Red Line must go!
Gluttony
Watching the NHL now just ain't the same.
It's great pulling for your team and every game is
exciting and all but, the Olympics showed us the
NHL must clean up!
What a difference!
The rinks were bigger, the red line gone,
the great pace, the auto-icings, the fast face-offs,
the small amount of cruel useless brutality,
man THAT WAS FUN!!!!!
I miss it already.
Ignatius
Craig Prince
watch Yankee collegiate hockey.
Hurry up the face-offs and get rid of that stupid offside
puck-has-to-clear-the-zone rule that came in with Gary Betteman. (get rid of
Betteman while your at it) But don't start with this red line removal crap!
They moved the nets away from the boards, now they want to move them back.
They keep tinkering with stuff that should not be tinkered with. Enforce
existing rules for 60 minutes every game and that would eliminate most of
the crappy play that bugs people so much.
LEAVE MY GAME ALONE!
Respectfully,
Craig
"Gluttony" <gol...@dreams.com> wrote in message
news:9QUg8.12069$6R5.6...@wagner.videotron.net...
marty
Craig Prince wrote:
> If you like it so much then get a dish that will carry Euro hockey games, or
> watch Yankee collegiate hockey.
>
> Hurry up the face-offs and get rid of that stupid offside
> puck-has-to-clear-the-zone rule that came in with Gary Betteman. (get rid of
> Betteman while your at it) But don't start with this red line removal crap!
> They moved the nets away from the boards, now they want to move them back.
> They keep tinkering with stuff that should not be tinkered with. Enforce
> existing rules for 60 minutes every game and that would eliminate most of
> the crappy play that bugs people so much.
>
> LEAVE MY GAME ALONE!
>
With all due respect Craig, they changed your game already. Different rules came
into existence to kill offense when certain high powered teams were dominating
too much. Someone stated that the two-line pass rule came into existence in
1960's to shut down the high powered Montreal offense. Same in the 50's with the
rule that a minor penalty ends when a goal is scored, rather than a player
having to serve the full penalty like they do with a major. So the game isn't
"pure". The rules haven't existed in a perfect state for 100 years, and the
twiddling they are doing lately is nothing new. Problem is, the twiddling they
are doing lately is insignificant, whereas before they made big changes to shut
down offensively gifted teams. If you have a love for tradition, then perhaps
you should be hoping FOR the two-line rule to disappear.
As I've argued before, we've been through 3-4 crackdowns on interference. The
game is called tighter than it was before, but it is impossible to expect that
refs are going to be able to call the 100 minor picks, short slashes, and split
second holds that occur in the game now that team focus almost exclusively on
defence. They tried. They tried hard and failed. They've hired an extra ref,
they gave every ref a laptop and they sent them video critiques daily, but it
just doesn't work. And as Winkie said, I'm no longer for another crackdown with
a ton of whistles, no flow to the game, and still with half the infractions
missed because all the calls are borderline. We need a bigger change that
doesn't rely on a couple of refs to try and achieve perfection in spotting and
calling every little borderline infraction.
One more thing about the game. There are many changes that have occurred that
weren't rule changes, but have impacted the game nonetheless. Bigger players.
Bigger goalies. Much bigger, more effective equipment for goalies is another.
More defensive systems. The game is in a constant state of change, which is why
this year's scoring leader will likely not crack 100 points. I myself am getting
sick and tired of watching all these changes occur with no significant attempt
to keep scoring in the game.
marty
Lauri Tarkkonen
>With all due respect Craig, they changed your game already. Different rules came
>into existence to kill offense when certain high powered teams were dominating
>too much. Someone stated that the two-line pass rule came into existence in
>1960's to shut down the high powered Montreal offense.
You better check your facts before you jump on your high horses. The
NHL did imply the red line rule during the World War II, as they thought
that the diluted talent would be more suitable to the more restrictive
off side rule. The meaning was to remove the rule, when the talent level
is high enough when the war heroes come back. Obviously it was
forgotten.
Some one could argue that with the fast expansion the talent is again
dilluted, but with the influx of owerseas talent the NHL could adopt
the international rules.
>Same in the 50's with the rule that a minor penalty ends when a goal is
>scored, rather than a player having to serve the full penalty like they
>do with a major. So the game isn't "pure".
Here you have it right, the Montreal Canadiens powerplay with Doug
Harvey and Bernie "Boom Boom" Geoffrion on the points and Jean Beliveau
pivoting for Maurice "Rocket" Richard and Dickie Moore was devastating,
scoring in many cases two goals during a minor penalty. The league got
enough of it, when Jean Believeau once scored a hat trick during a
minor penalty.
>The rules haven't existed in a perfect state for 100 years, and the
>twiddling they are doing lately is nothing new. Problem is, the twiddling they
>are doing lately is insignificant, whereas before they made big changes to shut
>down offensively gifted teams. If you have a love for tradition, then perhaps
>you should be hoping FOR the two-line rule to disappear.
Actually the ORIGINAL rules prohibited forward passing completely and
the came was dribling and drop passes. :-).
>As I've argued before, we've been through 3-4 crackdowns on interference. The
>game is called tighter than it was before, but it is impossible to expect that
>refs are going to be able to call the 100 minor picks, short slashes, and split
>second holds that occur in the game now that team focus almost exclusively on
>defence. They tried. They tried hard and failed. They've hired an extra ref,
>they gave every ref a laptop and they sent them video critiques daily, but it
>just doesn't work. And as Winkie said, I'm no longer for another crackdown with
>a ton of whistles, no flow to the game, and still with half the infractions
>missed because all the calls are borderline. We need a bigger change that
>doesn't rely on a couple of refs to try and achieve perfection in spotting and
>calling every little borderline infraction.
I still believe that meticulous calling of the rules and courage for the
refs to call additional penalties to teams already shorthanded, would
send the message, that hooking, tripping, crosschecking and obstruction
are out of fashion. The teams use all the tricks they can get away with.
To make it more important to try to stop the offense by the rules, one
would borrow the idea of six fouls and out from basketball, or the idea
of team fouls, when the team has enough minor penalties, the opposition
would get a penalty shot. That would give the team trying to catch the
opponent some leverage, if they were skating and passing the puck and
the other team had trouble in just trapping and hooking.
>One more thing about the game. There are many changes that have occurred that
>weren't rule changes, but have impacted the game nonetheless. Bigger players.
>Bigger goalies. Much bigger, more effective equipment for goalies is another.
>More defensive systems. The game is in a constant state of change, which is why
>this year's scoring leader will likely not crack 100 points. I myself am getting
>sick and tired of watching all these changes occur with no significant attempt
>to keep scoring in the game.
Today the goalie will get a penalty for shooting the puck in the stands
for delaying the game. The skaters have better controll of the puck and
could be given the same penalty for shooting the puck out. This would
give the pressing team more power and would improve on the flow of the
game, as it is not advisable to get a break by shooting the puck in the
crowd.
- Lauri Tarkkonen
P.Barsalo
> Craig Prince wrote:
>
> > If you like it so much then get a dish that will carry Euro hockey games, or
> > watch Yankee collegiate hockey.
> >
> > Hurry up the face-offs and get rid of that stupid offside
> > puck-has-to-clear-the-zone rule that came in with Gary Betteman. (get rid of
> > Betteman while your at it) But don't start with this red line removal crap!
> > They moved the nets away from the boards, now they want to move them back.
> > They keep tinkering with stuff that should not be tinkered with. Enforce
> > existing rules for 60 minutes every game and that would eliminate most of
> > the crappy play that bugs people so much.
> >
> > LEAVE MY GAME ALONE!
> >
Things that should change: Wider ice surface for sure, make them guys
skate and forget the holding. Leave the red line, but use the intl.
icing rule, no more running into the boards and needless injuries.
Reduce the size of the goaltender's equipment by a third, and allow
him to check and be checked if he wanders a la Brodeur. This might be
drastic but they should scrap the helmets and see how "friendly" the
players become. Guy was never the same afterwards. OK that last one
was a joke, but it was better before the mandatory helmet rule.
Finally, go back to one ref, dump the overtime in regular season and
have a 6 man shootout instead, for an extra point. It wont become
Olympic caliber, but it will make for a nostalgic look at real hockey,
not gooney dumping, clutching, blah, blah...
David Bernardi
NHL's low scoring. The problem is not that enough goals aren't going in the
net; rather, it's that the game itself has fundamentally changed so that
less good scoring chances are being generated on the ice. Restricting pad
sizes is a band-aid solution, and will not address this more serious
problem.
The reason we have this problem is that there are simply too many teams. In
today's diluted NHL there are too many roster spots -- people who have no
business being in the NHL get to share ice with the Lemiuexs and Kariyas of
the league on a nightly basis. They earn their spots by clutching and
grabbing the superstars the fans are paying good money to see score.
The NHL is like a book that is about 200 pages too long. It's a drawn-out,
boring affair, whose good parts are buried within its copious prose. If a
good editor came along and excised about 20% of it, he would transform it
into a fast-paced, entertaining read. Unfortunately, the NHL is being paid
by the word -- what's good for the fans is a distant second to them.
"P.Barsalo" <pe...@atomsphere.com> wrote in message
news:d1e80614.02030...@posting.google.com...
marty
Lauri Tarkkonen wrote:
> In <3C84F58C...@hotmail.com> marty <marty...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >With all due respect Craig, they changed your game already. Different rules came
> >into existence to kill offense when certain high powered teams were dominating
> >too much. Someone stated that the two-line pass rule came into existence in
> >1960's to shut down the high powered Montreal offense.
>
> You better check your facts before you jump on your high horses.
You might notice I said "someone stated", meaning someone in the group said this a
few weeks ago (Winkie?). Anyway, facts weren't 100% I guess, but point is the same.
This I'll never believe. In fact, it is getting tiring when people hearken back to
this again and again, despite substantial evidence that it doesn't work. I suppose
everyone here figures they would know how to overcome human nature and enforce the
unenforceable, how to magically do what the league failed to do four time previous,
despite its best intentions. I'd like to hear the solutions. Stirring Winston
Churchill like speeches to motivate the refs? Perhaps threaten to fire every ref who
doesn't achieve perfection? That should go over very well with them and their union.
Train them better? Uhh, considering they've climbed through every level of hockey
like any NHL player, this is as good as it gets. Finally, has anyone here complained
about a borderline call on their player? Well, when the crackdowns happen, those
borderline calls increase dramatically, and you start getting situations like
incorrect hooking calls when a player simply tripped over his own feet. Diving
increases. Really, how do you do this? What is the magical solution? How do you
defeat human nature, human error, and diving? Please tell me, because the whole NHL
would like to know.
marty
marty
David Bernardi wrote:
> Changing the equipment rules for goaltenders is a very poor solution to the
> NHL's low scoring. The problem is not that enough goals aren't going in the
> net; rather, it's that the game itself has fundamentally changed so that
> less good scoring chances are being generated on the ice. Restricting pad
> sizes is a band-aid solution, and will not address this more serious
> problem.
>
> The reason we have this problem is that there are simply too many teams. In
> today's diluted NHL there are too many roster spots -- people who have no
> business being in the NHL get to share ice with the Lemiuexs and Kariyas of
> the league on a nightly basis. They earn their spots by clutching and
> grabbing the superstars the fans are paying good money to see score.
>
> The NHL is like a book that is about 200 pages too long. It's a drawn-out,
> boring affair, whose good parts are buried within its copious prose. If a
> good editor came along and excised about 20% of it, he would transform it
> into a fast-paced, entertaining read. Unfortunately, the NHL is being paid
> by the word -- what's good for the fans is a distant second to them.
I agree hockey would be more entertaining with contraction. About 20 teams would
be great. However, that point becomes meaningless in the end, because hoping for
massive contraction at this point is a complete waste. It isn't even a Band-Aid
solution. It is no solution at all, because it is not going to happen. So, is
there any change you would like to see that might actually happen?
marty
Charles Barber
talk, little real action. I think the NHL like the illusion of parity they
have right now. If they ever did actually crack down, you would see the
point differences between teams increase, and some teams fall quite far from
the play-off race.
Sheila Welzbacher
be let teams play overtime in regular seasons untill a winner is
decided. winner recieveing their 2pts while the loser gets 0. to often
the teams go thru the motions for the 5 minutes with little or no
interest at all. add to it now the team gets their 1pt even if they
lose. one of the big excitements in plyoff hockey is it's sudden death.
if were to pay the price to watch our teams and support our players than
lets get the whole effect. imo the quick faceoffs and automatic iceings
could only make the best game in the world better.
T.J
marty
Charles Barber wrote:
> I have yet to see any real crackdown on clutch and grab Hockey, lots of
> talk, little real action. I think the NHL like the illusion of parity they
> have right now. If they ever did actually crack down, you would see the
> point differences between teams increase, and some teams fall quite far from
> the play-off race.
Yeah, I forget it all too. I forget all the penalties, all the complaints from
players and coaches, all the bad calls, and the negligible increase in scoring.
I forget that as the season wore on players stopped clutching as much, refs
stopped calling a penalty every time players touched, and then, ever so slowly,
the clutching and grabbing seeped back in. That was crackdown one. Crackdown two
went the same way. Crackdown three and four weren't nearly as "effective"
because by that point everyone was rolling their eyes. "Not another crackdown"
everyone would say. The refs were sick of it by then as well. They had GM's
telling them to crackdown, then coaches and GM's ripping them whenever they
started making the borderline calls. I'm not making this up. This all happened!
How can you forget? Adding a ref, the big deal about how every ref was getting
"wired" with laptops and daily critiques. Conference calls to remind the refs to
be disciplined, and commentators on T.V. rhetorically asking the question "Do
they really think another crackdown is going to work?" We've seen it. It's been
done, and then it was done again, and again, and again...and guess what? You've
got your wish. The GM's decided at the meetings that they are going to
"crackdown" again on interference in the neutral zone next season. Oh happy day!
Please watch carefully this time. Watch exactly what I have just stated happen
AGAIN, and please, this time, please don't forget, because it is forgetfulness
that allows the league to apply the same Band-Aid every two years while scoring
just keeps dropping.
marty
>
Ian Merrithew
> [Contraction] is no solution at all, because it is not going to happen.
I've got to side with David here. The only true solution to the
problem of poor calibre hockey in the NHL is contraction. Anything
else is treating the symptom and not the root cause - there are far
too many mediocre hockey players in the NHL. These mediocre players
cannot hope to compete against the skilled elite, so they play
defensive-minded, trapping, interference-filled "hockey" to shut them
down. Couple this with coaches who know these facts all too well, and
coach more often to save their jobs then to win hockey games, and
there you have it. Snoozefests from October through April. Come
playoff-time, winning is all that matters, so the intensity jacks up
several notches, and talent tends to win out over trapping in 7-game
series, so the calibre goes up to where it should be.
> So, is there any change you would like to see that might actually happen?
The only one I really want is the quick-faceoff rule. Cut the
game-times down, get rid of the boring scrums after whistles, may even
cut down on the wanton acts of violence (Gord Miller had an excellent
column at tsn.ca on this a couple days ago).
Ian Merrithew - DPL Systems Engineering
Foodsnarfer
make the olympiques change to meet nhl standards
<fart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C864E76...@hotmail.com>...
Foodsnarfer
make the olympiques change to meet nhl standards
<fart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C864E76...@hotmail.com>...
Warr
up with the D-men staying in there own end and forward would stay back even
more. The non-red line games we saw in the Olympics were amusing for a few
games until you noticed teams made adjustments to that. Without the red line
they just play closer to there blue line , and create a 5 man trap across
the line.
Warr
"Foodsnarfer" <edont...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:886f2c54.02030...@posting.google.com...
Earl
Ian Merrithew <ian.me...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:cbee0633.02030...@posting.google.com...
> marty <marty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3C858523...@hotmail.com>...
> > [Contraction] is no solution at all, because it is not going to happen.
> I've got to side with David here. The only true solution to the
> problem of poor calibre hockey in the NHL is contraction. Anything
> else is treating the symptom and not the root cause - there are far
> too many mediocre hockey players in the NHL. These mediocre players
> cannot hope to compete against the skilled elite, so they play
> defensive-minded, trapping, interference-filled "hockey" to shut them
> down. Couple this with coaches who know these facts all too well, and
> coach more often to save their jobs then to win hockey games, and
> there you have it. Snoozefests from October through April. Come
> playoff-time, winning is all that matters, so the intensity jacks up
> several notches, and talent tends to win out over trapping in 7-game
> series, so the calibre goes up to where it should be.
>
So, if good entertaining hockey is possible April through June then why is
it not possible October through March?
The reason - PARSS - Professional Athlete Regular Season Syndrome. The NHL
is not a diluted product, it's a product made of players that realize hockey
is a physically demanding game, and that games don't mean anything until
they mean something. So, athletes place few demands on themselves until a
time comes when it means something to **THEM** personally..
Case in point junior hockey. The calibre of player in junior is inferior
to the NHL. The calibre of hockey, especially in terms of the regular
season, is vastly superior to the NHL. The reason - every game means
something for all players scratching their way to the NHL. A few nights off
for a junior may mean the difference between a professional hockey career
and not. In the NHL, taking the night off has no consequences for a player
, especially in a non contract year and especially when 35 other players are
taking the night off.
NHL players get special consideration for the Olympics- the poor players
are overworked, the poor players are tired - at least that's what the NHL
scribes will write, but consider that the Canadian juniors go overseas at
every x-mas break, return to their teams and take on a well rested league
without a blink. I watched a Brampton Battalion game shortly after the
World Juniors this year , and Jay Harrison was banging, scoring, and was the
best player on the ice - there were no fatigue excuses written for Jay.
The NHL is becoming lazy - it's becoming complacent - it's becoming a haven
for millionaire athletes playing for themselves and not their fans.
In April the NHL becomes the best professional sports league in North
America. The key to making the NHL great for fans is not to reduce the
number of teams, but to figure out what transformations take place in April
and taking measures to ensure they happen after October training camps.
marty
Ian Merrithew wrote:
> marty <marty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C858523...@hotmail.com>...
> > [Contraction] is no solution at all, because it is not going to happen.
> I've got to side with David here. The only true solution to the
> problem of poor calibre hockey in the NHL is contraction. Anything
> else is treating the symptom and not the root cause - there are far
> too many mediocre hockey players in the NHL. These mediocre players
> cannot hope to compete against the skilled elite, so they play
> defensive-minded, trapping, interference-filled "hockey" to shut them
> down. Couple this with coaches who know these facts all too well, and
> coach more often to save their jobs then to win hockey games, and
> there you have it. Snoozefests from October through April. Come
> playoff-time, winning is all that matters, so the intensity jacks up
> several notches, and talent tends to win out over trapping in 7-game
> series, so the calibre goes up to where it should be.
>
You still haven't proposed a solution that can actually happen. This isn't a solution. It's
just a complaint. A legitimate complaint, sure. However, 10 owners aren't going to
volunteer to contract their teams. To me, there are other changes that can make hockey less
of a snoozefest, things that might not be as perfect as contraction, but far more
realistic.
marty
Charles Barber
I never really noticed any real difference during their so-called crack
downs.. Sure they complained, but then again coachs and players will
complain about everything. Trying to insist that referees are not to disrupt
the flow of the game, by calling too many penalties is a root cause of the
problem.. It should be up to the players not to disrupt the flow, by not
committing infractions... Referees are there only to enforce what is written
in the rule book.
"marty" <marty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C864E76...@hotmail.com...
Ian Merrithew
> The NHL is not a diluted product,
Dunham, I'm stuck...)
Thrashers? (Kovalchuk, Healey, stuck again...)
Name *any* three from the Wild. (...) Bluejackets? (Denis, ...
Sanderson?)
A Duck, aside from Kariya (...)
Not diluted, you say?
Bah, says I.
> In April the NHL becomes the best professional sports league in North
> America. The key to making the NHL great for fans is not to reduce the
> number of teams, but to figure out what transformations take place in April
> and taking measures to ensure they happen after October training camps.
My other wish-it-would-but-never-will, is cut the season back from 82
games to no more than 70, and throw four teams out of the playoffs. A
shorter season with fewer playoff berths up for grabs just might bring
up the calibre to where it should be. But, again, the owners would
never sign away the dough that fewer home dates means, so that's out
the window.
Barring that, then at least throw out the idea that every team's got
to play every other team at least once a season. Get back to the days
of 8 meetings a year between the likes of the Bruins & Habs, Flames &
Oilers, Red Wings & Blackhawks. Rekindle some good old-fashioned
*hatred* amongst rivals that currently only really exists between the
Wings & Avalanche. Familiarity breeds contempt (in ice hockey
anyways). But again, we've got expansion owners who rely on the
transplanted Canadians/New Yorkers/Philadelphians/etc to fill the rink
the one night a year their "old" team comes to play.
Rule changes won't do a damn thing (they've been trying for almost ten
years now), and the GMs are fooling themselves if they think
otherwise.
Dave Longtin
news:<hPyh8.13596$4E4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > The NHL is not a diluted product,
> Quick, name the top three players off the Predators. (Legwand,
> Dunham, I'm stuck...)
>
> Thrashers? (Kovalchuk, Healey, stuck again...)
>
And to further prove your point you called him Healey instead of Heatley,
right Ian?
Dave
wildman
wrote:
>In <3C84F58C...@hotmail.com> marty <marty...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>With all due respect Craig, they changed your game already. Different rules came
>>into existence to kill offense when certain high powered teams were dominating
>>too much. Someone stated that the two-line pass rule came into existence in
>>1960's to shut down the high powered Montreal offense.
>
>You better check your facts before you jump on your high horses. The
>NHL did imply the red line rule during the World War II, as they thought
>that the diluted talent would be more suitable to the more restrictive
>off side rule. The meaning was to remove the rule, when the talent level
>is high enough when the war heroes come back. Obviously it was
>forgotten.
>
Along with 40 years of other major rule changes.
1910 - Three 20 minute periods replaces two 30 minute periods
1911 - 6 man hockey originates in the NHA
1918 - 3 playing zones introduced by two blue lines
1920 - Goalie allowed forward pass in defending zone only
1925 - Delayed penalty introduced
1927 - Forward pass allowed, defending and neutral zones only
1928 - Forward pass allowed, neutral zone to attacking zone
1929 - Forward pass allowed, all zones - not across blue lines.
1930 - Forward pass allowed, all zones - defending blue line only
1931- Forward pass anywhere, attacking blue line offside
1934 - Penalty shot
1937 - Icing introduced (no red line exists)
1938 - Penalty shot player allowed to enter the crease.
- On ice referees and linesmen introduced
1940 - Flooding the ice between periods
1942 - Overtime banned - WWII
1943 - Red line introduced
1949 - Ice surface painted white
1951 - Crease and face off circles enlarged
The truth is, the red line was introduced to make the game faster.
The rule changes preceeding the red line were introduced to open up
the game but they actually slowed it down. The red line forced the
players to skate. Before the blue lline rules changes, the whole team
had to regroup in their own zone before advancing the puck. After the
blue line rule changes, they were floating.
I strongly oppose the current Olympic rules game for one reason: Over
an 80 game schedule, we would see a much slower game - a soccer match
zone game with players waiting in open ice for the puck to come to
them, then skate in on net and be a hero. The red line exists to make
the players skate in BOTH directions. We have NOT forgotten. Keep
your no red line rule in Europe - where it belongs.