STL fan in IA wrote:

siebe41 wrote:

STL fan in IA wrote: Regarding goalies being fair game to be hit outside of the crease, that's never ever going to happen. Goalie equipment is designed to stop pucks, not take hits. Goalies would be massacred if all f a sudden they would be fair game to be hit. The Lucic cheap shot on Ryan Miller a few years ago would happen 2-3 times a game and teams would go through 4-5 goalies a year with all of the injuries. That's never going to happen.

Exactly, so maybe goalies will stop impeding the progress of forwards because they know they can't be hit. Once they know a guy is going to level them maybe they get out of the way, which will open up more ice for forwards and create more scoring chances. I just can't stand the fact that forwards have to dance around them when they are obviously just getting i the way.

Again, goalie equipment isn't designed to take hits. Also, with all of that bulky equipment on, they couldn't move nearly as quickly to avoid hits. They'd be sitting ducks. As soon as a goalie took a step outside of the crease, opposing players would be looking to nail him as soon as the puck came near him. It's never going to happen.

I also don't like how goalies can purposely get in the way but allowing them to be hit isn't the solution IMO. I personally don't see it as a big problem but if they really want to deal with the issue, then make a rule to where goalies will be called for interference for overly blatant attempts to block out opposing players...pretty much how overly blatant diving is called. It would be a subjective call at the hads of the refs.

No thanks. There is already too much subjectivity, IMO. Honestly, the trapezoid rule has reduced the goalie interference crap enough for me. I don't think it is too big of a deal to require a rule change or add.

I am conflicted. In principle, the OT gimmicks -- 3-on-3, shootout, etc. -- are appalling. On paper, I hate them for the same reason everyone else does. Yet, penalty shots and 3-on-3 hockey are very exciting. You can't deny the energy in the building during shootouts. Honestly, how many people who say they hate shootouts turn off their TVs when they occur? The outcome of a game absolutely should not be determined by one or two players' ability beat a goalie one-on-one, but the world-class talent on display in shootouts, and 3-3, is pretty cool.

I hate to say it, but I say keep the shootouts, make OT 5 minutes of 4-on-4 and 5 minutes of 3-on-3 (with the switchover happening at the first whistle after the 5:00 mark), and put 3 points up for grabs in every game.

The illegitimacy of the shootout is diminished by the 3-point regulation win and the fact that more than half the teams in the NHL qualify for the playoffs. Plus, the so-called gimmicks are gone for postseason hockey, when the "real" season begins.

I could live with that.

STL fan in IA wrote:

siebe41 wrote:

STL fan in IA wrote: Regarding goalies being fair game to be hit outside of the crease, that's never ever going to happen. Goalie equipment is designed to stop pucks, not take hits. Goalies would be massacred if all f a sudden they would be fair game to be hit. The Lucic cheap shot on Ryan Miller a few years ago would happen 2-3 times a game and teams would go through 4-5 goalies a year with all of the injuries. That's never going to happen.

Exactly, so maybe goalies will stop impeding the progress of forwards because they know they can't be hit. Once they know a guy is going to level them maybe they get out of the way, which will open up more ice for forwards and create more scoring chances. I just can't stand the fact that forwards have to dance around them when they are obviously just getting i the way.

Again, goalie equipment isn't designed to take hits. Also, with all of that bulky equipment on, they couldn't move nearly as quickly to avoid hits. They'd be sitting ducks. As soon as a goalie took a step outside of the crease, opposing players would be looking to nail him as soon as the puck came near him. It's never going to happen.

I also don't like how goalies can purposely get in the way but allowing them to be hit isn't the solution IMO. I personally don't see it as a big problem but if they really want to deal with the issue, then make a rule to where goalies will be called for interference for overly blatant attempts to block out opposing players...pretty much how overly blatant diving is called. It would be a subjective call at the hads of the refs.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't want anything else in the hands of the refs. They screw enough up as is.
If they don't want to get hit, they won't play the puck, simple as that. I don't think it will happen, but if it did it would certainly make the game more interesting for me at least.

I also am for letting the goalies hack and wack when someone gets in their crease.

Not trying to de-rail this thread, but I don't think it warrants a separate thread. I think one of the biggest changes the GMs could incorporate to improve the excitement level in the game is to eliminate the icing "privilege" for the short-handed team. Since I was a young 'un learning the rules of the game, it has never sat well with me that a team whose player has committed a penalty gets rewarded with the ability to ice the puck while their player is serving their penalty. You would presumably see more PP scoring and, to an extent, you might see fewer games going to OT as a result in the increase in scoring. With the current relative league parity, I also wouldn't mind seeing players required to stay in the box the entire 2:00 of their penalty like they used to do before those damn Canadiens (not Canadians, Robb) ruined it for us. Maybe even a compromise where the PP ends with a goal, but the player who was penalized has to stay in for the full 2:00 and can return to play at the next whistle thereafter.

MissouriMook wrote:Not trying to de-rail this thread, but I don't think it warrants a separate thread. I think one of the biggest changes the GMs could incorporate to improve the excitement level in the game is to eliminate the icing "privilege" for the short-handed team. Since I was a young 'un learning the rules of the game, it has never sat well with me that a team whose player has committed a penalty gets rewarded with the ability to ice the puck while their player is serving their penalty. You would presumably see more PP scoring and, to an extent, you might see fewer games going to OT as a result in the increase in scoring. With the current relative league parity, I also wouldn't mind seeing players required to stay in the box the entire 2:00 of their penalty like they used to do before those damn Canadiens (not Canadians, Robb) ruined it for us. Maybe even a compromise where the PP ends with a goal, but the player who was penalized has to stay in for the full 2:00 and can return to play at the next whistle thereafter.

You're in good stead.

Martin Brodeur said the same thing.

Battra wrote:

MissouriMook wrote:Not trying to de-rail this thread, but I don't think it warrants a separate thread. I think one of the biggest changes the GMs could incorporate to improve the excitement level in the game is to eliminate the icing "privilege" for the short-handed team. Since I was a young 'un learning the rules of the game, it has never sat well with me that a team whose player has committed a penalty gets rewarded with the ability to ice the puck while their player is serving their penalty. You would presumably see more PP scoring and, to an extent, you might see fewer games going to OT as a result in the increase in scoring. With the current relative league parity, I also wouldn't mind seeing players required to stay in the box the entire 2:00 of their penalty like they used to do before those damn Canadiens (not Canadians, Robb) ruined it for us. Maybe even a compromise where the PP ends with a goal, but the player who was penalized has to stay in for the full 2:00 and can return to play at the next whistle thereafter.

You're in good stead.

Martin Brodeur said the same thing.

That's interesting. I never heard about that, but I'll take it as a compliment. Happy Monday to me!

He said it years and years ago though.

I've head many people say that...why give the penalized team a break?

STL fan in IA wrote:

siebe41 wrote:

STL fan in IA wrote: Regarding goalies being fair game to be hit outside of the crease, that's never ever going to happen. Goalie equipment is designed to stop pucks, not take hits. Goalies would be massacred if all f a sudden they would be fair game to be hit. The Lucic cheap shot on Ryan Miller a few years ago would happen 2-3 times a game and teams would go through 4-5 goalies a year with all of the injuries. That's never going to happen.

Exactly, so maybe goalies will stop impeding the progress of forwards because they know they can't be hit. Once they know a guy is going to level them maybe they get out of the way, which will open up more ice for forwards and create more scoring chances. I just can't stand the fact that forwards have to dance around them when they are obviously just getting i the way.

Again, goalie equipment isn't designed to take hits. Also, with all of that bulky equipment on, they couldn't move nearly as quickly to avoid hits. They'd be sitting ducks. As soon as a goalie took a step outside of the crease, opposing players would be looking to nail him as soon as the puck came near him. It's never going to happen.

I also don't like how goalies can purposely get in the way but allowing them to be hit isn't the solution IMO. I personally don't see it as a big problem but if they really want to deal with the issue, then make a rule to where goalies will be called for interference for overly blatant attempts to block out opposing players...pretty much how overly blatant diving is called. It would be a subjective call at the hads of the refs.

I agree that I don't think the issue of goalies playing the puck is a big enough issue to warrant adding a rule which would create a potential penalty at the discretion of the refs, thus why I would just leave things as they currently are regarding goalies playing the puck outside of the crease.

John Shannon on twitter just a minute ago:

John Shannon ‏@JSportsnet 6m6 minutes ago
Is it really possible that the NHL goes right to 3 on 3 in OT? Was discussed today...

MissouriMook wrote:Not trying to de-rail this thread, but I don't think it warrants a separate thread. I think one of the biggest changes the GMs could incorporate to improve the excitement level in the game is to eliminate the icing "privilege" for the short-handed team. Since I was a young 'un learning the rules of the game, it has never sat well with me that a team whose player has committed a penalty gets rewarded with the ability to ice the puck while their player is serving their penalty. You would presumably see more PP scoring and, to an extent, you might see fewer games going to OT as a result in the increase in scoring. With the current relative league parity, I also wouldn't mind seeing players required to stay in the box the entire 2:00 of their penalty like they used to do before those damn Canadiens (not Canadians, Robb) ruined it for us. Maybe even a compromise where the PP ends with a goal, but the player who was penalized has to stay in for the full 2:00 and can return to play at the next whistle thereafter.

I've always thought this as well. And it became fresh in my mind as my wife and I were watching the game Sat night. While the Blues were on the PK and shot the puck down the ice, she asked why icing wasn't called. As I was explaining in to her, all I could think of is that it made no sense. She also agreed it was pretty stupid and would lead to more offense if icing was still called while short handed.

My only concern would be that I wouldn't want the NHL to become a PP league in that most of the goals are scored on the PP and 5 on 5 play is mostly used to try to garner man advantages instead of scoring if the advantage of having an extra guy would increase because of icing still being a factor while short handed. This is why I'd like to see it experimented with in the AHL before they even think of doing it in the NHL. I personally don't think it would add THAT much of an advantage but I'd like to test it to make sure first.

Robb_K wrote:Hockey is a TEAM GAME! Go back to ties in regular season games - No OT, No Shootout! 3 on 3 is ridiculous!

If we absolutely must have OT, Still no shootout, make 10-minute OT, 5 on 5, and if not decided after 10 minutes, it ends in a tie. Regulation winner gets 3 points, OT winner 2, OT loser 1 point.

Anything that moves the game closer to soccer is unacceptable.

NO TIES

I'd rather flip a coin at center ice after four 5 on 5 OTs with no scoring than a freaking tie.

STL fan in IA wrote:

MissouriMook wrote:Not trying to de-rail this thread, but I don't think it warrants a separate thread. I think one of the biggest changes the GMs could incorporate to improve the excitement level in the game is to eliminate the icing "privilege" for the short-handed team. Since I was a young 'un learning the rules of the game, it has never sat well with me that a team whose player has committed a penalty gets rewarded with the ability to ice the puck while their player is serving their penalty. You would presumably see more PP scoring and, to an extent, you might see fewer games going to OT as a result in the increase in scoring. With the current relative league parity, I also wouldn't mind seeing players required to stay in the box the entire 2:00 of their penalty like they used to do before those damn Canadiens (not Canadians, Robb) ruined it for us. Maybe even a compromise where the PP ends with a goal, but the player who was penalized has to stay in for the full 2:00 and can return to play at the next whistle thereafter.

I've always thought this as well. And it became fresh in my mind as my wife and I were watching the game Sat night. While the Blues were on the PK and shot the puck down the ice, she asked why icing wasn't called. As I was explaining in to her, all I could think of is that it made no sense. She also agreed it was pretty stupid and would lead to more offense if icing was still called while short handed.

My only concern would be that I wouldn't want the NHL to become a PP league in that most of the goals are scored on the PP and 5 on 5 play is mostly used to try to garner man advantages instead of scoring if the advantage of having an extra guy would increase because of icing still being a factor while short handed. This is why I'd like to see it experimented with in the AHL before they even think of doing it in the NHL. I personally don't think it would add THAT much of an advantage but I'd like to test it to make sure first.

If I may pile on to the icing portion of this thread, what I don't like is that if you ice the puck, you can't change players....UNLESS you have pulled your goalie. If you have pulled your goalie, you are allowed to put him back in. WHY? I think if you ice the puck and have pulled your goalie then you better hope your top face off man is on the ice. Either you can or you can't make substitutions when you ice the puck. Enough with every rule having some sort of exception.

And, I have no problem eliminating the free icing rule for penalized teams.

5 on 5 for a ten minute, sudden death, overtime. Winner gets three points, loser gets zero, ties earn one point each. Have the far change for OT, no TV timeouts, like the playoffs. Incentive to win, not tie or go to some gimmick will make for more wins and few ties.