Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

rule change proposal

Rate this topic


lmm

Recommended Posts

If I have a peave, and I probably have several

it is the quick whistle

I think Refs should be fined for stopping a play that costs a team a scoring chance.

But last night Nate Schmidt takes a puck high and the play is stopped, he was not hurt at all

If I was Edmonton i'd have been POed.

 

So, here is my proposed rule change

If a player lakes a puck high, like Schmidt did last night

the player can choose to have the play stopped by doing nothing.

If the player is really in distress, the ref can and should stop the play.

however, if it is just an awkward looking play, like last night, the player should tell the ref he is alright by shouting "no"

If the player allows the play to stop, the player receives a 10 minute time out

If the player shouts "no" the play continues

 

This rule is in effect the same as a football player taking a knee and being required to miss 3 plays.

If the player is truely injured, missing 10 minutes is nothing

If they are not injured the play should continue

Its the players choice.

 

edit, hey I got a wonkie Loui face from Mastermind and Confused... just goes to show that I can confuse the Best and the Worst of em

 

edit #2 score card

1 Puck or stick near head/throat but no contact with either- no injury

2 puck or stick contact head or throat- no injury

3 contact with head/throat- player need assistance or has difficulty regaining footing

4 contact possible loss of conciousness or blood

5 needs ablulance 

 

1- Schmidt -Jan 13

Edited by lmm
  • Wat 2
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, lmm said:

If I have a peave, and I probably have several

it is the quick whistle

I think Refs should be fined for stopping a play that costs a team a scoring chance.

But last night Nate Schmidt takes a puck high and the play is stopped, he was not hurt at all

If I was Edmonton i'd have been POed.

 

So, here is my proposed rule change

If a player lakes a puck high, like Schmidt did last night

the player can choose to have the play stopped by doing nothing.

If the player is really in distress, the ref can and should stop the play.

however, if it is just an awkward looking play, like last night, the player should tell the ref he is alright by shouting "no"

If the player allows the play to stop, the player receives a 10 minute time out

If the player shouts "no" the play continues

 

This rule is in effect the same as a football player taking a knee and being required to miss 3 plays.

If the player is truely injured, missing 10 minutes is nothing

If they are not injured the play should continue

Its the players choice.

If this gets adopted, I'll be waiting for the first instance someone pulls this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No God Please No GIFs | Tenor

 

:bigblush:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck.  The NHL won't even discipline Sutherland, who's been fixing games for years with absolutely no consequences.  Bettman simply refuses to hold problem officials accountable and even went on record saying the misconduct from the refs in our series against San Jose was acceptable.  The league won't clean up their act until a judge orders them too.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like this.

If a player gets hit in the face, the first priority for the officials should be the players safety, not weather or not he's faking it, not listening to hear if he's shouting out "no"

That should also be the player's first priority (concern for their own safety should come before concern over their opponents missed opportunity)

 

Now... If you want to talk about the times that the play is blown down because an official got taken out....

 :bigblush:

 

Spoiler

For those who couldn't tell, the last bit was a joke. I don't want it to be open season on the reffs...... hmm.... actually

Spoiler

Still kidding

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Schmidt's incident was close to his head.  In the Habs/Leafs opener, I remember seeing one player got hit on the arm (lower arm, IIRC), but given how the player went down (ton-of-bricks style, almost), and it was a rising shot, the ref blew the play dead.  Sucks for the team on offense, but it's a judgment call to make in an incredibly short timeframe.

 

And, should this happen on a late game power play, and Bo, JT, Boes or Petey for instance take a nasty deflection off of Huggy's shot to the head, do we want to miss out on that player for the rest of the game (esp OT) when getting hit was more shock than anything else?  Small cuts can be patched up quickly.

 

Current system is fine.  Most times, the player is not significantly hurt, but it's not worth taking the chance in cases where it really is serious.  I sure wouldn't want to be the ref responsible for being late on the whistle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kragar said:

At least Schmidt's incident was close to his head.  In the Habs/Leafs opener, I remember seeing one player got hit on the arm (lower arm, IIRC), but given how the player went down (ton-of-bricks style, almost), and it was a rising shot, the ref blew the play dead.  Sucks for the team on offense, but it's a judgment call to make in an incredibly short timeframe.

 

And, should this happen on a late game power play, and Bo, JT, Boes or Petey for instance take a nasty deflection off of Huggy's shot to the head, do we want to miss out on that player for the rest of the game (esp OT) when getting hit was more shock than anything else?  Small cuts can be patched up quickly.

 

Current system is fine.  Most times, the player is not significantly hurt, but it's not worth taking the chance in cases where it really is serious.  I sure wouldn't want to be the ref responsible for being late on the whistle!

if they get hit in the head they are going to get sent to the quiet room,

so there is no real difference

 

that example can go both ways

what if the opposite happens and  a Canuck takes a shot to the shoulder and the whistle blows a second before their teammate scores

and Connor McD scores the series winning goal on the next shift?

 

I do not make these type of suggestions to give the Canucks or their opponent an advantage. At the end of the day, no one cares about the whistle, Bearcat Murray was famous for jumping over the boards while the play was still in progress. See Gurn's example below, I'd be willing to bet that Clint's trainer was over the boards before the whistle blew.

Again, I am not talking about grievous injury, I am talking about non-injury

 

 

6 hours ago, gurn said:

Clint Malarchuk would be dead if the refs and first aiders waited for him to yell, or not.

it is already illegal to play while bleeding, or even with blood on your jersey

so the ref can and will blow the whistle when blood is present

blood trumps any players desire to continue playing

No one, not even me wants to see Clint Malarchuk die on the ice

but I am talking about non-injuries while you are countering with the most grievous injuries ever.

 

you stated the Schmidt was hurt, but he did not miss a shift and finished the game with the 4th highest TOI 

Edler and Tanev have been more damaged with broken feet that did not cause a whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, lmm said:

if they get hit in the head they are going to get sent to the quiet room,

so there is no real difference

 

that example can go both ways

what if the opposite happens and  a Canuck takes a shot to the shoulder and the whistle blows a second before their teammate scores

and Connor McD scores the series winning goal on the next shift?

 

I do not make these type of suggestions to give the Canucks or their opponent an advantage. At the end of the day, no one cares about the whistle, Bearcat Murray was famous for jumping over the boards while the play was still in progress. See Gurn's example below, I'd be willing to bet that Clint's trainer was over the boards before the whistle blew.

Again, I am not talking about grievous injury, I am talking about non-injury

 

 

it is already illegal to play while bleeding, or even with blood on your jersey

so the ref can and will blow the whistle when blood is present

blood trumps any players desire to continue playing

No one, not even me wants to see Clint Malarchuk die on the ice

but I am talking about non-injuries while you are countering with the most grievous injuries ever.

 

you stated the Schmidt was hurt, but he did not miss a shift and finished the game with the 4th highest TOI 

Edler and Tanev have been more damaged with broken feet that did not cause a whistle

But you don't always "know" how bloody it is when it is happening.  We all know refs can't see everything. Which is why they make mistakes, blowing play dead early or missing easy penalties and such.

 

There's too many unknowns involved for the nit-picky rule you propose.  as annoying as it is to have play stopped when it shouldn't, erring on the side of caution isn't a bad thing. 

 

Edit: the Canuck example was just that, an example.  I know it goes the other way too, but I just wanted to point out how a player could be unjustly sent off under your plan, when they were needed on the ice.

 

Edited by Kragar
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

But you don't always "know" how bloody it is when it is happening.  We all know refs can't see everything. Which is why they make mistakes, blowing play dead early or missing easy penalties and such.

 

There's too many unknowns involved for the nit-picky rule you propose.  as annoying as it is to have play stopped when it shouldn't, erring on the side of caution isn't a bad thing. 

 

Edit: the Canuck example was just that, an example.  I know it goes the other way too, but I just wanted to point out how a player could be unjustly sent off under your plan, when they were needed on the ice.

 

those are fair points

I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

The NHL is a funny league where blood is concerned

what with players checking their mouth cuz maybe there is a speck of blood...

 

but how many times have we seen player struggle to the bench with a clearly broken bone?

 

Anyway I am not a fan of the concept of "erring on the side of caution" as it is still accepting error

 

I have to say I was a fan of the diving penalty, too bad it is never called

Nurse could have had one yesterday

 

maybe we let this rest until after the weekend and i'll do some research

feel free to join me

I'll count how many stoppages happen ( not all stoppagers, only the ones that meet this criteria) and maybe rank them on a scale of 1-5

1 being not necessary and 5 being requires an ambulance

I'll edit the OP and see what becomes

 

I only watch Canuck games so feel free to suggest incidents from other games. send me a link or a video 

Edited by lmm
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lmm said:

those are fair points

I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

The NHL is a funny league where blood is concerned

what with players checking their mouth cuz maybe there is a speck of blood...

 

but how many times have we seen player struggle to the bench with a clearly broken bone?

 

Anyway I am not a fan of the concept of "erring on the side of caution" as it is still accepting error

 

I have to say I was a fan of the diving penalty, too bad it is never called

Nurse could have had one yesterday

 

maybe we let this rest until after the weekend and i'll do some research

feel free to jion me

I'll count how many stoppages happen ( not all stoppagers, only the ones that meet this criteria) and maybe rank them on a scale of 1-5

1 being not necessary and 5 being requires and ambulance

I'll edit the OP and see what becomes

 

I only watch Canuck games so feel free to suggest incidents from other games. send me a link or a video 

I can't promise to keep track... I get too invested in the game as well as trying to watch it fast (I almost always dvr), so there is more time for the family (or getting to bed at a decent time, in some cases).  But l'll try.

 

Diving penalties were a good idea, but we all know they weren't consistent, either when deserved or not.

 

Basically, I figure we just have to deal with human error at times... s#÷& happens.  It's better than it used to be with video review.  a part of me is still bitter about Joel Otto.

 

I understand your frustration.  I guess you just must be more J (myers-briggs) than I am :)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I can't promise to keep track... I get too invested in the game as well as trying to watch it fast (I almost always dvr), so there is more time for the family (or getting to bed at a decent time, in some cases).  But l'll try.

 

Diving penalties were a good idea, but we all know they weren't consistent, either when deserved or not.

 

Basically, I figure we just have to deal with human error at times... s#÷& happens.  It's better than it used to be with video review.  a part of me is still bitter about Joel Otto.

 

I understand your frustration.  I guess you just must be more J (myers-briggs) than I am :)

I dvr too, but mostly to skip ads and intermission

I edited the OP and added a score card

will likely be a low number poll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me this is a dangerous way to deal with the situation, plus when money, bonus, jobs are on the line say it’s game 7 of the Stanley cup final, in OT and you get hit by the puck and it bounces to a opposition forward clean for a breakaway are you really really going to shout No? 
 

It will get abused, and how long do they have to shout out? If you get winded you may not get a chance to shout No even if you are fine, the play stops But you are fine at that point.

 

does that mean that player now has to sit out for a period because the got winded? 

what if the ref didn’t hear them and blows the whistle do they still have to sit? Or will the players just say I shouted No but you mustn’t have heard me over the crowd? At which point the only impact the rule has is to allow the players a chance to stop an opposition play by gaming the situation. 
 

player safety should be assume the worst and hopefully it’s not as serious rather than leaving it up to the players

 

Edited by UKNuck96
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, I respectfully disagree, if the puck hit the throat or the head area, the play is dead automatically.  It is like a football hitting a goalpost for a field goal, the play is dead automatically  .   It is for a safety precaution in case of an emergency.  If the puck hit chest or lower, the play goes on regardless if he is injured or not as it's not often a life-threaten but any head injury could be a life threatening injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...