the game the way it's intended to be called and i think alot of things will be fixed, but until that's done, which it probably won't be, lets change the face of the game into something foreign. Boourns. Make too many changes though and there could be a TON of goals being scored, which isn't necessarily a bad thing!

[Flathead]

Shootouts are not team-based, but lets be honest here, how many of us, after both teams played their hearts out, go home satisfied knowing that the game settled nothing? Nobody, i'm sure, can safely lay claim to that.

Make too many changes though and there could be a TON of goals being scored, which isn't necessarily a bad thing!

I guess I'm just a little strange because I can lay claim to the fact that I enjoy a good hard fought game of hockey that ends in a tie. Would I be happier if my team came out with a win, of course. But if I was entertained to some good quality never quit hockey, I'm happy. As for the guy getting the penalty shot, and it being the most exciting play in sports or whatever. How did he get that breakaway? I'm sure he didn't just pick up the puck at center ice and start skating in! the goalie may have left it behind the net for a "d" man, who makes a tape to tape outlet pass in behind the other teams "d" and springs him for a breakaway. A lot of the times the pass is prettier than the goal. All part of a "team" play.
I also enjoy a low scoring game as opposed to a 10-9 game, as long as there are some good scoring chances. What's wrong with a hard hitting, hard fought, defensive battle that ends up 2-1? I agree overall that some more goals being scord would be nice, but lets also understand and appreciate the defensive forwards, and hard hitting stay at home defenseman are all part of this game that we love!

[smackitsakic]

Lets not get my thoughts misconstrued here Flathead.
A shootout is a direct result of a team effort. You don't just drop the puck at the start of the game, have a shootout, and determine the winner. You've had two teams play their hearts out for 65 minutes as a team which has lead to the shootout, not a whole lot different than getting hauled down after a set up team play. I can't stand ties, most fans can't stand ties, and players especially can't stand ties. It's like working hard and getting underpaid, it's not satisfying.
Also, i am not saying that i do not enjoy a hard-fought game that ends up in a 2-1 score. I'm not saying every game needs to be 10-9 in order for it to be entertaining. Some of the best games i've seen have been 2-1 or even 1-0 victories, but it's b/c the goalies were on top of their game and made some unbelievable saves, not b/c they re-directed 12 shots into the corners where their teammates picked it up, took it into the neutral zone, and spent half the game inbetween the blue lines. There are some good low scoring games, there are some great low scoring games, but how many of the Ducks/Devils finals games did you watch and felt that you enjoyed after the game was over? The answer for me was 0.

[Flathead]

Lets not get my thoughts misconstrued here Flathead.
A shootout is a direct result of a team effort. You don't just drop the puck at the start of the game, have a shootout, and determine the winner. You've had two teams play their hearts out for 65 minutes as a team which has lead to the shootout, not a whole lot different than getting hauled down after a set up team play. I can't stand ties, most fans can't stand ties, and players especially can't stand ties. It's like working hard and getting underpaid, it's not satisfying.
Also, i am not saying that i do not enjoy a hard-fought game that ends up in a 2-1 score. I'm not saying every game needs to be 10-9 in order for it to be entertaining. Some of the best games i've seen have been 2-1 or even 1-0 victories, but it's b/c the goalies were on top of their game and made some unbelievable saves, not b/c they re-directed 12 shots into the corners where their teammates picked it up, took it into the neutral zone, and spent half the game inbetween the blue lines. There are some good low scoring games, there are some great low scoring games, but how many of the Ducks/Devils finals games did you watch and felt that you enjoyed after the game was over? The answer for me was 0

So you play the 65 minutes as a team, then it comes down to a one on one showdown?? You may as well just drop the puck at the start of a game, have shoot out, and determine the winner. A shoot out is a direct result of a team effort? A team win should be the direct result of a team effort. I can see not wanting ties, but a gimmick that totally takes away from the team aspect of the game isn't for me. Obviously, we are not going to agree on shoot outs, and I can respect your thoughts on them, sorry if I misconstrued your thoughts.

[Sput]

Something just came to me as I was reading this string. What if after a 5 minute 4-on-4 they had a shootout, but it was a forward on a defender and the goalie? It would still take in elements of the team game, and not have points resting solely on the goalie. Just a thought I had, might not be a good one, but what do you think? :confused:

[Broncs in RD]

What about a 2 on 1? Any thoughts?

[Willis on the Welfare]

Shootouts are inevitable. They will happen whether we want them to or not and no amout of debate in an internet forum will change that.

I don't see what is wrong with a shootout. I fail to see how a shootout does not reflect the team sport of hockey. It is a coach sending out his five best. A great element of strategy. A chance for a ten goal man with a nice move to make the difference in an important game.

The long term effects of a shootout are what intrigues me. Now a team will have to have a few skilled goal scorers. No more teams of plugs getting by with a tie against a superior skilled team. At least five guys will have to be offensive minded enough to know how to score on a breakaway.

Embrace the shootout. It will help save our game.

[smackitsakic]

I concur Willis, finally, we agree! haha.
Flathead, i'm not saying you're wrong or i'm right, just so you know. All i'm trying to do here is stir up some healthy debate to get this board to be a fountain of activity. I do not like the 2 on 1/1 on 1 ideas, lets leave that at the all star games

[Flathead]

I concur Willis, finally, we agree! haha.
Flathead, i'm not saying you're wrong or i'm right, just so you know. All i'm trying to do here is stir up some healthy debate to get this board to be a fountain of activity. I do not like the 2 on 1/1 on 1 ideas, lets leave that at the all star games

I know that your not saying one of us is right or wrong. I've read enough of your posts to know that your a good guy that doesn't start crap. Baseball, basketball, they don't have ties but they also don't have homerun derby's or three point competions to decide the game.