| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 09:17:33
We've all been bantering back and forth regarding the physical parts of the game at various levels as of late, and I thought it might be time to start a thread designated as 'what should be done' to make the game safer for players, while stil allowing the physical play.
This being, in my humble opinion, THE GREATEST hockey forum in the etherworld, who knows, maybe some change could be put forth! |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 21:34:18
quote:
Originally posted by Gusteroni
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I don't mind the idea of a challenge flag either. But if there is a challenge flag, then they should also follow the suit of football and not have an official challenge except for the final 2 minutes of the game meaning coaches could not challenge in the final 2 minutes. It would be automatic. Other than that, if the coach doesn't throw the flag, there is no replay.
I think the challenge flag should not be on if something is a penalty or not. It should be only on goal changing or penalty shot inducing infractions.
1 challenge per team per game. If the call stands, 2 minute delay of game penalty. If the play is reversed, no penalty and you get your flag back.
But let's make this really interesting. It's not a flag, it's brick. And it must be thrown and strike and official to induce a replay. 
If there were challenge flags the NHL would have to get rid of the intent to blow the whistle rule. You don't see that rule in any sport with a challenge flag as the ref could say "yeah you heard the whistle there but I meant to blow it 5 seconds earlier, so the call on the field/ice stands". For instance when the Leafs scored in overtime (most know they did indeed score) against the Hurricanes and it was called back Wilson could have thrown his challenge flag and when the play was reviewed it would be from the point the whistle was blown which was well after the puck had went in...therefore Leafs win on a good challenge. I do agree that there shouldn't be a challenge on a penalty.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season."
I think challenges in hockey are unnecessary. We have instant replays for a reason. If the refs aren't sure, they go to video and 95% of the time, the right call is made. I find it difficult to compare to the other sports. In football, if a guy steps out of bounds with one half of his outside foot and has taken 3 more strides back in bounds before the ref gets the whistle blown, the play is dead and he is ruled out where he went out. Same with basketball. If an offensive player goes up and over a guy looking to rebound, bumps him off the ball, grabs it and dunks it all in one play, the ref's not quick enough to blow the play dead and rule it no basket / offensive foul. However, even though the whistle comes after the ball is in the net, it's no basket and a foul. In soccer, if a forward were to intentionally swat a ball into the net with his hand from a yard out, it's not gonna count just cuz the ref isn't quick enough on the whistle.....see what i'm getting at?
I like the current rules on replays myself...... |
| Gusteroni |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 09:35:41
The Mark Messier Project has helped design a helmet called the Cascade M11 and it is supposed to protect players from concussions a whole lot more than some of the helmets out there. Now they have never said 'eliminate' concussions as your brain rattling around can't be stopped but it is said to absorb a lot more impact than a standard helmet. My questions is why aren't all players wearing this. I heard Avery wears it, and why not it's a good looking helmet and has a 'tooless' adjustment system with less pressure points. I guess the point is there is equipment out there to help reduce injuries but it's ultimately up to the players to use it or not and it seems they prefer the latter.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season." |
| Gusteroni |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 09:07:51
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I don't mind the idea of a challenge flag either. But if there is a challenge flag, then they should also follow the suit of football and not have an official challenge except for the final 2 minutes of the game meaning coaches could not challenge in the final 2 minutes. It would be automatic. Other than that, if the coach doesn't throw the flag, there is no replay.
I think the challenge flag should not be on if something is a penalty or not. It should be only on goal changing or penalty shot inducing infractions.
1 challenge per team per game. If the call stands, 2 minute delay of game penalty. If the play is reversed, no penalty and you get your flag back.
But let's make this really interesting. It's not a flag, it's brick. And it must be thrown and strike and official to induce a replay.
If there were challenge flags the NHL would have to get rid of the intent to blow the whistle rule. You don't see that rule in any sport with a challenge flag as the ref could say "yeah you heard the whistle there but I meant to blow it 5 seconds earlier, so the call on the field/ice stands". For instance when the Leafs scored in overtime (most know they did indeed score) against the Hurricanes and it was called back Wilson could have thrown his challenge flag and when the play was reviewed it would be from the point the whistle was blown which was well after the puck had went in...therefore Leafs win on a good challenge. I do agree that there shouldn't be a challenge on a penalty.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season." |
| Guest7099 |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 18:51:03
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7014
A great little article from the hockeynews.
http://thehockeynews.com/articles/29422-Justin-Bournes-Blog-When-will-players-speak-out-against-head-shots.html
Another great article from the hockeynews.
http://thehockeynews.com/articles/29561-THNcom-Blog-Respecting-the-game-first.html
What would Jean Beliveau do? That is a great litmus test of respect of the game and the player that unfortunately many players are not using. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 17:43:18
quote:
Originally posted by Tiller33
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
I know we have talked about elbow pads and shoulder pads needing to be looked at for possible change.
So my question would be do we need to go back to wooden sticks only and possibly restrict the curve even more? I dont know if the curve is really an issue but I believe the sticks these players are using could be cause for concerne. I estimate every player's shot is 10% harder with these one piece sticks.
I am going to use baseball as an example seeing as how were comparing other sport's rules. In baseball you can no longer use and alluminam bat once you hit the MLB to protect the players on the field (and keep the ball in the park) but I wonder if you would have a few less broken feet and bones in general if players couldn't couldnt use these one piece sticks.
Couldnt agree more about going back to wood sticks and I've always thought it was hypocritical to limit goalie eqipment while at the same time allowing players technology to mak their shots 10 - 20% harder.
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem
I'm not sure if they ever limited the effectiveness of the goalie pads, it's simply area they cover.
I personally think there is something wrong with a goalie being down in the butterfly and covering MORE than the entire bottom of the net.
The current rules stat the pad can be 4" to 8" above the knee. I am 5'11", and measuring from the middle of my knee cap, that would be 28" long pads, meaning I can cover 56" at ice level. That's only 6 " less than the entire span of the net. Think of Roberto Luongo, at 6'3". Theortically, he gets 4" more per pad than I do, meaning he is covering 2" more than the entire length of the net.
I think the goalie pads should be even shorter, not any less "deep" or reduce their protective capabilities.
I also don't have an issue with the composite sticks. I don't think the contribute too much to more injuries. I just like the wooden sticks because I HATE seeing that point shot turn into a break away the other way because of a shattered stick. I also think that some of the love taps to the sticks wouldn't be penalties because a wooden stick would not break as quickly or have a specific weak point. |
| Sensfan101 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 17:31:53
Easy to remove visors so players don't have to take of their helmets during fights
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 17:24:52
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
I know we have talked about elbow pads and shoulder pads needing to be looked at for possible change.
So my question would be do we need to go back to wooden sticks only and possibly restrict the curve even more? I dont know if the curve is really an issue but I believe the sticks these players are using could be cause for concerne. I estimate every player's shot is 10% harder with these one piece sticks.
I am going to use baseball as an example seeing as how were comparing other sport's rules. In baseball you can no longer use and alluminam bat once you hit the MLB to protect the players on the field (and keep the ball in the park) but I wonder if you would have a few less broken feet and bones in general if players couldn't couldnt use these one piece sticks.
Couldnt agree more about going back to wood sticks and I've always thought it was hypocritical to limit goalie eqipment while at the same time allowing players technology to mak their shots 10 - 20% harder.
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem |
| tbar |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 15:01:01
I know we have talked about elbow pads and shoulder pads needing to be looked at for possible change.
So my question would be do we need to go back to wooden sticks only and possibly restrict the curve even more? I dont know if the curve is really an issue but I believe the sticks these players are using could be cause for concerne. I estimate every player's shot is 10% harder with these one piece sticks.
I am going to use baseball as an example seeing as how were comparing other sport's rules. In baseball you can no longer use and alluminam bat once you hit the MLB to protect the players on the field (and keep the ball in the park) but I wonder if you would have a few less broken feet and bones in general if players couldn't couldnt use these one piece sticks. |
| Guest2956 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 11:12:12
Of course there is going to be some grey area in terms of these hits that injure players...but the ones that are truly obvious "dirty" hits need to be hit with heavy suspensions...I don't mean 2 to 5 game suspensions...I mean you're lucky to even get to play in the league again...but you're sitting for 20 games! You start cutting peoples hands off that steal I guarantee you there'll be less thieves! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/21/2009 : 11:19:22
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
Only Coaches can issue a challenge.
Irvine
That's ridiculous. If you're gonna have a challeng "brick", then you gotta allow us fans to toss it too!
All kidding aside, i like this idea. I also agree with maximizing it to 2 challenges per game and would have no prob if they made it just 1. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/21/2009 : 11:16:25
See, I completely disagree with being able to throw the flag for a penalty. That would just slow the game down. No other league does replay for penalties that I am aware of.
Good and Bad calls for penalties happen, and it's nota foregone conclussion that a goal will be scored on a penalty.
A good team almost always kills off a bad penalty call.
More than anything, 95% of penalty calls are subjective. Some refs would call a penalty, others would not. It would just slow down the game.
I say challenge flag ONLY for impacts of goals or a penalty shot type closed hand in the crease kind of call. |
| irvine |
Posted - 11/20/2009 : 18:33:33
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
1 challenge per team per game. If the call stands, 2 minute delay of game penalty. If the play is reversed, no penalty and you get your flag back.
My self, brother, and a few friends had discussed this last year, almost exact. I am on the agreeing end with you here Beans, and it's like you read my mind.
Coaches will be able to issue a Challenge flag for a replay on infractions that deem crucial to the team. (Example being: Penalty that could cost you the game.)
If the team (coach,) who throws the flag loses the call. (The call is not reversed), the team receives a "Bench minor" delay of game call and lose their one time-out and challenge flag.
If the team (coach,) who throws the flag wins the call (The call is reversed), the team are allowed to keep their one time-out, however they can only challenge once more in that game. (MAX 2 Challenges per team, per game - Only 1 challenge per team, IF they lose the first call.)
This is to help ensure some integrity in using the challenge flag, and to help keep game time delays down.
If a challenge is won, face-offs shall be taken at center ice on the following face off. If the challenge is loss, the face off shall be taken where ever it would have been, had a challenge never took place.
Only Coaches can issue a challenge.
Irvine |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/20/2009 : 14:59:44
I don't mind the idea of a challenge flag either. But if there is a challenge flag, then they should also follow the suit of football and not have an official challenge except for the final 2 minutes of the game meaning coaches could not challenge in the final 2 minutes. It would be automatic. Other than that, if the coach doesn't throw the flag, there is no replay.
I think the challenge flag should not be on if something is a penalty or not. It should be only on goal changing or penalty shot inducing infractions.
1 challenge per team per game. If the call stands, 2 minute delay of game penalty. If the play is reversed, no penalty and you get your flag back.
But let's make this really interesting. It's not a flag, it's brick. And it must be thrown and strike and official to induce a replay. |
| tbar |
Posted - 11/20/2009 : 14:56:06
quote:
Originally posted by Gusteroni
I would like to bring something in that football uses. Seem as we have instant replay and all why not use it to the fullest and give the coaches 'Challenge Flags'. You could do the exact same thing as football and if the challenge is bad you lose your timeout. I would have liked that last night when White was accused for a high stick and it was clear he didn't do it. The player would be the one telling the coach to throw the flag or not if he knew he didn't deserve the penalty. I don't know just a thought I have been pondering for a while.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season."
My understanding is that in the NFL a coach can not challange a Penalty. I personally wouldn't like to see this added to hockey. All it will do is slow down the progress of the game (going up stairs on abvious goals and non goals happens to much allready) and like somebody else stated your team will get theyre breaks allready. If we want to make everything a video replay call it will take alot away from the game for me. |
| Gusteroni |
Posted - 11/20/2009 : 14:33:02
I would like to bring something in that football uses. Seem as we have instant replay and all why not use it to the fullest and give the coaches 'Challenge Flags'. You could do the exact same thing as football and if the challenge is bad you lose your timeout. I would have liked that last night when White was accused for a high stick and it was clear he didn't do it. The player would be the one telling the coach to throw the flag or not if he knew he didn't deserve the penalty. I don't know just a thought I have been pondering for a while.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season." |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 11/20/2009 : 12:45:49
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
quote:
Originally posted by Leafs81
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Now for the less than popular ideas:
For a little added excitement
6) The goalie only receives protection while inside the crease. If he is outside of his create playing the puck, he can be body checked like any other player.
I haven't read all the other post but I wanted to stop on this one. I like most of your other suggestions by the way, especially the icing I was thinking about something like that too.
But about the goalie getting out of the crease, First of all the goalie is fair play outside of his crease. They just don't hit him because their is an unwritten rule about it and if you hit him somebody will jump on you. It's just respect not to hit the goalie.
Second of all how in the hell will this make the game safer?????
Also it is not exciting to see a goalie getting injured, Great goalies are exciting players to the game, People pays to go see Brodeur play, and if he would get injured while going out of his crease to play the puck, you would see a lot of fans upset and a franchise ruined. I mean injuries happen quite often but the NHL can't afford to keep losing their goalies all the time. Goaltenders is such a vital part of the franchise. Also with their equipment they are less mobile so it's just not fair at all to go run them into the boards and twist their knees because the pad gets caught in the board while he's falling down. I believe the goalies should be more protected, in their crease and outside of their crease.
Think about it Beans...
EDIT : I just read about the rule tbar posted. If you interfere with any player on the ice you're penalized. The goalie IS fair play outside of his crease, of course you can't go charge him, trip him, slash him, or interfere with him. You can't do that with any other players on the ice.
If the goalie has the puck and you are hitting him within the rules you wont get penalized, but somebody will jump on you.
You must have read the rule wrong. Here is the whole def. regarding the goaltender position.
43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.
A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
And we have allready agreed upon the factr that hitting the goalie is not fair game.
Ok what you have just written is not what you said earlier. This clears up a bit
This is the Hockey Canada book of rules, so I wonder if they apply the same rules for the NHL.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 11/20/2009 : 12:21:38
Guest 7014: Well said! I heartily agree across the board with your comments.
Problem with Burke is, I mostly like him, except for him being all about the promotion of fighting and goonism. Other than that, I respect him . . . but we see the results of how far that gets you when looking at the Leafs this year. The only area they have improved upon (besides the weird stat about their power play efficiency) this year is penalty minutes, and we have seen so far where all our improved toughness has gotten us.
I swear, if fighting were properly enforced, all this other stuff would fall into place, slowly. It's all about weeding out the "non-skilled" (for the NHL level) players.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| tbar |
Posted - 11/19/2009 : 14:13:56
quote:
Originally posted by Leafs81
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Now for the less than popular ideas:
For a little added excitement
6) The goalie only receives protection while inside the crease. If he is outside of his create playing the puck, he can be body checked like any other player.
I haven't read all the other post but I wanted to stop on this one. I like most of your other suggestions by the way, especially the icing I was thinking about something like that too.
But about the goalie getting out of the crease, First of all the goalie is fair play outside of his crease. They just don't hit him because their is an unwritten rule about it and if you hit him somebody will jump on you. It's just respect not to hit the goalie.
Second of all how in the hell will this make the game safer?????
Also it is not exciting to see a goalie getting injured, Great goalies are exciting players to the game, People pays to go see Brodeur play, and if he would get injured while going out of his crease to play the puck, you would see a lot of fans upset and a franchise ruined. I mean injuries happen quite often but the NHL can't afford to keep losing their goalies all the time. Goaltenders is such a vital part of the franchise. Also with their equipment they are less mobile so it's just not fair at all to go run them into the boards and twist their knees because the pad gets caught in the board while he's falling down. I believe the goalies should be more protected, in their crease and outside of their crease.
Think about it Beans...
EDIT : I just read about the rule tbar posted. If you interfere with any player on the ice you're penalized. The goalie IS fair play outside of his crease, of course you can't go charge him, trip him, slash him, or interfere with him. You can't do that with any other players on the ice.
If the goalie has the puck and you are hitting him within the rules you wont get penalized, but somebody will jump on you.
You must have read the rule wrong. Here is the whole def. regarding the goaltender position.
43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.
A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
And we have allready agreed upon the factr that hitting the goalie is not fair game. |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 11/19/2009 : 12:37:29
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4803
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Beans...Make the goaile fair game outside the crease?? How does this make the game safer? Would I like to see it? Yah it would be awsome watching line brawl after line brawl. Oh yah but you dont like fighting. Also the other good that would come from this is 100 ggoal seasons because surely OV would score an easy 100 on JR. goalies once the NHL goailes are all injured.
well said tbar, beans the man himself that would of liked to see wille mitchell let up some on his hit on toews, who wants to eliminate fighting or at least the goons, now would like to see the goalies be fair game, i wonder how many fights that would start?
Well done guys, good of you to read between the lines and turn this into something I never said.
I never said I wanted more fights
I never said I wanted people to hit goalies so hard they get hurt.
If the goalie doesn't want to get hit, stay in your crease.
It's pretty simply. And that does nothing to make the game 'less safe' it creates a choice for the goalie.
It doesn't need a hard hit to injure somebody,
And a goalie going out of is crease helps the flow of the game. I find way more exciting to see Turco or Brodeur catch the other team on a bad line change and see a breakaway or a 2 on 1 the other way, then to see a goalie get knocked out and seeing a player doing a wraparound into an empty net. |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 11/19/2009 : 12:19:56
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Now for the less than popular ideas:
For a little added excitement
6) The goalie only receives protection while inside the crease. If he is outside of his create playing the puck, he can be body checked like any other player.
I haven't read all the other post but I wanted to stop on this one. I like most of your other suggestions by the way, especially the icing I was thinking about something like that too.
But about the goalie getting out of the crease, First of all the goalie is fair play outside of his crease. They just don't hit him because their is an unwritten rule about it and if you hit him somebody will jump on you. It's just respect not to hit the goalie.
Second of all how in the hell will this make the game safer?????
Also it is not exciting to see a goalie getting injured, Great goalies are exciting players to the game, People pays to go see Brodeur play, and if he would get injured while going out of his crease to play the puck, you would see a lot of fans upset and a franchise ruined. I mean injuries happen quite often but the NHL can't afford to keep losing their goalies all the time. Goaltenders is such a vital part of the franchise. Also with their equipment they are less mobile so it's just not fair at all to go run them into the boards and twist their knees because the pad gets caught in the board while he's falling down. I believe the goalies should be more protected, in their crease and outside of their crease.
Think about it Beans...
EDIT : I just read about the rule tbar posted. If you interfere with any player on the ice you're penalized. The goalie IS fair play outside of his crease, of course you can't go charge him, trip him, slash him, or interfere with him. You can't do that with any other players on the ice.
If the goalie has the puck and you are hitting him within the rules you wont get penalized, but somebody will jump on you.
|
| Guest7014 |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 18:24:51
A great little article from the hockeynews.
http://thehockeynews.com/articles/29422-Justin-Bournes-Blog-When-will-players-speak-out-against-head-shots.html |
| Guest7014 |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 17:44:27
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
“We don’t want an automatic penalty for contact with the head,” Burke said. “An otherwise legal check that includes contact with the head — that’s a penalty in some leagues. We don’t want that. It would take hitting out of the game completely.”
C'mon don't ya think that is stretching it a little Burkie? Automatic suspension for head shots legal or otherwise would remove hitting from the game. Is that how the game is played? Gee if I can't hit the head, I don't know how else to hit. Ridiculous. Of course this came from Burke. This is hockey not sniper school.
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
“It’s about safety,” he said. “In part we view it as the evolution of our sport. Adjustments have to be made, we feel, given the tremendous speed at which players now travel, their strength and overall fitness, the equipment and everything that everyone recognizes has seen our game change over the last number of years.”
It should be about safety. If the NHLPA had any sense of leadership and direction they would push for safer rules. After the recent fiascos, the PA is leaderless and rudderless.
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
But Branch cited concussion studies, safety rules in youth hockey and the N.F.L.’s practice of tightening rules against blows to the head as influences for the Ontario league’s stricter standards.
Yup and the NHL and the PA could care less about concussion studies and tightening their rules. Apparently so does Odin.
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
With the Ontario league’s strict measures in support of player safety well known across Canada and with the increasingly well-documented brain trauma sustained by N.F.L. players, the stand long taken by Burke and other N.H.L. general managers was seen as being increasingly untenable.
'Cause Burke is a heartless bi-a-tch. He doesn't give a damn. The only way he knows how to body check people is to hit others head. Cheap shot artist and goon-ism at its best.
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
On Wednesday, Ray Shero, the general manager for the Pittsburgh Penguins, seemed to stop short of calling for an O.H.L.-style rule change. “I don’t think we’re looking for a big rule change, but maybe we can tweak something,” he said.
....
“I know he had a good day yesterday, and he came to the rink today and he wasn’t great,” Tortorella said. “Head injuries are so tough. Sometimes you feel well, sometimes it comes back and haunts you. It’s tough to take an educated guess on that. I don’t think he had a great day today, so we have to plan to go on without him. We’re going to try to keep him away from the rink.”
Drury was injured Saturday when Curtis Glencross of the Flames hit him in the head with a glancing blow from his shoulder away from the play, when Drury did not have the puck. None of the four officials on the ice penalized Glencross, but the N.H.L. issued him a three-game suspension.
Also on Saturday, Minnesota’s Petr Sykora was given a concussion by a check to the head from Dallas’s Steve Ott ....
Two weeks ago, Chicago’s Andrew Ladd received a game misconduct for hitting Montreal’s Matt D’Agostini in the head with an elbow....
Philadelphia’s Mike Richards was ejected from a game last month but not suspended after blindsiding Florida’s David Booth in the head with his shoulder. Booth is still sidelined and said recently that it was difficult for him to read or to do any task for more than five minutes at a time.
Drury, Sykora, Ladd, Booth. Wonder how these injuries would not have happened if the players were suspended harshly for their actions regardless of "legal" checks or not.
The Booth incident bothers me the most. It was a clean check but Booth can't read for more than 5 minutes. Great.
Isn't that like a person who has been crippled for life by a sober driver knowing that all the driver got was a few demerits point knocked off? The penalties would only become harsh if the driver is drunk or operating a mobile device. Ridiculous. |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 16:07:57
That is why I propose a roughing penalty for even accidental hits to the head. Just like when a stick accidentally goes high a player has to pay the price to clean up hits that are more likely to injure a player.
The no touch icing would need a rule like a 2 stride or greater rule for Referee descretion to work. I know there would be controversy with some plays being, or not being called, but thats better than a broken neck. |
| Odin |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 13:04:17
Here, first on the search engine list from the New York Times:
Now just to be clear, I did this to clarify for you what this debate is actually about, as it says clearly here: blindside and shoulder hits to the head. EXACTLY what I have been saying. It ISN't about direct shots, as those are regulated already.
With a rash of head injuries sidelining a number of N.H.L. players, including the Rangers’ captain, Chris Drury, the league’s general managers, in a change of position, said they would study measures to eliminate blindside hits to the head and shoulder hits to the head.
The general managers convened in Toronto on Tuesday and Wednesday for their fall meetings amid mounting pressure to adopt the Ontario Hockey League’s zero-tolerance measures for hits to the head. Under the rules of the O.H.L., a league for 15- to 20-year-olds that sends more players to the N.H.L. than any other junior, collegiate or European league, any check that results in contact to the head is an automatic minor penalty, with greater penalties for more severe or injurious hits.
As recently as Tuesday morning, Brian Burke, the general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, long the leading voice for hard-liners who seek to preserve what they describe as the physical nature of the N.H.L., reiterated his opposition to adopting the Ontario league’s rule.
“We don’t want an automatic penalty for contact with the head,” Burke said. “An otherwise legal check that includes contact with the head — that’s a penalty in some leagues. We don’t want that. It would take hitting out of the game completely.”
But on Wednesday, Jim Rutherford, the general manager of the Carolina Hurricanes, said, “Based on the conversations and points made today, I sense we have a better chance of a change next year.”
Also on Wednesday, Rangers Coach John Tortorella said in an interview in Greenburgh, N.Y., that Drury would miss the next two games, against Atlanta at Madison Square Garden on Thursday and at Ottawa on Saturday afternoon. Drury received the third concussion of his pro career after taking a hit to the head last weekend at Calgary.
Speaking by telephone from Toronto, David Branch, the commissioner of the Ontario league, explained why his league adopted strict rules against all checks to the head, regardless of circumstance.
“It’s about safety,” he said. “In part we view it as the evolution of our sport. Adjustments have to be made, we feel, given the tremendous speed at which players now travel, their strength and overall fitness, the equipment and everything that everyone recognizes has seen our game change over the last number of years.”
Branch emphasized that the circumstances for his developmental league were different from those for the N.H.L.
“The best league in the world is the National Hockey League,” he said. “The way they play their game is different than any other league — and they’re all paid, professional hockey players. So you have to be careful when you offer an opinion of what might work at our level in terms of what might work at the N.H.L. level.”
But Branch cited concussion studies, safety rules in youth hockey and the N.F.L.’s practice of tightening rules against blows to the head as influences for the Ontario league’s stricter standards.
And, he added, it remains a rugged, physical league that still sends young stars like John Tavares, Steven Stamkos and Evander Kane to the N.H.L., where they thrive amid the heavy body checking.
“I can’t comment on what the results of the head-checking rule might be in any other league, but certainly in our league it has not in any way taken away physicality,” Branch said.
Last week Branch suspended a 20-year-old player for the rest of the regular season and the playoffs after he checked a 16-year-old into the boards from behind, fracturing the younger player’s skull and orbital bone. At first, Canadian hockey commentators called Branch’s penalty unduly harsh, but then a second wave of commentary arose praising Branch for the suspension.
With the Ontario league’s strict measures in support of player safety well known across Canada and with the increasingly well-documented brain trauma sustained by N.F.L. players, the stand long taken by Burke and other N.H.L. general managers was seen as being increasingly untenable.
On Wednesday, Ray Shero, the general manager for the Pittsburgh Penguins, seemed to stop short of calling for an O.H.L.-style rule change. “I don’t think we’re looking for a big rule change, but maybe we can tweak something,” he said.
The general managers will reconvene in March to decide what recommendations they will make to the league’s competition committee.
Meanwhile, Drury appeared briefly at the Rangers’ practice rink in Greenburgh on Wednesday, then went home.
“I know he had a good day yesterday, and he came to the rink today and he wasn’t great,” Tortorella said. “Head injuries are so tough. Sometimes you feel well, sometimes it comes back and haunts you. It’s tough to take an educated guess on that. I don’t think he had a great day today, so we have to plan to go on without him. We’re going to try to keep him away from the rink.”
Drury was injured Saturday when Curtis Glencross of the Flames hit him in the head with a glancing blow from his shoulder away from the play, when Drury did not have the puck. None of the four officials on the ice penalized Glencross, but the N.H.L. issued him a three-game suspension.
Also on Saturday, Minnesota’s Petr Sykora was given a concussion by a check to the head from Dallas’s Steve Ott on a play that did not result in a penalty or a suspension.
Two weeks ago, Chicago’s Andrew Ladd received a game misconduct for hitting Montreal’s Matt D’Agostini in the head with an elbow. Although D’Agostini sustained a concussion, there was no suspension.
Philadelphia’s Mike Richards was ejected from a game last month but not suspended after blindsiding Florida’s David Booth in the head with his shoulder. Booth is still sidelined and said recently that it was difficult for him to read or to do any task for more than five minutes at a time.
Sign in to RecommendMore Articles in Sports » A version of this article appeared in print on November 12, 2009, on page B13 of the New York edition. |
| Odin |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 12:47:23
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Mr. Odin, to rubute your comments and not you personally, I must disagree with your opinion.
A players size does not need to be restricted nor can it be. But can we agree that regardless of the players being bigger, stronger, faster, they still need to control their bodies???
And the analogy of the army is comparable. Players do assume a certain amount of risk when playing hockey no different than a person signing up for the military for any reason. If there is a war, a person could be killed.
When a person signs up to be in the army, they have a risk of getting killed by the enemy. But they do not assume any risk of thier own army turning on them.
A hockey player assumes the inherant risks involved with playing the game. Catching and edge and falling akwardly into the boards is an example of an inherant risk of playing the sport. However, that player does not and should not assume the risk of being seriously injured by an act outside the confines of the game. For example, the Steve Downie hit on Dean McAmmond. It was a body check. However, it was outside the rules and definition of an allowable body check.
To clarify, I was not calling you pathetic. What is pathetic is a player having to assume the risks involved with a tool such as Steve Downie on the ice. That is the piece of the game to clean up, and that all starts with swift and severe punishment of direct head shots.
Injuries will always happen in a high speed contact sport. However, direct shots to the head have zero value to the game and a way to reduce or eliminate them is something I think is important to the future of the game. There is no easy answer, but to give up and not even try to fix it is not acceptable either.
One thing I can completely agree with you on is the pads. Kypreos also said something regarding the pads from the 80's and early 90's. It was someone along the lines of players thinking twice about the strength of their hits when the pads they wear themselves will make it so they have as high of a risk of getting hurt as the player they are hiting.
We have at least found some common ground.
LOL!!!
Beans, the question of restricting player sizes was rhetorical. Didn't you catch that?
And I guess you also missed the part where I said, that for the most part, players are not out there to injure other players.
What is also an inherent risk IS a body check. Whether clean or not is up to the referee, thats what they get paid for.
And you are stretching once again with your "own army turning on them" comment. Thats a little bizarre. There are 30 teams who are opposing sides, who are out to win. Please keep it in context.
And you once again go into "direct shots to the head." Which is not what this debate is about at all. Those are already policed. If you elbow somebody to the head, you are going to the penalty box. Same with highsticking. Same with punching.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 12:18:06
Mr. Odin, to rubute your comments and not you personally, I must disagree with your opinion.
A players size does not need to be restricted nor can it be. But can we agree that regardless of the players being bigger, stronger, faster, they still need to control their bodies???
And the analogy of the army is comparable. Players do assume a certain amount of risk when playing hockey no different than a person signing up for the military for any reason. If there is a war, a person could be killed.
When a person signs up to be in the army, they have a risk of getting killed by the enemy. But they do not assume any risk of thier own army turning on them.
A hockey player assumes the inherant risks involved with playing the game. Catching and edge and falling akwardly into the boards is an example of an inherant risk of playing the sport. However, that player does not and should not assume the risk of being seriously injured by an act outside the confines of the game. For example, the Steve Downie hit on Dean McAmmond. It was a body check. However, it was outside the rules and definition of an allowable body check.
To clarify, I was not calling you pathetic. What is pathetic is a player having to assume the risks involved with a tool such as Steve Downie on the ice. That is the piece of the game to clean up, and that all starts with swift and severe punishment of direct head shots.
Injuries will always happen in a high speed contact sport. However, direct shots to the head have zero value to the game and a way to reduce or eliminate them is something I think is important to the future of the game. There is no easy answer, but to give up and not even try to fix it is not acceptable either.
One thing I can completely agree with you on is the pads. Kypreos also said something regarding the pads from the 80's and early 90's. It was someone along the lines of players thinking twice about the strength of their hits when the pads they wear themselves will make it so they have as high of a risk of getting hurt as the player they are hiting.
We have at least found some common ground. |
| Odin |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 10:47:44
Now Slozo,
about the instigator causing more staged fights, I absolutely disagree.
That didn't happen with any regularity before this rule came in. Staged fights bacame the norm BECAUSE of the instigator. It has kind of become the code among 'enforcers.' That is because if it seems like one is starting, they get picked off for the extra two. If it seems they are both starting at the same time, neither can be fingered.
So if there was no instigator, fighting would be much more spontaneous.
The thing that is driving me nuts right now however, is fights that start after a big clean hit. THAT is something that really need to be addressed.
As far as concussions, I am completely with Don Cherry here. Do NHL players really need NFL type shoulder pads, or elbow pads with no give?
How about the boards? I know they have gone back to the old style in some buildings, but there are still those with the rigid boards that have no give. Those are also a big issue. Plus the old boards sound great! |
| Odin |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 10:37:20
I'll tell you where it went off the rails, it was on this comment right here made Beans:
"Regardless of what players get paid, no player assumes the risk that another player will intentionally injure them. That's pathetic."
"Just because he doesn't agree, don't mean it ain't no good." Suicidal Tendancies.
I don't appreciate my point being completely skewed and then being called pathetic.
This has nothing to do with intent at all and is all about risk. I didn't think think this was such a hard point to grasp. My point is that the players know what they are signing up for. Injury is part of the game. And players are compensated for that in their massive paychecks.
A good example of this is joining the army to get a free education. You know there is a risk that you will be sent to war, but that is the price. You don't assume another country will attack or be attacked, but the risk is there. Same idea with the "intent" comment. Players are not out, for the most part, to intentionally injure somebody else. but injuries do happen because the bottom line is that this is a contact sport. And one of the things that makes this sport great is the intensity. If you then have players thinking about whether they can hit somebody or not because there may be head contact, then that reduces intensity. Plain and simple.
Yes, I made a mistrake on the force equation, but I think the point was made. Players now are bigger and faster, and by default accelerate faster. So they are hitting harder, causing more injuries. What are we going to do? Restrict player size? and anybody who doesn't think that is a factor, well....
Slozo, please stop considering yourself as the judge and jury about what is and what is not hockey points. That makes you seem like you are full of yourself. This whole thread has been about hockey. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 10:32:03
I apologize to anyone I may have offended.
I still hold that my arguement is valid and that a way to improve the game and make it safer is to penalize direct head shots. Size, strength, speed, etc is not the issue. It is when a player strikes another player with any part of their body directly to the head.Why is there a rule about striking your opponent in the head with most every other body part except the shoulder??
And I do want to touch a piece about refing. Sports in North America amd specifically the officiating of the sports have digressed significantly since the inception of instant replay. Sure, some plays are reversed and some wrongs are righted. However, it takes away the refs ability to ref and makes it purely robotic.
There is one sport I can think of today that does not have instant replays. The refs word is final and ultimately there is little controversy in any match. Soccer is still reffed by humans, who make mistakes from time to time but more often than not get the call right. There is only 1 (with 2 assistance calling off sides mostly) of them on a field about 4 times the size of a hockey rink as well.
I like the idea of putting the no touch icing as a call by the refs. It's puts a human aspect back into reffing. So what if a icing is not called dead by the rules once in a while?? So what if the ref makes a call to keep a player safe that might not be viewed as correct.
|
| tbar |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 07:50:31
Alex I don’t think they’re is a rule on the weight of the goalie, but I can’t say for sure and don’t really care to look it up as it's useless info (to me) and a poke from Slozo the high and mighty Mod.
JoshuaCanada your no touch icing at the refs discretion is going to be a tough one for the refs. If your saying you want no touch icing when two players are in a foot race but touch icing when theyre is no pressure then it may as well be no touch all the time as the result is the same.
Also in a tight game the ref decides this one is icing because he felt they’re was danger but on the next play very similar he decides to not call it because he felt the player's were safe all that’s going to come from this is pissed off fans, coache’s. and player’s.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 19:52:37
No touch icing is something that could have it's own thread. But, i do like the thought of leaving it up to the linesman's discretion?
I've mentioned before how i don't like the automatic no touch call as a dump in from before center can be an offensive play (or a puck slapped in from before the redline intentionally wide so as to create a rebound for a streaking winger). This may sound a bit "chicken", but what about the linesman being able to use his discretion on a chase for the puck between two guys, BUT, if he chooses to call it no touch, the face off is at center. |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 18:46:23
I would definately like to see the NHL go to an injury reporting style simlar to the nfl where they have to state the injury and expected duration of time to be missed.
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem |
| Guest7014 |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 18:14:09
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
No touch icing should be at the linesmans call if he feels a player is in danger due to a shoot-in play he should call play dead. Post whistle boarding or roughing, automatic suspension. This is a dangerous playing area.
Open ice checks unfortunately are part of the game. There is already a roughing rule which can be used. If a roughing penalty results in an injury, should be an automatic ejection 1 game suspension. Multiple infractions should result in a league review and increased suspension.
Sounds pretty close to what the first or second guest posted about you injure, you are out for the same duration of opponent's. Though yours is less harsh.
I would add something else though. You dive and you are suspended for 10 games and continuously increasing by 10 for every infraction to remove any soccer incentive.
Team doctors post specific injuries to all personnel as public info instead of this upper body - lower body BS. Remember Slapshot? Guys don't hit me too hard or I'll pee in my pants. That's how specific they gotta get. |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 17:35:35
This topic started good and degenerated into a pissing match between a long term member and 2 moderators. I suggest Slozo, Beans and Odin reread your comments, insert foot into mouth and get back onto topic, or drop it. You dont have to name your victim when your make a personal attack, its still a personal attack.
I think head shots, illegal or legal contact checking should result in a penalty even accidental hits to the head. Expand the roughing rule. Sorry if this makes a guy like Chara or Pronger more vulnerable to the rule, but I actually think guys like Parise, Fleury and Kariya are important to the game and behemoths dont necessarily deserve special treatment.
I don't however think a hit to the head should result in a suspension unless it is malicious. (League decision)
As stated before visor rule should be grandfathered to allow a seamless transition. The pissing and whining from the players wont last that long, if its brought in gradually and young players won't feel like an idiot for being the only player to think about his own well being.
Helmets need to be designed to not come off unless they are removed with effort. Therefore when a player removes his helmet to fight he gets a penalty even if the other player does not fight. Helmets also need to be redesigned like other's have proposed, larger and more protective.
No touch icing should be at the linesmans call if he feels a player is in danger due to a shoot-in play he should call play dead. Post whistle boarding or roughing, automatic suspension. This is a dangerous playing area.
Open ice checks unfortunately are part of the game. There is already a roughing rule which can be used. If a roughing penalty results in an injury, should be an automatic ejection 1 game suspension. Multiple infractions should result in a league review and increased suspension. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 17:18:43
Wow, what a disappointing thread. Apologies to all who waded through it and especially to Fat elvis rocked as I'm sure when he started this thread he certainly wasn't expecting to have to put up with this.
EVERYONE! Enough with the personal barbs. Talk about the topic or it's going to get locked. Would be a shame to lock a great topic...
|
| Guest4803 |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 15:44:43
hahahhaha fair enough, but seriously more hockey less fighting! isnt that what you want to see anyways! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 15:10:34
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
* please note that I think there is a rule on the maximum weight of a goaltender, somewhere around 350 lbs, I defer to Tbar and his NHL rulebook
Well, i'm certainly not getting involved here!
But, Slozo, please tell me, is this true about the size limit for a goalie? I've often wondered why no one's ever found an Andre the Giant to stick in net? I'm interested to know if this is indeed true? Tbar? Paging Tbar? |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 15:08:14
I'm trying to, Guest 4803 . . .
. . . and also: we'd actually listen to you more if you weren't wearing that dress to hide your identity! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest4803 |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 15:03:27
keep it about hockey ladies! |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 14:57:05
Thanks, guest 5382 - I was just about to correct Odin myself. Force does, indeed, equal mass X acceleration.
We cannot, or rather 'should not', enforce the size of the hockey player*, but we can certainly - and DO certainly - have rules against the acceleration. It's called charging . . . it could use an update and a clearer definition, but there it is.
* please note that I think there is a rule on the maximum weight of a goaltender, somewhere around 350 lbs, I defer to Tbar and his NHL rulebook
BTW, had the best laugh ever at being called the lapdog of Beans. Two reasons:
1) Odin used it in the context of me defending Beans too much, when in fact lapdog has an entirely different meaning.
2) I think it's clear to everyone on this site, noting the many times that Beans and I have become embroiled in long, hard-fought arguments, that I am neither his lapdog, nor protector (the word I believe you were looking for).
But then it's easy to use the incorrect word when too emotionally uptight about defending yourself.
Again, asking for an explanation of HOW eliminating the instigator penalty will reduce concussions has remained to be unanswered. You repeating your opinion with no reasoning or substantiation renders your comments to meaningless.
I continue to contend that removing the instigator penalty will do nothing to reduce slew-footing, charging, high sticks, boarding, fights, concussions from hits, slashes, etc. I hold this opinion because quite obviously, we have seen in the past that without the instigator, we have seen more gentlemanly hockey with fewer injuries, and we have also seen the worst, and dirtiest hockey - it makes absolutely no difference.
I also contend that by eliminating the instigator, staged fights will increase, goonery will prevail, and hockey will become dirtier and dirtier, with more stars becoming injured.
I agree the equipment needs to change, as I have also stated previously.
I still hold out hope for you, Odin, that you have actual, well-thought out hockey opinions . . . I just haven't seen any evidence of it yet. I wait with bated breath. 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
