from Amazon
Friday, August 20, 2010
“If you’re not tinkering and you’re not thinking, you’re going to end up stalling”
The NHL is ahead of its brothers here, as they not only test rules with NHL-quality players, but the GMs and media are in attendance giving the project huge scope.
Anyway, one item which seems to be a sure-fire change is:
Chief among them is a hybrid icing rule that is designed to reduce dangerous collisions resulting from a race for the puck. The proposed change gives linesmen the ability to make a ruling on whether a play will be called icing based on which player reaches the faceoff dot first—rather than who is first to touch the puck.
“Anything we can do with icing to protect our players we should do,” Ottawa Senators GM Bryan Murray said Wednesday. “If the linesman can make the call earlier, then obviously it will benefit the good players in our league.”
Organizers were so interested in the rule that it became a last-minute addition to the afternoon session because they felt they didn’t see enough of it in the morning. NHL vice-president Brendan Shanahan, who organized the research and development camp, acknowledged that the proposed change was “gaining a lot of interest and traction.”
Really, whenever you have a collision possibility of a head-to-head matchup, but where one player is mostly interested in getting to the puck and the other is mostly interested in hitting the player, you’ve got a problem. The true intent is to have both players race for the puck, and if all the defending player has to do is get to the faceoff circle first, then he doesn’t have to worry about the offensive player. If the offensive player beats him to the circle, then both players are going to go after the puck. It’s a fair fight.
I have a similar problem with catchers in MLB, who, because of the limited equipment, look like they are fair game for being bowled over, but really shouldn’t be. I think that part is completely unnecessary and at the same time highly exciting (as a spectator). The same could be said for when the NHL used to let goalies be target practice, and the NFL didn’t protect the QB.
And then you have such seemingly benign change that has a potential for great effect:
One thing they may discuss down the line is having goalies change ends for overtime—leaving teams a long way from their bench when they’re in their own zone. A number of odd-man rushes were created when the change was made during the afternoon session.
“It really opens the game up,” said Dave King, an assistant coach with the Phoenix Coyotes who is helping out at the camp. “When you have a long change, if you make any mistake with the puck, it’s dire straits. So I think that’s one that the NHL will look at because I think it’s got good potential to open up the overtime.”
One thing we used to do in pickup games is having a “floating blue line”. The way it works is that the blue line to enter to be onside is as usual, but to be offside, the blue line floated back to the center line. In effect, the width of the blue line went from being whatever it is (one foot) to being 30 feet wide. The puck has to completely cross the blue line each way in order for the play to be onside or offside. What the NHL did for testing was double the size of the blue line:
Other changes that drew some positive reviews were the use of blue-lines that are twice as wide—giving defenceman more chance to hold the puck in the offensive zone—and shallower nets that left more room behind the goal.
The faceoff thing we talked about, where there’s alot of jockeying has a downside when you just place the puck down and whistle:
One of the complaints GMs had with the variation on the faceoff is that it seemed to remove some of the battle that comes with taking a draw. “You lose the intensity and the strength,” said Florida Panthers GM Dale Tallon. “There’s got to be more to it than just finesse. Guys are going to cheat on that anyway. “I just like the way it is.”
It’s definitely a good point, and a reason to test these changes in game situations.
And, here here, to NHL coach Ken Hitchcock for the line of the night:
“If you’re not tinkering and you’re not thinking, you’re going to end up stalling,” said Hitchcock. “These are some really creative ideas. I think there’s two, maybe three (changes), that have merit immediately—just small things that really make the game better.”
Here’s another article about what happens when you put an on-ice official off the ice:
One change that generated some buzz was the use of an off-ice referee positioned on an elevated platform beside the boards. The goal was to create more room on the ice and provide a better vantage point to spot infractions.
“It’s like Big Brother watching you,” said veteran coach Ken Hitchcock. “It’s like he can see everything and obviously when you’re up that high the game is slower. So I think the players mentally are more careful.
“A couple guys commented that you’re not going to get away with anything.”
Ontario Hockey League referees Dave Lewis and Scott Ferguson handled the officiating. Ferguson was like the hockey version of a tennis chair umpire.
“I think there’s good and bad to it,” Ferguson said. “It’s good when (Lewis) is down at the net, I can see what’s going on behind him. ... I can watch the changes on the bench, a too many men on the ice situation, I can see that.
“But you don’t feel the game, you don’t feel when the intensity starts to rise and everything. So that was the tough part about it.”
That last part I had never considered. It seems like to a referee, that becomes fairly pivotal in terms of how they call a game.