| Author |
 Topic  |
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
 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!
|
|
|
Guest9838
( )
|
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 09:49:24
|
Here's some suggestion I'm betting most people will not like (and I'm not for this really, just that the thread invites people to suggest changes that might make players safer).
1) Bring back the redline, and the hits will not be as hard just based on the speed of play.
2) how about non-subjective suspensions for certain types of hits. i.e. if someone hits a guy with an elbow to the head it's a 10 game suspension, period. No looking at history or intent. It's not relevant to that play. players will stop throwing elbows in a hurry.
3) invest in some new technology for the skates... what's with all the broken feet this year? |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 10:30:12
|
Now for the less than popular ideas:
1) Change/Improve the Helmet to reduce concussions
2) Encorporate full face guards for all players
3) Make any infraction over the shoulder(hits, sticks, etc) an automatic game misconduct(don't tell me this isn't possible. The NFL has penalties for hits to the head and they have the same size variance between players as the NHL does. A 6'9" offensive lineman can not block a 5'6" defensive back and hit him in the head)
4) No Touch Icing if the offensive player is within 20' of the defensive player skating back for the puck once the defensive player reaches the defensive faceoff circle/hash marks.
5) Make discipline based on action/intent, not resulting injury. If a player swings his sick and hits another player in the head but that player doesn't get hurt, why a lesser punishment?? The intent should be punished, not the outcome.
Ultimately, make a few equipment changes to make players safer and more so, hold players personally accountable for their actions on the ice.
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.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/04/2009 10:31:46 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 13:27:24
|
Very interesting suggestions so far.....
Guest9838, the red line thing, while i wouldn't like it, is a good point. I do still think though, you'd see big hits anyway. Richard's on Booth, Mitchell on Toews and Ohlund's hit last night on Kessel would still have happened.
Beans,
1. Definitely the helmut issue HAS TO be addressed. There should be a rule like in junior where if your helmet comes off, you immediately have to leave the ice. I think guys would make sure their lids are done up to the point that they WON'T come off.
2. Shields, for sure i think should be mandatory, but full face gear, i dunno? I wouldn't wanna watch a bunch of guys who look more like Stormtroopers than hockey players skating around?
3. I like this for hits above the shoulder, but i think the current high sticking rule is fine the way it is. I wouldn't wanna see a guy kicked out a minute in for a completely unintentional high stick.
4. This one's been debated a long time. I like your suggestion, but it leaves the "20 ft" up to the ref to judge. I think it should be as simple as, it's automatic, unless in the refs/linesman's eye, it's an attempted pass to a streaking winger. I love that play where a guy slaps the puck into the corner, thus keeping it away from the goalie, for a streaking winger and it's something we obviously don't see at the junior level.
5. A no brainer really. This is obviously the way it should be, but will it ever be? With the preferred treatment the stars get and the reputation others earn, it's a tough thing to expect.
6. This one, well, as much as i like it, i don't see it happening. I think they should be fair game too and i can see a guy like Turco dumping the puck up the boards, a forward finishing his check and a winger intercepting the puck and firing it into an open net? I'm all for it as maybe it'd make for more offensive hockey as surely more goalies would be out trying to get on the puck and start a play!
|
|
|
|
Guest0834
( )
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 19:26:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
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!
Easy. You sit out as long as the injured guy is out for. Further your cheque from the suspension is donated to a charity of your choice at the beginning of the season.
Let's see how much respect they have for each other then. Sure you can check a guy, but you better not try to injure. You'll see alot more of Lidstrom style of play where the player is separate with a poke check or rub out rather than a booming Fanelli style checks. |
|
|
|
Guest4637
( )
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 20:57:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0834
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
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!
Easy. You sit out as long as the injured guy is out for. Further your cheque from the suspension is donated to a charity of your choice at the beginning of the season.
Let's see how much respect they have for each other then. Sure you can check a guy, but you better not try to injure. You'll see alot more of Lidstrom style of play where the player is separate with a poke check or rub out rather than a booming Fanelli style checks.
Yeah but what happens if its a clean hit and the guy still gets injured or falls awkwardly, that doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 21:19:17
|
I'm currently more in the mind set of "Keeping the game and rules the way they are." Crazy, I know. ;)
Irvine |
|
|
|
Guest5382
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 06:17:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4637
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0834
Easy. You sit out as long as the injured guy is out for. Further your cheque from the suspension is donated to a charity of your choice at the beginning of the season.
Let's see how much respect they have for each other then. Sure you can check a guy, but you better not try to injure. You'll see alot more of Lidstrom style of play where the player is separate with a poke check or rub out rather than a booming Fanelli style checks.
Yeah but what happens if its a clean hit and the guy still gets injured or falls awkwardly, that doesn't make sense.
It is about respecting the other player not trying to destroy them with a clean hit. M. Richards on Booth was clean. But his intent was to injure. With this rule, the intent would be to separate not injure or destroy. You can check all you want but the checking is to separate not hurt. |
|
|
|
Guest0498
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 06:28:42
|
| how do you know his intent? Gimme a break chump. |
|
|
|
Guest5382
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 07:37:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0498
how do you know his intent? Gimme a break chump.
So you know his intent was not to injure? Regardless, clean or not, you take out a player for a period of time, you sit out. You won't see many head shots after this rule is implemented.
Name calling. Nice. Good argument. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 09:33:02
|
So Willie Mitchell should be sitting out now?
By your accountability, Scott Stevens should have retired about 3 years earlier...
Not so easy to blanket it and say if he's out, you're out. Too many injuries are freakish and in no way caused by intent, but occur all the same.
Respect is a 2 way street, there are those players that step over the edge and should indeed be discipined as such, but if you are on the ice with a noted and respected physical player ie; Scott Stevens, the responsibility also lies on you to keep your head on a swivel. If you get caught, you get caught, and if it's clean, or at least deemed as such by the officials, why should the checker be punished for doing what he is known to do effectively.
By not giving the respect due to the noted physical player you are as responsible if injured...as long as the play is deemed legal. |
|
|
|
Guest5382
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 09:56:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
So Willie Mitchell should be sitting out now?
By your accountability, Scott Stevens should have retired about 3 years earlier...
Not so easy to blanket it and say if he's out, you're out. Too many injuries are freakish and in no way caused by intent, but occur all the same.
Respect is a 2 way street, there are those players that step over the edge and should indeed be discipined as such, but if you are on the ice with a noted and respected physical player ie; Scott Stevens, the responsibility also lies on you to keep your head on a swivel. If you get caught, you get caught, and if it's clean, or at least deemed as such by the officials, why should the checker be punished for doing what he is known to do effectively.
By not giving the respect due to the noted physical player you are as responsible if injured...as long as the play is deemed legal.
Excellent, an intelligent argument - thank you Elvis. Thank you very much. However, your original post ask:
"What should be done to make the game safer for players, while stil allowing the physical play?"
The guest has answered your question. Perhaps you may not like it and perhaps it has its flaws, it but it is a legitimate answer.
With the rule proposed in place, the game will move away from the Stevens-esque (Lindros in his youth) type of game to Lidstrom-esque (even Niedermeyer-esque) for defensemen and Datsuyk-esque (or Federov or Carboneau at his peak) for offense type of game.
Sure you can still hit, but your hits will be first to separate then possibly hurt (accidentally). Rather than hurt (more hurting and sending a message) and separate as it currently stands. Hey perhaps with this rule Phaneuf might become an effecitve defender instead of leaving his position to lay a big hit. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 14:29:52
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Guest4803
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 15:43:20
|
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? |
|
|
|
Guest4637
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 21:23:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5382
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
So Willie Mitchell should be sitting out now?
By your accountability, Scott Stevens should have retired about 3 years earlier...
Not so easy to blanket it and say if he's out, you're out. Too many injuries are freakish and in no way caused by intent, but occur all the same.
Respect is a 2 way street, there are those players that step over the edge and should indeed be discipined as such, but if you are on the ice with a noted and respected physical player ie; Scott Stevens, the responsibility also lies on you to keep your head on a swivel. If you get caught, you get caught, and if it's clean, or at least deemed as such by the officials, why should the checker be punished for doing what he is known to do effectively.
By not giving the respect due to the noted physical player you are as responsible if injured...as long as the play is deemed legal.
Excellent, an intelligent argument - thank you Elvis. Thank you very much. However, your original post ask:
"What should be done to make the game safer for players, while stil allowing the physical play?"
The guest has answered your question. Perhaps you may not like it and perhaps it has its flaws, it but it is a legitimate answer.
With the rule proposed in place, the game will move away from the Stevens-esque (Lindros in his youth) type of game to Lidstrom-esque (even Niedermeyer-esque) for defensemen and Datsuyk-esque (or Federov or Carboneau at his peak) for offense type of game.
Sure you can still hit, but your hits will be first to separate then possibly hurt (accidentally). Rather than hurt (more hurting and sending a message) and separate as it currently stands. Hey perhaps with this rule Phaneuf might become an effecitve defender instead of leaving his position to lay a big hit.
Hey why don't we just change the NHL's rules to womens hockey? Like Come On!
Size is an advantage in hockey and an intimidation factor, all teams have those kinds of players. Do you really think top defensemen like Zdeno Chara and Chris Pronger would be in the NHL if hockey was played like that? |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 23:28:39
|
quote:
Hey why don't we just change the NHL's rules to womens hockey? Like Come On!
Size is an advantage in hockey and an intimidation factor, all teams have those kinds of players. Do you really think top defensemen like Zdeno Chara and Chris Pronger would be in the NHL if hockey was played like that?
Yes, yes I do. :P
Zdeno Chara & Chris Pronger both, although large in stature and very physical, can both see the ice very well as a defender.
Both players can make solid passes from end-to-end and both provide excellent team leadership. Not to mention they have great, hard shots.
So yes, I can see these two in the NHL. Even without their "size advantage." :)
Irvine |
|
|
|
Guest0834
( )
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 06:07:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4637
Hey why don't we just change the NHL's rules to womens hockey? Like Come On!
Size is an advantage in hockey and an intimidation factor, all teams have those kinds of players. Do you really think top defensemen like Zdeno Chara and Chris Pronger would be in the NHL if hockey was played like that?
Well if you bothered reading the post, it says you injure you are out for the duration of the injury you imposed. Nowhere does it say no hitting like women's hockey (not that there is anything wrong with it).
Yes, Chara and Pronger would be in the NHL with that new rule. Pronger would have to stop elbowing people in the head and Chara though physical has not put some one out due to a massive hit or elbow to the head. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 15:39:35
|
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. |
|
|
|
lyall
PickupHockey Pro
360 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 00:45:33
|
Accidental high sticking is an automatic 2 minute minor. If you draw blood its a double minor. Simple. Why not have something similar for head shots? 2 minute minor for a head shot. intentional or accidental. You draw blood its a double minor and if the victim has to leave the game its a 5 minute major, but the victim cannot return to the game.
Leave it to the NHL to review all the head shots after the game to see if was clean/dirty/intentional ect.. and if the hit warrants a suspension or not.
People seem to think that this would severely slow down the game. I really don't think it would. If you look at the amount of hits to the head there is the number is very low compared to high sticks/hooks/interfrence and other minor penalties. If this penalty system was instituted, It would be needed less than once per game. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 01:52:11
|
lyall....i like what you propose. I wouldn't mind seeing that come into play.
Beans, i understand what you're saying. I sorta like it. Be interesting to see it on a trial basis in the minors or preseason if nothing else. I think i mistyped my last comment regarding this and rather than fix it there, i'll do it here. I think FEWER goalies would be inclined to play the puck and maybe that would increase the offense in games? |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 06:42:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
lyall....i like what you propose. I wouldn't mind seeing that come into play.
Beans, i understand what you're saying. I sorta like it. Be interesting to see it on a trial basis in the minors or preseason if nothing else. I think i mistyped my last comment regarding this and rather than fix it there, i'll do it here. I think FEWER goalies would be inclined to play the puck and maybe that would increase the offense in games?
The goal is to make the game safer right??
Ok so now goalies are fair game when playing the puck. Is that safer?
So goalies are now staying in the net insted of playing the puck on that close icing call because they dont want to get rocked. So now you have that forward coming in full speed and killing the D-Man. Is this safer?
So now we have injured goalies left, right, and center and countless d-men getting run threw the boards.
Sounds safe to me... |
Edited by - tbar on 11/09/2009 06:43:50 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 10:48:03
|
Sorry for such a late reply, Fat Elvis - I've been meaning to make a post for some time, and wanted to give it some thought, as it is a great topic.
THE BIG CHANGES
FIGHTING
This has been covered by me extensively in other threads, so I will cut to the chase. Here is how I would reduce fighting, take the goons out of the game, and replace them with more skilled players:
- The instigator rule stays to differentiate between a goon trying to take out a star player, and a guy who was only trying to protect himself.
- fighting (instigator) five minute major penalty, ejected from game, three game suspension
- fighting (coincidental) - same as above
- fighting - 2 minute minor penalty
[ so, if a star player is picked on by a goon, and the star player actually throws back, you have 2 minutes of 4 on 4, then a 3 minute power play ]
2nd fighting offence (instigator) - 10 game suspension
3rd fighting offence (instigator) - 20 game suspension, review for return to the league
SHOOTOUTS
Buh-bye! See-ya!
I would get rid of the shoot-out entirely, and put it back to the old system - goes to O/T, play a regular five minutes five on five like normal, and a win is a win and a loss is a loss. And, a tie gets you one point, and that's the way it ends, nothing wrong with that.
THE LITTLE TWEAKS
(admittedly, a couple of these are pretty major tweaks, I know)
EQUIPMENT
1. Referees (or some kind of official) checks goalie equipment BEFORE THE GAME to ensure size compliance. Anything wrong with it, it's a two minute penalty to start the game. Repeat offenders get five minutes.
2. The rule to check player's sticks stays, with one addition: if there is a repeat offence (2nd time a player gets caught), it's an automatic game suspension. 3rd offence, 5 games - and so on.
HIGH STICKS
None of this garbage about whether a player draws blood or not . . . that's downright silly, and a poor way to judge the severity of the injury. Ref's discretion whether it's a minor or a major penalty, 'nuff said.
ILLEGAL HITTING, SLASHING, HIGH STICKING
Same penalties, but we add more clearly defined rules on what the suspension length should be for multiple offenders, or for gross offences.
Charge, or illegal check of any sort: first offence is a regular penalty, second offence is a minimum one game suspension, third offence is a minimum 5 game suspension, 4th offence is a minimum 10 game suspension, etc.
A charge or hit that causes a game ending injury (or deemed by the referee to be that severe, even if the injured player returns) automatically add 3 games to suspension. A charge or illegal hit that causes potential career ending injury (or deemed to be so extreme as to be in this category) player is suspended for the rest of the season, and receives a hearing where reinstatement will be decided.
Slashing and high sticking receive similar treatment, and players go up the suspension ladder for offences that cause serious injury (ie: a player's finger is broken by a slash, or a player gets a few teeth knocked out by a high stick). For "gross offences", 1st offence is a 5 minute major, 2nd a 5 minute major and one game suspension, etc etc.
A charge should be defined as: a player taking 5 or more strides, or approximately a 20 foot run, at a player to lay a hit at a speed deemed excessive by the referee or off-ice officials. Any other illegal part of the hit is judged accordingly on it's own, and any other penalty is in addition to the charge.
SUSPENSIONS
It's five, and you are done for the rest of the season automatically (if it's game 60 or more, that means next season). After that, the player gets reviewed for reinstatement. So, once you are on 4 suspensions, you are skating on very, very thin ice.
INTEFERENCE
I would like for the refs to actually call this the way it should be - I continue to see it in every game, where one defender screens the puck 5 or 10 feet in front while his buddy can corral it behind him. Call the rule as it is, but call it consistently.
GOALIES PLAYING THE PUCK
Outside the crease, you are fair game. That's the way the rule is, actually, if you read it . . . but they are currently given "special" status by the refs for some reason - no more.
* * * * *
All these rules are designed to put respect back in the game, reduce injuries, increase the amount of skilled players, reduce the goons and their "goonage" (new word), and to promote a fast, clean game where the very skilled aren't held up constantly.
Now, wouldn't we all love to see that? 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 11/09/2009 10:49:25 |
|
|
|
Guest9830
( )
|
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 11:17:24
|
| One thing that has to be changed is the ridiculous delay of game penalty you get in your defensive zone. You don't know how happy I am that the junior leagues in Ontario haven't followed with that rule. My proposal is to make it the same as an icing. Face-off in your own end, and the team of the player who shot the puck is unable to make a line change. One problem with your interference rule slozo is that you are now making it more dangerous for defenceman. And I'm not sure if we watch the same games, but the interference on forechecking by d-man has dropped significantly since the rule changes. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 12:08:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
lyall....i like what you propose. I wouldn't mind seeing that come into play.
Beans, i understand what you're saying. I sorta like it. Be interesting to see it on a trial basis in the minors or preseason if nothing else. I think i mistyped my last comment regarding this and rather than fix it there, i'll do it here. I think FEWER goalies would be inclined to play the puck and maybe that would increase the offense in games?
The goal is to make the game safer right??
Ok so now goalies are fair game when playing the puck. Is that safer?
So goalies are now staying in the net insted of playing the puck on that close icing call because they dont want to get rocked. So now you have that forward coming in full speed and killing the D-Man. Is this safer?
So now we have injured goalies left, right, and center and countless d-men getting run threw the boards.
Sounds safe to me...
Ok, I will agree that this technically would not make the game safer and would actually add more risk than today.
However, I think it would be interesting to see the position of goalie change with this kind of rule. I don't like rules where a single player is safe while others have play by different rules.
I think good idea for adding interest to the game, bad idea for keeping people safe. I concede. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 12:18:56
|
Slozo im not sure where you come up with this "GOALIES PLAYING THE PUCK
Outside the crease, you are fair game. That's the way the rule is, actually, if you read it . . . but they are currently given "special" status by the refs for some reason - no more."
Ok so here is a link that will allow you to look up these rules. This is the Hockey Canada Referee Case Book/Rule Combination 2008-2010.
http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/25542/la_id/1.htm
Rule 7.3 pg.88 (pg.90 on link)
(b) A minor penalty for interference with goaltender shall be imposed on a player who, by means of his stick or his body, interferes with or impedes th e movements of the goaltender by actual physical contact.. The penalty should be announced as "interference with the goaltender".
Note: A goaltender is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. A penalty for interference (Minor or, at the discreation of the referee, Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty) or Charging (Minor or, at the discretion of the referee, Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty) shall be called where apposing player unnecessary contact with the goaltender. Likewise, Referees should be alert to penalize goaltenders for tripping, slashing, or spearing in the vicinity of the goal.
So no it is not a "made up rule by the ref's". Also I hate writing these so please look in the rule book before you start claiming to know the rules. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 12:35:54
|
Hey Tbar, if you don't like to posts things, then don't post them. It's great to see that you are willing to educate and inform people but the comments about 'claiming to know the rules' isn't really necessary. I am sure there are things all of us think we know and find out that we are less then clear about.
Personally, I was always of the understanding the the goalie getting protected wasn't really a rules as much as a trend in the game. No different than hooking was always hooking, but the rule 'evolved' through the 80's and 90's to mean that you could get a ride back to the other then of the ice on a players hip as long as he didn't shot the puck or fall over, it wasn't hooking.
We all learn something here and there and I could do without those kind of comments. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 12:49:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Slozo im not sure where you come up with this "GOALIES PLAYING THE PUCK
Outside the crease, you are fair game. That's the way the rule is, actually, if you read it . . . but they are currently given "special" status by the refs for some reason - no more."
Ok so here is a link that will allow you to look up these rules. This is the Hockey Canada Referee Case Book/Rule Combination 2008-2010.
http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/25542/la_id/1.htm
Rule 7.3 pg.88 (pg.90 on link)
(b) A minor penalty for interference with goaltender shall be imposed on a player who, by means of his stick or his body, interferes with or impedes th e movements of the goaltender by actual physical contact.. The penalty should be announced as "interference with the goaltender".
Note: A goaltender is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. A penalty for interference (Minor or, at the discreation of the referee, Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty) or Charging (Minor or, at the discretion of the referee, Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty) shall be called where apposing player unnecessary contact with the goaltender. Likewise, Referees should be alert to penalize goaltenders for tripping, slashing, or spearing in the vicinity of the goal.
So no it is not a "made up rule by the ref's". Also I hate writing these so please look in the rule book before you start claiming to know the rules.
Tbar...Thanks for providing that rule and clearing things up because after reading Slozo's comment, i was beginning to get mad that the goalies were getting preferential treatment.
Either way, please, when you say you "hate writing these", tell me you don't actually type all that out and instead copy and paste? If not, please contact Brentrock to get some pointers on the fine art of copy/paste! |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 12:57:40
|
Well Beans, I have to say things like "know the rules before you post them" because it's a good point. I dont come here and say well Crosby had 193 points in 2008. Here's why a) it's not true. b) I have nothing to back it up. c) If i do then I may as well not post because its just mis informed info on a good forum.
If you are going to post a "rule" at least post the correct rule. Also tell me where you are getting this info. Are you guessing? Thats my assumption on Slozo's "rule" that he posted. If you got it off the NHL website maybe thats the way the rule is worded and if it is I would want to be able to look it up. But it's kind of tough to do so when you dont give me the info required.
|
Edited by - tbar on 11/09/2009 13:01:19 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 19:15:54
|
Tbar:
You got me, I was wrong. I had always thought it was one of those rules that was never called properly as written, and I was incorrect.
But let me tell you something, kid: I have a job . . . and a family . . . and the only time I had to write what I wanted was about 30 minutes worth of time in an 8 hour day filled with craziness at work. So sorry I couldn't look everything up.
Please don't make me correct every single thing you write or research incorrectly from now on (or don't research at all), because I could . . . and you really don't want that.
Oh, and also:
I never claimed to know all the rules, so take that attitude back, roll it into a sausage, and shove it where the sun don't shine, ok fella?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 11/10/2009 05:26:08 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2009 : 05:38:01
|
So, to the nitpickers (Tbar, that's you):
Do you have anything positive to add to this discussion? Any suggestions to make the game better? Any other comments at all about any of the many points made by myself or other posters? Do you agree with anything suggested by anyone?
I don't mind the constructive and corrective criticism - I welcome it, as I learn more about the game and discussions are furthered. But if you are only going to put in sniping comments, and pick apart one little point from a post that made over a dozen suggestions . . . well, you are inviting yourself to be ignored in the future, as you contribute very little.
Just my two cents.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2009 : 09:05:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Tbar:
You got me, I was wrong. I had always thought it was one of those rules that was never called properly as written, and I was incorrect.
But let me tell you something, kid: I have a job . . . and a family . . . and the only time I had to write what I wanted was about 30 minutes worth of time in an 8 hour day filled with craziness at work. So sorry I couldn't look everything up.
Please don't make me correct every single thing you write or research incorrectly from now on (or don't research at all), because I could . . . and you really don't want that.
Oh, and also:
I never claimed to know all the rules, so take that attitude back, roll it into a sausage, and shove it where the sun don't shine, ok fella?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Its funny how easily you get your panties tied all up in a bunch when somebody tells you to know what your talking about before you post but you have no problem picking apart other posts all the time. And as far as contribution goes I think I have done that. Now instead of guys watching hockey thinking that damb goaile playing the puck should get rocked they will actually understand the rule.
Anyway if the goal is to make the game safer, one sugestion I would have is to make Visor's mandatory. This could help prevent further facial injuries. I personally dont like wearing one and know lots of other's feal the same but it could be grandfatherd in.
Makeing adjustments to equipment would be another good place to start. We need to beef up the helmet to help prevent further head injuries. I also dont think it would hurt to look at some of the other equipment players are useing like elbow pads and shoulder pads. I had to buy a new pair of elbow pads this year. Those things are massive and hard as a rock. If I were to accidently clip a guy in the head with these things they're done. I think these things are a little overkill and same with some of the shoulder pads theyre making these days. It just helps create a harder impact.
Auto Icing's should be top 5 on anybodys list. How many useless injuries do you see a year chasing down an icing.
Oh yah and slozo I agree with the get rid of the shootout. Not because I am scared a star may get hurt on a Penalty Shot but because I hate the extra point awarded.
|
|
|
|
HawkinOilCountry
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
318 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2009 : 09:35:12
|
I'd like to see assists limited to one player per goal. More often than not I see players picking up "free" points for plays they don't really deserve credit for. I don't have any number or anything to back this up. Just my opinion.
Also, no touch icing. And any contact above the shoulders on any player (head shots), whether intentional or not, should be an automatic game misconduct. And if it's ruled intentional there should be a suspension.
And here's a thought on Suspensions themselves. I think that suspensions should be served only on games in that team's conference, or even better, division. Missing a top enforcer in a division game, especially later in a season, would have a far greater impact on the team, and I think you'd see players being a little more careful about where they aim thier hits.
EDIT: I can't spell
The arena wall in chicago should be credited with a goal. |
Edited by - HawkinOilCountry on 11/10/2009 09:37:18 |
|
|
|
Gusteroni
Rookie
Canada
225 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2009 : 13:15:29
|
A lot of injuries do come from the players own equipment. There is absolutly no "give" to it. The equipment is made so well that a bone needs to break before the skate, shin pad, etc gives. It may have even been the case in Jason Williams injury. Not saying go back to the leather equipment but have everyone on the same level as far as the size and stiffness of the equipment. I would also agree with no touch icing and mandatory visors. Nobody likes to see a guy get injured and especially if he is on your favorite team.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season." |
|
|
|
Guest0539
( )
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 01:25:04
|
First of all I feel that the Richards hit for example was clean. He didn't charge Booth or hit with his elbow. It may look like an elbow to the head but it was a shoulder with the arm following through a bit due to the impact. Anyone who has ever hit someone in hockey knows this happens and can't be helped. Booth was caught unaware admiring his pass (which you are told very young not to do). Richards did what he was told to do when you are young and that is to finish your checks within a reasonable amount of time after the player passes the puck. It was a textbook hit. Should Richards have hit him so hard? Probably not. But if he doesn't engage Booth in any way, he becomes an offensive threat. It is an unfortunate occurence because of the situation: two players coming opposite directions at high speed, but Richards had only a second to decide what to do, he chose defending his zone.
Now that that is out of the way though, I do agree with a lot of these comments on here regarding some of the rule and equipment changes being effective. But the biggest one I think should be implemented is that it should be mandatory for every NHL player to tighten their chin-strap so it is within one finger width of their chin. It is a simple change that would save a fair amount of head injuries.
For example, a couple years ago in a game between OTT and BUF. You all probably remember the epic fights between the two teams, and Emery and Biron. Anyways, this all started with a hit Neil delivered to Drury. Actually it is a similar situation to the Booth hit. This was a clean hit, and just check the video footage. However, Drury mainly got hurt because of it because at he got hit, his helmet flew off his head before his head hit the ice. Naturally, your helmet can't protect your head if it isn't on anymore. And his chin strap isn't that tight to his chin so this makes it easier to fly off. Concussions happen because your hit gets hit hard and then immediately hits something else and hits it back the other way. I believe strongly that Drury would've been much better off if his helmet stayed on, and his head would've been protected from the ice. Therefore, do your chin-strap up tight!! It's SIMPLE |
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 10:48:30
|
As far as I am concerned, I think that you cannot take away a players right to hit another player. I am talking about a Chara being able to hit a Gionta for example. That will reduce the intensity of the game as players will then have to hold up to decide whether they can hit the player. I do find that a little ridiculous. How about the hitee being responsible for their own safety by protecting themselves? The NFL example doesn't hold. You are comparing apples to oranges. If a 6'9 lineman nails a 5'10 RB a there is some incidental head contact, no penalty is called. And certainly that behemoth IS allowed to hit that RB.
I agree that taking equipment down a notch, the shoulder and elbow pads, should absolutelt be looked at.
As far as suspending a player for injuring another player with a clean hit, I'm sorry but thats nonsense. This is still hockey, not figure skating. These players are well compensated for the risks they take. You have a problem with that? Don't play. It IS that simple. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 12:31:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
As far as I am concerned, I think that you cannot take away a players right to hit another player. I am talking about a Chara being able to hit a Gionta for example. That will reduce the intensity of the game as players will then have to hold up to decide whether they can hit the player. I do find that a little ridiculous. How about the hitee being responsible for their own safety by protecting themselves? The NFL example doesn't hold. You are comparing apples to oranges. If a 6'9 lineman nails a 5'10 RB a there is some incidental head contact, no penalty is called. And certainly that behemoth IS allowed to hit that RB.
I agree that taking equipment down a notch, the shoulder and elbow pads, should absolutelt be looked at.
As far as suspending a player for injuring another player with a clean hit, I'm sorry but thats nonsense. This is still hockey, not figure skating. These players are well compensated for the risks they take. You have a problem with that? Don't play. It IS that simple.
Regardless of what players get paid, no player assumes the risk that another player will intentionally injure them. That's pathetic.
And the NFL example does hold. Sure, there is incidental contact. However, regardless of size, direct strikes to the helmet are heavily penalized. Ultimately, that 6'9" guy has to have the same control over his body as anyone else. It's a joke to say that Chara has the right to hit a guy in the head because he's tall. Chara controls his shots, doesn't hit to the head, and 'sometimes' there is incidental contact to the other players head based on size. It's rarely where those 'sometimes' cause injuries. The injuries are caused when a player gets a direct shot to the head and the size is completely irrelevant.
It's a completely weak arguement. I compare that to those meatballs that said College players would be more reckless with their sticks because all players were full face cages. In fact, the exact opposite happened and LESS high sticking infractions happened.
|
|
|
|
Guest6362
( )
|
Posted - 11/13/2009 : 02:02:47
|
| I think the goalie should be able to play the puck outside the "trapezoid" again. You would see less collisions into the end boards if the goalie could play the puck. There are a lot of knee and leg injuries due to awkward collisions into the end boards. |
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2009 : 10:12:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
As far as I am concerned, I think that you cannot take away a players right to hit another player. I am talking about a Chara being able to hit a Gionta for example. That will reduce the intensity of the game as players will then have to hold up to decide whether they can hit the player. I do find that a little ridiculous. How about the hitee being responsible for their own safety by protecting themselves? The NFL example doesn't hold. You are comparing apples to oranges. If a 6'9 lineman nails a 5'10 RB a there is some incidental head contact, no penalty is called. And certainly that behemoth IS allowed to hit that RB.
I agree that taking equipment down a notch, the shoulder and elbow pads, should absolutelt be looked at.
As far as suspending a player for injuring another player with a clean hit, I'm sorry but thats nonsense. This is still hockey, not figure skating. These players are well compensated for the risks they take. You have a problem with that? Don't play. It IS that simple.
Regardless of what players get paid, no player assumes the risk that another player will intentionally injure them. That's pathetic.
And the NFL example does hold. Sure, there is incidental contact. However, regardless of size, direct strikes to the helmet are heavily penalized. Ultimately, that 6'9" guy has to have the same control over his body as anyone else. It's a joke to say that Chara has the right to hit a guy in the head because he's tall. Chara controls his shots, doesn't hit to the head, and 'sometimes' there is incidental contact to the other players head based on size. It's rarely where those 'sometimes' cause injuries. The injuries are caused when a player gets a direct shot to the head and the size is completely irrelevant.
It's a completely weak arguement. I compare that to those meatballs that said College players would be more reckless with their sticks because all players were full face cages. In fact, the exact opposite happened and LESS high sticking infractions happened.
Way to take it out of context Beans. Its not pathetic, its a contact sport and as such, injuries will happen. Its that simple. And that was my point. Not rocket science.
And I knew you were going to go there. We are NOT talking about direct strikes to the head, there are rules for that. We are talking somebody lining up somebody else for a clean check, period. If Chara hits somebody with a clean check, and there is some head contact, that cannot be helped. How about somebody with their head down? Who's fault is that?
What is a joke is that you are completely skewing what I am saying. Its a matter of size and physics. Chara doesn't hit on the head? Perhaps you could try explaining that to Kovalev and a litany of others who have been hit in the head, just due to his size, with a clean hit. Chara isn't being dirty, thats the difference. With the NFL, incidental head contact happens ALL THE TIME and is not penalized, a perfect example being the running back charging through the line with his head down and getting nailed by a linebacker. There is absolutely no way that there couldn't be contact to the head, and it happens and it is just part of the game. That is the sort of thing we are talking here, so once again, keep it in context.
What is really a weak arguement is saying that the hitee is not responsible for their own safety. As it has been said by numerous people, mostly players by the way, be aware of who is on the ice. Perhaps that is a lost art.
What is really pathetic are the bleeding hearts trying to reduce this game to figure skating.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2009 : 13:02:00
|
What is really pathetic are the bleeding hearts trying to reduce this game to figure skating.
And I took your comments out of context??
Hello Pot, I'm the Kettle. Nice to meet you!!!
Either my point was missed or I did not explain it very well.
I know that Chara's height will bring in some incidental contact to the head. It is a contact sport and always will be. But the 'he's too tall' arguement is not relevant. If it was, Chara would be hurting people with every hit and we both know that simply does not happen.
There is a huge difference between a Dion Phaneuf vs. Kyle Okposo hit or the Mike Richards vs David Booth hit comparatively to a regular Chara or Boogaard body check.
One has it's place in hockey. The other does not. Contact sports will always have injuries. But they don't need to be malicious in intent or execution. |
|
|
|
Guest9690
( )
|
Posted - 11/13/2009 : 14:38:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
What is really pathetic are the bleeding hearts trying to reduce this game to figure skating.
Well there is at most only 2 figure skaters on the rink at once. Two, figures skaters gotta wear much more clothing or hockey players gotta take off more of their clothes. And 3 figure skaters don't carry hockey sticks or need a puck.
Read the post from the those who have posted about removing some hits from the game. Nowhere does it say you can't hit. Just you can't hit in certain ways like the rules currently exists. Do you think boarding, elbowing, roughing and charging penalties make the game more figure skater like? Would you like to take out those rules so the players can be more aware of who is on the ice? |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2009 : 18:34:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
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!
Been watching hockey a long long time and have observed it evolve into what it is now. I'm not sure why the solution to todays injury problems are so difficult for the powers that be. It's really quite simple. Regress the game back to the late 80's early 90's. Same rules and same equipment. All problems are solved. The only other change I would make is to reduce the dressed roster to 3 forward lines and 5 defencemen.
If anyone doesn't understand why and has questions about specifics of why feel free to ask. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Game changing suggestions 
