| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
 Posted - 11/14/2009 : 08:47:33
|
So Willus, you are looking to have a fast paced, up and down the ice, top skill level hockey without an instigator rule where the code still had meaning, there was respect for all players,and they actually did police themselves???
A time where the wood on the ice what in the sticks and not between the players ears?? A time where goalie pads did not cover 85% of the net and the other pads were not made of bullet proof materials??
How dare you turn the game into figure skating!! How dare you take out debilitating violent hits from the sport??? How dare you reduce the number of players on a roster and not allow room for goons.
Where's your head??????? |
 |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2009 : 11:56:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
So Willus, you are looking to have a fast paced, up and down the ice, top skill level hockey without an instigator rule where the code still had meaning, there was respect for all players,and they actually did police themselves???
A time where the wood on the ice what in the sticks and not between the players ears?? A time where goalie pads did not cover 85% of the net and the other pads were not made of bullet proof materials??
How dare you turn the game into figure skating!! How dare you take out debilitating violent hits from the sport??? How dare you reduce the number of players on a roster and not allow room for goons.
Where's your head???????
Indeed.
It seems progress isn't always for the better...
|
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 09:00:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
So Willus, you are looking to have a fast paced, up and down the ice, top skill level hockey without an instigator rule where the code still had meaning, there was respect for all players,and they actually did police themselves???
A time where the wood on the ice what in the sticks and not between the players ears?? A time where goalie pads did not cover 85% of the net and the other pads were not made of bullet proof materials??
How dare you turn the game into figure skating!! How dare you take out debilitating violent hits from the sport??? How dare you reduce the number of players on a roster and not allow room for goons.
Where's your head???????
Wow! a little touchy are we Beans?
Please show me where I said anything counter to what Willus said?
Also I would be curious about how and where I took your words out of context, because I just can't find it. It was you who referred to "direct strikes to the head," not me, and that just isn't what this debate is about at all. Those rules are already in the book called elbowing, fighting, roughing, highsticking etc. Just thought I would clarify seeing how that seems to be lost on you.
What this debate if effectively about is shoulder contact to the head with a clean hit. Plain and simple. So there is no need to get your knickers in a knot because somebody doesn't agree with you.
I would also like to point out that unlike in your world, this is NOT a cut and dry issue or it would have been dealt with already. Since it has not been dealt with, that would mean that there is something more to this debate than what you are trying to reduce it to, because I'm pretty damn sure that owners want to protect their assets.
Thanks for the drivel however.
P.S I am all for letting players police themselves and getting rid of the instigator as I said on another thread. |
Edited by - Odin on 11/17/2009 09:03:18 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 09:46:55
|
Odin - it is YOU that is touchy.
Man, how many times have I heard "touchy", "knickers in a knot", "panties in a twist", etc after a clear and cogent point was made? And the remark is always made by a poster who reacts as if they were name-called, in this case when Beans didn't even refer to you specifically! I find it hilarious behaviour . . .
. . . in psychology, it's called "reflecting" - accusing people of your own behavioural responses/traits.
Have you ever NOT gotten your knickers in a knot, Odin?
The funny part about all this is, I don't even think Beans was referring to you at all.
Myself, I don't totally agree with Beans on the specific point about some legal bodychecks being made illegal due to the head being involved . . . but it's a really grey line. The old time hockey that Willus wants had some much more agressive physical contact . . . only, the players weren't 6'3" and 240lbs coming in at a speed that only the fastest players back then could skate. And, they are wearing "rock-hard" plastic protective equipment now.
To me, the respect for other players is probably pretty close to back then, with little differences - there were more "muggings" back then with fewer calls, but there was also less boarding. To me, it's pretty even in the end.
I think the issue is equipment, for starters.
Secondly, you cannot apply the same standards that we have had in the past when the players are so big now, when they are so much more athletic, and we have gotten into large disparities when talking about size.
Thirdly - players policing themselves? Like in the 70's? Another advocate for Goon Hockey? When did the "players policing themselves" EVER work? It hasn't, and won't, because - as in society - one cannot effectively police yourselves or your peers. Things will always spiral out of control, as they did inthe 70s . . . as they did in the "wild west" in the history of the US. You cannot police your peers, because it engenders LAWLESSNESS. You then get situations where might makes right, and you have Bobby Clarke and the Flyers beating everyone to a pulp through illegal checks, fighting, and generally dirty play all the way to a championship. That is not the kind of hockey I personally enjoy.
In closing: we need clear rules, and defined penalties and suspensions when contravening those rules. I realise this won't happen with the people now in charge, but we can all lobby hard for it . . . hopefully, the public still has a small input into the direction that hockey takes.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 09:56:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Odin - it is YOU that is touchy.
Man, how many times have I heard "touchy", "knickers in a knot", "panties in a twist", etc after a clear and cogent point was made? And the remark is always made by a poster who reacts as if they were name-called, in this case when Beans didn't even refer to you specifically! I find it hilarious behaviour . . .
. . . in psychology, it's called "reflecting" - accusing people of your own behavioural responses/traits.
Have you ever NOT gotten your knickers in a knot, Odin?
The funny part about all this is, I don't even think Beans was referring to you at all.
Myself, I don't totally agree with Beans on the specific point about some legal bodychecks being made illegal due to the head being involved . . . but it's a really grey line. The old time hockey that Willus wants had some much more agressive physical contact . . . only, the players weren't 6'3" and 240lbs coming in at a speed that only the fastest players back then could skate. And, they are wearing "rock-hard" plastic protective equipment now.
To me, the respect for other players is probably pretty close to back then, with little differences - there were more "muggings" back then with fewer calls, but there was also less boarding. To me, it's pretty even in the end.
I think the issue is equipment, for starters.
Secondly, you cannot apply the same standards that we have had in the past when the players are so big now, when they are so much more athletic, and we have gotten into large disparities when talking about size.
Thirdly - players policing themselves? Like in the 70's? Another advocate for Goon Hockey? When did the "players policing themselves" EVER work? It hasn't, and won't, because - as in society - one cannot effectively police yourselves or your peers. Things will always spiral out of control, as they did inthe 70s . . . as they did in the "wild west" in the history of the US. You cannot police your peers, because it engenders LAWLESSNESS. You then get situations where might makes right, and you have Bobby Clarke and the Flyers beating everyone to a pulp through illegal checks, fighting, and generally dirty play all the way to a championship. That is not the kind of hockey I personally enjoy.
In closing: we need clear rules, and defined penalties and suspensions when contravening those rules. I realise this won't happen with the people now in charge, but we can all lobby hard for it . . . hopefully, the public still has a small input into the direction that hockey takes.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Thanks there Freud, I appreciate the bubble gum psycho analysis. I am actually just fine thank you, as I am laughing right now.......
Anyways, I assumed that he was referring to me since I made the figure skating crack. So, making snotty comments about that and saying my point is pathetic tells me it is him that is touchy, because I disagreed with him.
But nice try, and thanks for coming out. |
Edited by - Odin on 11/17/2009 10:19:39 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 11:14:41
|
Nope, I'm not touchy at all. I just call what I think is a spade a spade. Let me explain:
I never once said anything about the incidental contacts to the head from a 'normal' body check. You might want to brush up on your defintion of 'incidental' and 'direct'. They are two different things. And I know there are rules to the game today. Did you know that at one point, there wasn't an rule against elbowing?? Eventually a rule was added because players were getting elbowed. So why is it so hard to comprehend that adding a rule about direct strikes to the head??? Sports are fluid and they have to be. At one time, you could not throw the ball forward in football! There wasn't a shot clock in basketball and many games ended in single digits. The list goes on an on. Sports evolve. The style of play evolves, and the rules must also evolve.
Secondly, my comment about you taking what I said out of context was dead on. I never EVER once said that hitting should be removed from the game. However, one of your posts arguing directly towards me made comments about "the bleeding hearts trying to turn hockey into figure skating."
Thirdly, my comments towards Willus were really directed towards ANYONE that agrees with the style of play today that leads to violent, injury causing hits. If you fall into that catagory, so be it. Many others do as well. I personally find it pathetic to think that there are people that agree with hits that cause injuries that are not required. Anyone who thinks that finishing a check is to hurt another player and those 'fans' that salivate at the hits that cause players to leave on a stretcher. I also find it pathetic to think that us 'educated' hockey fans use excuses like players are too tall, too fast, too big to control their bodies and just accept that a hit like the recent OHL hit is OK because nothing can be done about it. It really is a complete joke to me.
I have my opinions and I am far from touchy about them. I could really care less if anyone agrees/disagrees likes/dislikes them.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 11:20:27
|
Well, at least you didn't get your panties in a knot, Odin . . . just your knickers, lol.  (bubble gum psychoanalysis? snotty comments? nice try, thanks for coming out?). Awesome playground response, dude!
Any response to my hockey comments, btw? Any more vauable insight into how the players "policing themselves" would work, on any level?
Would love to keep the discussion going on your ideas for changing the game of hockey . . . would you just take away the instigator penalty? Would that solve anything in regards to head shots, increased number of concussions, etc? Why? Any other changes to mention?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 11:56:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Nope, I'm not touchy at all. I just call what I think is a spade a spade. Let me explain:
I never once said anything about the incidental contacts to the head from a 'normal' body check. You might want to brush up on your defintion of 'incidental' and 'direct'. They are two different things. And I know there are rules to the game today. Did you know that at one point, there wasn't an rule against elbowing?? Eventually a rule was added because players were getting elbowed. So why is it so hard to comprehend that adding a rule about direct strikes to the head??? Sports are fluid and they have to be. At one time, you could not throw the ball forward in football! There wasn't a shot clock in basketball and many games ended in single digits. The list goes on an on. Sports evolve. The style of play evolves, and the rules must also evolve.
Secondly, my comment about you taking what I said out of context was dead on. I never EVER once said that hitting should be removed from the game. However, one of your posts arguing directly towards me made comments about "the bleeding hearts trying to turn hockey into figure skating."
Thirdly, my comments towards Willus were really directed towards ANYONE that agrees with the style of play today that leads to violent, injury causing hits. If you fall into that catagory, so be it. Many others do as well. I personally find it pathetic to think that there are people that agree with hits that cause injuries that are not required. Anyone who thinks that finishing a check is to hurt another player and those 'fans' that salivate at the hits that cause players to leave on a stretcher. I also find it pathetic to think that us 'educated' hockey fans use excuses like players are too tall, too fast, too big to control their bodies and just accept that a hit like the recent OHL hit is OK because nothing can be done about it. It really is a complete joke to me.
I have my opinions and I am far from touchy about them. I could really care less if anyone agrees/disagrees likes/dislikes them.
OK, you know what? this is getting boring because it is obvious that you don't understand what this debate is about. And you have proved that here once again.
I am not the one that brought up direct shots, that was all you bright boy, and as i said, repeatedly, that is NOT what this debate is about. And that point seems to be absolutely lost on you because, as I have also said repeatedly, This is essentially about shoulder to the head. EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALREADY REGULATED. You may want to brush up on the English language.
Sorry if the bleeding heart comment hurt. They say the truth does that. So, point number two, you are being entirely touchy, and I am, to quote you, calling a spade a spade.
What I find pathetic is those who won't own up to getting upset and quoting somebody else out of context and then not being man enough to admit it. And I do mean your figure skating response to Willus. Funny how that is the same term I used two posts previous, but no, you didn't get wound up at me at all.
And no, finshing a check is just that: finishing a check. You have actually avoided a couple of my points outright. Is it EVER the responsibility of the person being hit to protect himself? Because in your world it sounds like a resounding no. You know what that does to the rules? Make it EXTREMELY easy to draw a penalty by keeping your head down. Whos fault is it then? And THAT is precisely why this has been drawn out by the powers that be. It ISN'T as cut and dry as you want it to be. Another point I made that you have chosen not to address.
"'fans' that salivate at the hits that cause players to leave on a stretcher. I also find it pathetic to think that us 'educated' hockey fans use excuses like players are too tall, too fast, too big to control their bodies"
Yes, because players are being toted out on strechers all the time right? And you don't think size and speed are an issue, now I know that you are completely out to lunch. And THAT is what is pathetic since force = mass*speed. You've just proven that you don't get it.
|
Edited by - Odin on 11/17/2009 12:22:14 |
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 12:29:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Well, at least you didn't get your panties in a knot, Odin . . . just your knickers, lol. (bubble gum psychoanalysis? snotty comments? nice try, thanks for coming out?). Awesome playground response, dude!
Any response to my hockey comments, btw? Any more vauable insight into how the players "policing themselves" would work, on any level?
Would love to keep the discussion going on your ideas for changing the game of hockey . . . would you just take away the instigator penalty? Would that solve anything in regards to head shots, increased number of concussions, etc? Why? Any other changes to mention?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Geez, lapdog of Beans, what else am I supposed to call it? It WAS a snotty comment. It WAS a bubblegum pyschoanalysis. Awesome playground response? Par for the course with you. Comments you don't agree with? You take the mentally facile stance of lumping them all into "playground responses."
As far as your "hockey comments," already been there. did that. But just for you: reduce the equipment, and remove the instigator.
But seriously, can I get you some pom-poms and a sweater with a big 'B' on it? Or maybe just a can of Libby's?
I know, I know: playground right? |
Edited by - Odin on 11/17/2009 12:30:58 |
|
|
|
Guest5382
( )
|
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 13:20:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
[Yes, because players are being toted out on strechers all the time right? And you don't think size and speed are an issue, now I know that you are completely out to lunch. And THAT is what is pathetic since force = mass*speed. You've just proven that you don't get it.
Little mole hill, I think I'll call you mountain instead. Geez.
BTW
force = mass x acceleration.
momentum = mass x speed
I'm confused. Odin what is your point? What are you disagreeing with Beans so vehemently about? Aren't you both saying pretty much the same thing?
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Guest4803
( )
|
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 15:03:27
|
| keep it about hockey ladies! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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? |
|
|
|
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! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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...
|
Edited by - willus3 on 11/18/2009 17:10:44 |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - tbar on 11/18/2009 08:34:20 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
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! |
Edited by - Odin on 11/18/2009 10:51:02 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Guest7014
( )
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - Leafs81 on 11/19/2009 12:30:03 |
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - tbar on 11/19/2009 14:16:25 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - Leafs81 on 11/20/2009 12:50:50 |
|
|
|
Gusteroni
Rookie
Canada
225 Posts |
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." |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/21/2009 11:17:38 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Game changing suggestions 
