Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

[Discussion] Changing hockey as we know it.


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 951 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:32 AM

#1. Get rid of the &%#@!$* trapezoid already. It was stupid when it was introduced and it's even stupider now. Their rationale at the time was that it would increase offence, but all it's done is hindered goaltenders and caused injury.


I swear they introduced this because of Turco's excellent puck handling. I too would like to see this gone.
  • 0

#32 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 951 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:37 AM

How about remove the helmet (MacT) rule, and remove that crappy hard padding, but only for players. Back in the older days, players were a little more respectful of each other, and some think it has to do with relying on all this wonderful new padding.
  • 0

#33 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,735 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 09:19 AM

- Consistency. Something that is worth a penalty in the 1st should also be a penalty in overtime. Something that is a penalty in game 1 of the regular season should be a penalty in game 7 of a playoff series. (Boston vs. Tampa, game 7, no penalties? Are you kidding me?)

- Hybrid icing...should be a no-brainer.

- Get rid of the linesmen, or at least get them off the ice. Offside calls can easily be made from above - and be more accurate to boot. This gets 2 zebras out of the way of the play.

- Things I like that NHL has proposed recently: realignment, 2-year entry-level contracts, elimination of recall waivers.

- This will never happen, but LESS GAMES. At the very least, knock off a couple exhibition games, and a couple regular season ones. Give players a couple less back-to-backs, and have the season end a few days earlier.
  • 0
Posted Image

#34 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,457 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:43 AM

Just because they get rid of the instigator rule doesn't mean they would get rid of the automatic 10 game suspension for leaving the bench.


Very true. But even a brawl involving just the players on the ice is unnecessary and to be avoided.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#35 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:48 AM

- Get rid of the linesmen, or at least get them off the ice. Offside calls can easily be made from above - and be more accurate to boot. This gets 2 zebras out of the way of the play.


Interesting idea but I think they would still be needed for breaking up fights.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#36 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,735 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:21 AM

Interesting idea but I think they would still be needed for breaking up fights.


Nah, just put added disincentives. Like, 'keep fighting when a ref attempts to break you up, and immediate 2 game suspension'.

How often do you see players leave the bench to join a fight after they put in the automatic 10-game ban?
  • 0
Posted Image

#37 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,064 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:45 PM

Very true. But even a brawl involving just the players on the ice is unnecessary and to be avoided.


I don't think having the instigator rule stops that anyways. They usually just hand that one out to the guy that started it, not the ones that pile on afterwards.

I was just thinking of another change they should make, although this would tie in with the NHL Fines thread and the CBA thread... they should apply fines as a percentage of the player's per game salary.

What's the maximum fine right now? I think it's $5,000 or something like that. If a player does something stupid that warrants a fine, it should hurt them equally. So for example, for the same incidents, Cooke would get a fine of $5,000 (based on $1.25M for 2013) and Crosby would get $48,000 (based on $12M for 2013).
  • 0
Posted Image

#38 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,457 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:04 PM

I don't think having the instigator rule stops that anyways. They usually just hand that one out to the guy that started it, not the ones that pile on afterwards.

I was just thinking of another change they should make, although this would tie in with the NHL Fines thread and the CBA thread... they should apply fines as a percentage of the player's per game salary.

What's the maximum fine right now? I think it's $5,000 or something like that. If a player does something stupid that warrants a fine, it should hurt them equally. So for example, for the same incidents, Cooke would get a fine of $5,000 (based on $1.25M for 2013) and Crosby would get $48,000 (based on $12M for 2013).


I think the idea behind the rule is that if no one wants to face the consequences for starting a brawl there won't be one. Beyond brawls, I think there's also the idea that some guys might start useless fights at the end of the game out of frustration, possibly increasing the risk of injury without any real benefit to either team since the game is almost over. And, it would seriously drag out some games if every time the puck drops so do the gloves.

But I'm totally with you on the percentage fine setup. It makes way more sense to make each player actually pay the same (percentage wise) instead of allowing richer players to just do whatever they want because they can afford it.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#39 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,064 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:10 PM

I think the idea behind the rule is that if no one wants to face the consequences for starting a brawl there won't be one. Beyond brawls, I think there's also the idea that some guys might start useless fights at the end of the game out of frustration, possibly increasing the risk of injury without any real benefit to either team since the game is almost over. And, it would seriously drag out some games if every time the puck drops so do the gloves.


I guess there's the difference. I always thought the instigator rule was there to prevent the retribution type fights, more so than the line brawls. They do have some sort of supplemental rule for fights late in the game, separate from the instigator rule.
  • 0
Posted Image

#40 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,457 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:45 PM

I guess there's the difference. I always thought the instigator rule was there to prevent the retribution type fights, more so than the line brawls. They do have some sort of supplemental rule for fights late in the game, separate from the instigator rule.


Maybe the confusion is that there are the 2 instigator rules, the regular one and the "last 5 minutes" one. The regular one was more for the retribution type fights (it even mentions the word "retribution") and the "last 5 minutes" one I think was more aimed at preventing brawls.

What's the other rule relating to starting fights late in the game? I know there's the one for fighting outside of the "periods" of the game, but I think that's just meant to prevent fighting after the game was over. Is there another one?

Edited by poetica, 05 November 2012 - 01:46 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#41 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,735 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:21 PM

I'm not against the instigator rule in theory. The goonery that it helped prevent (simply grabbing a star player and beating him into submission) is far worse than the side effects of the rule.

I will say that it is often misapplied though. If you throw a clean hit, and a guy jumps you, YES, please give that player an instigator. But if you throw a dirty hit, as far as I'm concerned, fisticuffs have already been instigated.

Refs have to be more consistent.
  • 0
Posted Image

#42 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,064 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:51 PM

What's the other rule relating to starting fights late in the game? I know there's the one for fighting outside of the "periods" of the game, but I think that's just meant to prevent fighting after the game was over. Is there another one?


Found it...

46.12 Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) - A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at any time in overtime shall be assessed an instigator minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, and a game misconduct penalty, subject to the conditions outlined in 46.22.

If you instigate in the last 5, you get an extra game misconduct on top of the usual penalties.
  • 0
Posted Image

#43 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,457 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:02 PM

Found it...

46.12 Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) - A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at any time in overtime shall be assessed an instigator minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, and a game misconduct penalty, subject to the conditions outlined in 46.22.

If you instigate in the last 5, you get an extra game misconduct on top of the usual penalties.


I thought that was the rule we were talking about. *lol*

Guess we had our wires crossed.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#44 The Hornet

The Hornet

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 07

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:56 PM

Hybrid icing

No delay of game penalty for players when they flip the puck over the glass. (Goalies still get penalties though)

Get rid of the trapezoid

Make all players play with wooden sticks!

Edited by The Hornet, 05 November 2012 - 05:57 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#45 spliced

spliced

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,147 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 05 November 2012 - 07:19 PM

Penalties take players off the ice(down to 3) more often. So coincidental minors when teams are 4-on-4 would make them play 3-on-3 and if there are coincidental penalties on a 5-on-4 PP it becomes a 4-on-3. Also a fight would mean 4-on-4 hockey for 5 minutes.

The other thing I'd do is give arenas more personality. Shorter/longer. Wider/narrower. bigger or smaller neutral zones. Nets farther out or closer to the end boards. I thinks it's more interesting when each arena has it's own unique flavor to them rather than just having all these cookie cutter arenas we have now.
  • 0

#46 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,640 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 05 November 2012 - 09:36 PM

A. No touch icing. It will save a d-man's life one day!

B. 28 team league with 4 divisions of 7 teams each. (i.e. get rid of two teams, hold a dispersal draft, 10 year freeze on expansion)

C. Full interlocking schedule. i.e. every team plays each team twice 54 games. They then play each team in the conference twice (13 x2) 26 games. 80 game season. This eliminates teams back east having cushy travel schedules while teams like the Canucks rack up the air miles!

D. One ref system. Keep the linesmen, but one ref. We're not getting more calls with 2 refs, we're getting less consistency.

E. Elimination of the instigator rule.

F. Return the 2 Minute Major, especially for high sticking, or checking from behind.

G. No trapezoid, but if a goalie is outside his crease he's fair game.

H. Shot over the glass like icing, no line changes and faceoff in the zone for the team that did the shot over the glass.

I. Overtime 4 on 4 for 10 minutes. If no scoring, it goes to a shootout. Losing team does not get a point regardless, and the winning team gets 1 point for winning in O/T or shootout. This puts an emphasis on winning in regulation. Why reward a team for making it to overtime??
  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#47 kangsauce

kangsauce

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:19 PM

Fun Topic.

- Hybrid Icing

- Contraction and/or Relocation: Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, Phoenix, Tampa Bay. I'd say move three to Ontario, Quebec, and Seattle and do away with two of them, dispersal draft.

- Re-alignment: I'm not sure how this would work because there's more Eastern teams than Western ones but pretty much the entire Central division should be in the Eastern Conference.

- Shootouts are fun to watch but it's not fair. I'd like to see an extended 4v4 OT.

- Anyone else get annoyed when refs get in the way of the play? I wish there was a way to prevent that but I cant really think of a realistic one atm.
  • 0

#48 sting

sting

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 11

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:12 AM

A. No touch icing. It will save a d-man's life one day!

B. 28 team league with 4 divisions of 7 teams each. (i.e. get rid of two teams, hold a dispersal draft, 10 year freeze on expansion)

C. Full interlocking schedule. i.e. every team plays each team twice 54 games. They then play each team in the conference twice (13 x2) 26 games. 80 game season. This eliminates teams back east having cushy travel schedules while teams like the Canucks rack up the air miles!

D. One ref system. Keep the linesmen, but one ref. We're not getting more calls with 2 refs, we're getting less consistency.

E. Elimination of the instigator rule.

F. Return the 2 Minute Major, especially for high sticking, or checking from behind.

G. No trapezoid, but if a goalie is outside his crease he's fair game.

H. Shot over the glass like icing, no line changes and faceoff in the zone for the team that did the shot over the glass.

I. Overtime 4 on 4 for 10 minutes. If no scoring, it goes to a shootout. Losing team does not get a point regardless, and the winning team gets 1 point for winning in O/T or shootout. This puts an emphasis on winning in regulation. Why reward a team for making it to overtime??


i,m with ya!

I would add a couple more........

1. Reduction in goalie equipment size
2. Linesman can call.....cheap shots behind the play
3. Add 3 pts for regulation win with 4 or more goals.
4. Allow teams to build ice arena from olympic size to current size.
5. Review diving and embellishment and suspend for a game if no contact was made.
6.Take away the hard shelled elbow pads that cause concussions.
7. Refs can call illegal defense on teams that pull their winger(s) back in below the top of circles to clog slot. 2 warnings then penalty.

Edited by sting, 07 November 2012 - 12:14 AM.

  • 1

#49 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,155 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:45 AM

Team can challenge a ref call
More reliance on video reviews to ensure the correct call
And this "Shot over the glass like icing, no line changes and faceoff in the zone for the team that did the shot over the glass."

Edited by Mauii, 08 November 2012 - 11:22 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#50 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,640 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:30 AM

So when does CDC get invited to one of the committee's by the NHL? Sounds like we have lots of good ideas!
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.