Not if they stay on their feet. What value is there of having 5 defenders pack their bodies into the crease to stop a goal scoring situation? The rule would have to have exceptions like leaving your feet to make a play with your stick.
If they're trying to make a change it'd have to be that you must have both blades on the ice because going down to one knee is probably the way most shots are blocked anymore.
It would be a shit show, the only way I see (let me take my son cherry voice) is to make the players more vulnerable by reducing the protection they can get with their gear....but that would never fly and it should not.
The one rule that I will never understand is the one that allows a player in the defensive zone to pass the puck with his hand. Why ?
Allow all goals unless they are thrown in. No more kicking motion reviews, it all counts. There I just slightly increased scoring and made it simpler.
Not sure if you are serious but it’s not that bad of an idea. But the point is not so much to increase scoring but mostly to highlight the skill and speed of the game. I know it’s not popular but I just hate to see teams collapse when they get in their own zone and everybody becomes a goalie. But it I still my only complaint and it wasn’t really like that this year, the playoffs were awesome.
I think that would be a big improvement. It would force goalies to move around more instead of just doing the butterfly, it would be more difficult for skaters to block shot lanes and it would make penalties tougher to kill off. I don’t see any downside...except that it would take away a few seats in the building. So it won’t happen
The rule is to prevent a whistle by having a defensive zone player glove pass the puck to his teammate, who touches it, and gets a whistle. It keeps play and offensive chances going. If the puck is received in the neutral zone, it earns a whistle, with face off in the defensive zone.
Yeah, this would easily be my preferred idea. International hockey is fucking awesome because of the wider ice.
Wider ice surfaces don't help scoring because the extra ice is just further away from the scoring areas. https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/big-ice-a-big-failure-when-it-comes-to-creating-offense But, by far, the biggest culprit in dragging the tournament down was the international-sized ice surface. After watching Sochi 2014, it would be impossible for anyone to continue to perpetuate the myth that a larger ice surface would create more offense. The Canadian team, which allowed three goals in the tournament and outchanced its opponents badly, proved beyond any doubt that the extra 3,000 square feet afforded by the big ice is largely wasted space. “People make a big deal of the big ice,” said Canadian defenseman Jay Bouwmeester. “They think it’s going to be a more offensive game and it’s kind of the opposite because all the extra room is on the outside of the rink.” Duncan Keith remarked after Canada won the gold medal that much of the reason for its defensive success was that any time they were in trouble, they were able to put the puck into an area of the ice where it was a safe distance from the net. And only when Canada learned to adapt by basically playing within the faceoff dots did it really begin to excel in the tournament. In fact, at one point in the tournament, Corey Perry talked about “shrinking the ice…more like an NHL-size rink.”
I agree with this too but that’s not what enjj is talking about, just a little wider but not like international ice.
But its going to do the same thing just on a smaller scale. I wonder if making the neutral zone longer would help. So many teams just clog up that area now so maybe giving teams more room to operate would increase offense.
How does that affect o-zone play? less area to work with. Maybe instead of making the ice wider, make it longer
Well I think for one it would make it harder for defensemen to get back and retrieve the puck before the forecheckers get there but once in the zone it would condense things which I guess goes back to the problem of 5 guys playing goalie every time the puck is in the zone. On the positive defensemen would be closer to the goal so point shots would presumably be more dangerous.
200/85 is just a tad too small. Zero chance 200/100 like the Euro ice would either fly or add to the entertainment value or scoring. Obviously it will slow the game down. But there are a few hybrid rinks in Finland and Sweden that are 200/89 or 90. Just add a foot or two to both sides. Shouldn’t make a huge impact on the game but would add a bit more space. I’d like to see them try it in the A for a year or two.
radical idea. get rid of the blue line. Roller hockey doesn't have it and it doesn't negatively impact the game at all. It opens up the game a bunch because you don't have to worry about timing your zone entry any more.
An idea that was floated a few years back was making the bluelines wider. Gives the attacking zone a tad more space and doesn’t affect the neutral zone as entry into the attacking end would remain the same as it is now.
It's a fair deal for now, but he's still improving, so it could turn into a good one. Still don't trust him defensively, even if he took a step forward last year.
You’re gonna need something more than a small sample size of a couple Olympics and a few anecdotes from the winning team to sway the perception
Slovak Olympic coach Craig Ramsay recalls playing for the Buffalo Sabres against the New York Rangers on the big sheet in Lake Placid, N.Y., and the quality of play and offence did not match everyone’s expectations. “It was a hard game because people would be more than willing to beat you (wide) but now they’re 50 feet from the net instead of 40 and there’s a big difference,” Ramsay said. “The (defencemen) are smart and can push you a little bit wider (and) your angles are not nearly as good and the goaltender now can cut down that angle and it’s not as easy to score as people think.” ...... Canada scored just six goals in its three medal-round games in winning gold in Sochi in 2014, one of four Olympics featuring NHL players on international ice. Canada also won in 2002 on big ice and in 2010 when the International Ice Hockey Federation allowed for NHL-sized rinks to use the ones already in place in Vancouver. In Sochi, Canada coach Mike Babcock employed Ralph Krueger as his big-ice consultant, and it paid off with North American NHL players tailoring their game to the style of play. ”You kind of just have to shrink the ice down a little bit,” said Jamie Benn, who won gold with Canada in Sochi. ”We were changing little things on the ice to try and get an advantage with the big ice. You definitely have more time and more space, but in the end it’ll always come back to the middle of the ice.” "Several European-born NHL players said there is less hitting, more trapping and the overall pace is slower on the bigger ice." ........ https://nhl.nbcsports.com/2018/01/31/bigger-ice-makes-a-big-difference-at-the-olympics/ All wider ice does is make it harder for attacking teams to keep the puck in. On defense everyone just defends the same area they do now. Wider ice doesn't change where the danger areas are. I haven't seen anything to suggest that wider ice makes for more scoring or scoring chances.
All the bigger ice leads to is more play along the walls and teams sitting back in the trap. Doesn’t lead to more scoring imo
This stupid line has been used for so many players it’s almost a fucking disgrace to still use it, Andrew Shaw, Matt Cooke, Milan Lucic....on and on