| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| semin-rules |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 20:14:42
As you guys know, the RDO camp is on right now for trying to see any changes that can be made to better the game.
My question is, which rule would you like to see changed or enforced, and how do you think it would better the game? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 08/19/2011 : 14:13:46
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4312
a problem with the clear top to the net is a goalie can still strategically place a water bottle along the birds eye view of the goal line. so how will they compensate this? do they make it a rule no water bottles on that particular clear part? do they further enforce penalties to goaltenders placing water bottles in this forbidden zone? just a couple issues i have with the idea because ultimately there are ways around it for a goalie
I'm pretty sure the water bottle issue would be very easy to deal with. They could make them attach it to a holder at the back crossbar, or not let them have one at all for that matter. Sure don't recall seeing goalies have water bottles "back in the day"? |
| Guest4312 |
Posted - 08/19/2011 : 10:26:09
a problem with the clear top to the net is a goalie can still strategically place a water bottle along the birds eye view of the goal line. so how will they compensate this? do they make it a rule no water bottles on that particular clear part? do they further enforce penalties to goaltenders placing water bottles in this forbidden zone? just a couple issues i have with the idea because ultimately there are ways around it for a goalie |
| semin-rules |
Posted - 08/19/2011 : 10:19:03
Another thing that is looking to be changed is to have a clear plastic board on top of the net about 4 inches wide instead of having the mesh there, so that the overhead camera would have a clear view of where the puck is instead of having to look through the mesh, and also they are installing faster, HD cameras to improve the quality. I think those are both a big change tat would really help. It doesn't harm anybody and makes the judgement calls a little easier. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/19/2011 : 06:59:53
The one thing I would like to see it the removal of one ref from the ice surface and put them in a position at or near the TV cameras. All of us can see every single missed call for our own teams when we are sitting in our homes or at our favorite local watering holes so a ref in that position should be able to do the same, right???
Frankly, the only thing I think that has merit right now is the icing rules. Something to increase the safety of the players.
Other than that, the NHL rule book is pretty detailed and sound. The problem is how quickly some rules become subjective and eventually not called at all. I think the NHL would be doing all of us a favour if they stopped spending so much time on inventing new rules and spent more time to ensure the refs were calling the games by ALL the rules that are already established. |
| TheRC |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 15:30:07
The green line is something this might help, and certainly won't hurt. I see no reason not to give it a try. The video review process is helpful, but can at times be painfully slow. Breaks we find annoying as fans must be terrible for the players, who break their physical rhythm. Anything that can be done to improve and speed up the goal review process is worth considering.
I would like to see a rule stating that if the initial call cannot be conclusively overturned by video review within, say, 30 seconds, the original call made by the referee stands. I can see how some might object to that, but let's be honest, video review will never be perfect. With the cameras they have now, if a goal isn't obvious right away, it's close enough to just say "screw it, no goal, back to the game."
"If at first you don't succeed, you fail" |
| just1n |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 14:25:34
I'd rather have a goal called by something you can see, regardless if it's clear or not. If you're relying on some sort of electronic device or magnet or whatever - the potential for it to be faulty or accusations of it being rigged will never go away. |
| Guest3177 |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 12:31:38
no-touch icing really sucks so I'm not sure how hybrid icing will do, I'm not a fan |
| Guest4312 |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 12:09:24
because as stated above the green line is essentially the exact same as the white space just in a slightly (3 inches away) different position that may result in a couple goals a year having an easier time to decide.... they need a fool-proof method that works 100% of the time and the green line surely is not the answer |
| Guest4312 |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 12:07:53
what about something like a very small metal ring around the outside of the puck and metal detectors on the edge of the goal line... if the entire ring is detected it could quickly be deduced as a good goal |
| just1n |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 11:50:44
Whoops, didn't see this topic and I just did a whole post on the green-line thing!
I'd like the see the green line thing in action, but I think another point of reference would help. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 10:24:55
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4086
i'm really not getting this green line in the net idea. so now instead of checking to see if there is white ice between the puck and the goal line, they'll be checking to see if the puck is touching the green line?
correct me if i'm wrong, isn't that the same concept? by definition alone if the puck touch's this new green line, then it also means there will be white ice between the puck and the goal line. i don't see how this changes the game at all.
i like the no touch icing rule. keeps valuable seconds on the clock and also protects the players.
I'm guess here - and I could be totally wrong - it's to give further reference to where the puck is and if it's a goal for those times when the puck is almost totally obscured . . . usually with the goalie equipment or another player.
I do hate seeing what is obviously a goal not called a goal because we can't see the whole puck . . . this way, even if not seeing the back end of the puck on the red line part, at least we'd have another frame of reference, the green line. I mean, with both lines, for it to be not seen clearly as a goal means that it is well covered, and we really couldn't tell anyways.
So, I definitely do see merit in this one.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest4086 |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 10:11:23
i'm really not getting this green line in the net idea. so now instead of checking to see if there is white ice between the puck and the goal line, they'll be checking to see if the puck is touching the green line?
correct me if i'm wrong, isn't that the same concept? by definition alone if the puck touch's this new green line, then it also means there will be white ice between the puck and the goal line. i don't see how this changes the game at all.
i like the no touch icing rule. keeps valuable seconds on the clock and also protects the players. |
| Oilearl |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 07:27:32
I like the hybrid icing rule for safety reasons, it doesn't change the game too much which is a good thing. I think the game is fine as is. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 05:32:50
I really like that Gary Bettman pinata rule, I'd vote for that 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| MrBoogedy |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 21:01:55
There should be an eye in the sky. With technology being what it is, the ref should be on the ice to drop the puck and maybe break up fights.... nah, let em battle to the death... anyway, there should be enough cameras at every possible angle with a group of refs huddled around monitors with no missed calls. All penalties get called. Black and white. No shades of grey. That would eliminate all the talk of referrees deciding games. Some may same being on the ice gives them a perspective that can't but i think if you have every angle covered it eliminates that.
And every game should start after a kid is chosen from the audiance to break a Gary Bettman pinata at center ice.
That should do it. |
