Saskatchewan Canucks Fan Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Wrong, It would be DEAD SIMPLE to enforce an illegal defense rule, Once the puck crosses the offensive blue line, all five offensive players have 2 seconds to enter the offensive zone and there they must stay until the defending team either carries it out or dumps it out. No more dumping the puck in and hanging back. And yes, I am aware that the defending team could send a "Cherry picker" to the redline with no opposition player legally being allowed to follow him, but doing so would mean one less man defending a 5 man forcheck. Also this could make break ways an almost nightly occurrence. we would see more line rushes in one night then we see in a month. Are you old enough to remember line rushes? It's something that used to happen all the time when the NHL game was ruled by the talent and not by stifling coaching systems. The trap as it was isn't seen much anymore, I agree, but the NHL is still sick with the disease of overcoaching. And that is what needs to be ended once and for all. No more shot blocking either, that's what the frigging GOALIE is for. It is possible to fix what is wrong with this game and it all starts with an illegal defense rule. Which I contend is the one thing standing in the way of the NHL becoming a major sport in the USA. So let me get this straight... All 5 players in the offensive zone cannot cross the blueline until the other team has cleared the puck? There would be at least 40 breakaways a game. If I carry the puck out of my defensive end it would be illegal to have anyone in front of me. Players would pick up the puck around the hashmarks and blow by defensemen who are standing still at the blueline (leaving them little to zero chance of ever catching up). I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who would stop watching if the game turned into a circus like that. Not as DEAD SIMPLE as you make it seem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 So let me get this straight... All 5 players in the offensive zone cannot cross the blueline until the other team has cleared the puck? There would be at least 40 breakaways a game. If I carry the puck out of my defensive end it would be illegal to have anyone in front of me. Players would pick up the puck around the hashmarks and blow by defensemen who are standing still at the blueline (leaving them little to zero chance of ever catching up). I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who would stop watching if the game turned into a circus like that. Not as DEAD SIMPLE as you make it seem No, I really don't think it would work that way at all. If the defending team dumps the puck into the neutral zone playing while defending with all five skaters (most likely scenario) then the attacking team is free to leave. In this instance you wouldn't even notice the rule change. If the defending team retrieves the puck, the attacking team is free to abandon the offensive zone. They can even leave a forechecker in to pressure the break out attempt, BUT if that forechecker retrieves the puck then the rest of his team must re enter the zone within two seconds. Put aside your prejudice for a second and picture it. It wouldn't be a circus at all, break aways would still be rare as there would be ample time set up a reasonable defensive posture... But not TOO MUCH time, which is the problem that needs solving, This rule really only does one thing: prevents teams from having too much time to set up their defensive positioning, and it absolutely ENDS the clogging of the neutral zone. If the defending team wants to send a cherry picker to the red line, then it would essentially put them on the penalty kill, as they would be defending agist a five man forecheck. They would only do this late in a game when down a goal or two, And that would be an incredibly exciting play to watch. In regards to line changes, it's easy: Get over the blue line or the boards within 2 seconds. Players coming on have 2 seconds to join the attack. One linesman watches the blue line, the other watches the bench. EASY! Oh, and I see nothing wrong with a foot race between a winger and a D-man from the hash marks, whether anyone gets "Blown by" or not would be decided by variables to numerous to list, it would be one of dozens of possible scenarios. And I might add, one of the least likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 The Russian thing has two roots. The most important one is the KHL. There is no agreement or transfer rules in regards to players. The KHL will ignore NHL contracts. Until this is negotiated or dealt with, Russian players will be a gamble. Let's say your 20 years old and you've done everything you can to make the NHL club. But the club still feels your not ready. They say "Ok report to our AHL team get some time in the pros and show us what you got." What's to stop a KHL team from offering you $3 million to play in the KHL. They speak your language, you're closer to home. And making far more money than you will in the AHL. That threat is too much for most teams to gamble on. Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh can take chances like that. Teams that are not so deep can't afford to. The second. Look at how many Russians drafted in the first round since 2000 have left the NHL. Alexeev, Yakubov, Vorobiev, Mikhnov all in the 2000 draft alone. 2001 Svitov, 3rd overall. For every Malkin and Ovechkin there are far more players from Russia that bolt back to the KHL. The money is too tempting. They should include the Sedin's as scapegoats. How many times have you heard people on this very same board say "Vancouver will never win the Cup with the Sedin's on the team"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 The refs are really terrible. I agree that they are bad to both teams but sometimes they are just bad towards one team. Not because they hate that team, but it just happens to be called that way. Only when it's too late, the refs realized that they basically altered the outcome of the game and makes weak calls but that seldom works. Anyways, the fact that there is such concept as "game management" by the refs (according to Kerry Fraser) tells all the story there is to know. Unless the NHL can bring up its refereeing level up to par as the other leagues, the NHL will never reach that next level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saskatchewan Canucks Fan Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 No, I really don't think it would work that way at all. If the defending team dumps the puck into the neutral zone playing while defending with all five skaters (most likely scenario) then the attacking team is free to leave. In this instance you wouldn't even notice the rule change. If the defending team retrieves the puck, the attacking team is free to abandon the offensive zone. They can even leave a forechecker in to pressure the break out attempt, BUT if that forechecker retrieves the puck then the rest of his team must re enter the zone within two seconds. Put aside your prejudice for a second and picture it. It wouldn't be a circus at all, break aways would still be rare as there would be ample time set up a reasonable defensive posture... But not TOO MUCH time, which is the problem that needs solving, This rule really only does one thing: prevents teams from having too much time to set up their defensive positioning, and it absolutely ENDS the clogging of the neutral zone. If the defending team wants to send a cherry picker to the red line, then it would essentially put them on the penalty kill, as they would be defending agist a five man forecheck. They would only do this late in a game when down a goal or two, And that would be an incredibly exciting play to watch. In regards to line changes, it's easy: Get over the blue line or the boards within 2 seconds. Players coming on have 2 seconds to join the attack. One linesman watches the blue line, the other watches the bench. EASY! Oh, and I see nothing wrong with a foot race between a winger and a D-man from the hash marks, whether anyone gets "Blown by" or not would be decided by variables to numerous to list, it would be one of dozens of possible scenarios. And I might add, one of the least likely. Okay. So the 5 offensive player don't have to stay in the offensive zone until the defending team dumps or carries the puck out like originally said. Rather they would actually be able to leave the zone once the other team touches the puck? That would make a little more sense. But my biggest problem with your first post was that you said it was dead simple in caps. Now I don't want to put words into your mouth (so to speak) for what was being implied. But it is not simple at all. The biggest problem I see with this rule: The average PK% in the league (as of this morning) is 82.11% while certain teams have players who are capable of scoring at an okay pace on breakaways. If I was a coach of certain teams I would be willing to only have 4 guys defending for most of a game, if it meant that I could have a guy sitting at the other teams blueline knowing it would be againt the rules for the other team to cover him. There would be a lot of breakaways. You could get more complex and say that a player cannot cherry pick for more than 5 seconds or something. But the more changes that are made the less likely the loyal fans are to fill the seats. It would be a completely different game... Like football without the defense being able to rush the QB. Not very simple or effective in my opinion at this time. But I do consider myself pretty open minded and willing to see changes to create a better product. So I appreaciate that people are making an effort to innovate the game. I'm just not entirely sold on this idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Easiest way to beat the trap without changing the rules, is to make a bigger ice surface. A wider and deeper more international style rink give skilled players room to move, and have more room to make passes. The downside is it means you'd have to make a long term 20-25 year plan that all arenas are either replaced or retrofitted to the new size, because owners do not want to cut revenues on a gate driven league. Referee's can't even get the simple calls right, now you want an illegal defence rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Stopped reading after MAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Emerick Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Not doing this is the biggest mistake the NHL has made in the last 20 years. Not doing so cost the league it's deal with FOX in the 90's and millions of dollars. The funny thing is, that it is SO obvious to anyone outside the game that the NHL is 20 years overdue for an illegal defense rule, but for some reason the people who run the league refuse to do it. Everyone seems so sure that a Basketball on Ice like game would be the perfect match for the American market, but the reality is lots of americans could care less about the high scoring affair that is Basketball. Hockey is a much more tactical game than Basketball thats why individual talent makes a little more difference in Basketball. Defense is praised and respected in the NFL. Then again I'm an EPL Soccer guy which is even more of a chess match then the aforementioned sports and alot of people don't have the patience for it and I understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Clear troll. Good post will not read again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Easiest way to beat the trap without changing the rules, is to make a bigger ice surface. A wider and deeper more international style rink give skilled players room to move, and have more room to make passes. The downside is it means you'd have to make a long term 20-25 year plan that all arenas are either replaced or retrofitted to the new size, because owners do not want to cut revenues on a gate driven league. Referee's can't even get the simple calls right, now you want an illegal defence rule? The trap was invented in Sweden, on international Ice. Ans what we've seen on the big rinks lately, the game gets even more boring, with players even more concerned with their defensive positioning, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 The trap was invented in Sweden, on international Ice. Ans what we've seen on the big rinks lately, the game gets even more boring, with players even more concerned with their defensive positioning, I've been saying this for years, but it never seems to get through to people. The International ice surface does not translate into more offense. In fact it does the opposite. Canada vs USA at Sochi: All that firepower on the ice and what was the final score? The game isn't broken. People need to stop trying to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Belfort Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Easiest way to beat the trap without changing the rules, is to make a bigger ice surface. A wider and deeper more international style rink give skilled players room to move, and have more room to make passes. The downside is it means you'd have to make a long term 20-25 year plan that all arenas are either replaced or retrofitted to the new size, because owners do not want to cut revenues on a gate driven league. Referee's can't even get the simple calls right, now you want an illegal defence rule? There were so many complaints about the defensive style of the big I've during the Olympics as well. At the end of the day there are going to be defensive minded strategies in hockey, just the way it is. Teams will do whatever they can to win so I'm not mad about any team using the trap. It's admirable when executed with discipline (while maybe not all that exciting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.