| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
 Posted - 11/21/2009 : 11:19:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
Only Coaches can issue a challenge.
Irvine
That's ridiculous. If you're gonna have a challeng "brick", then you gotta allow us fans to toss it too! 
All kidding aside, i like this idea. I also agree with maximizing it to 2 challenges per game and would have no prob if they made it just 1. |
 |
|
|
Guest2956
( )
|
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 11:12:12
|
| Of course there is going to be some grey area in terms of these hits that injure players...but the ones that are truly obvious "dirty" hits need to be hit with heavy suspensions...I don't mean 2 to 5 game suspensions...I mean you're lucky to even get to play in the league again...but you're sitting for 20 games! You start cutting peoples hands off that steal I guarantee you there'll be less thieves! |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 15:01:01
|
I know we have talked about elbow pads and shoulder pads needing to be looked at for possible change.
So my question would be do we need to go back to wooden sticks only and possibly restrict the curve even more? I dont know if the curve is really an issue but I believe the sticks these players are using could be cause for concerne. I estimate every player's shot is 10% harder with these one piece sticks.
I am going to use baseball as an example seeing as how were comparing other sport's rules. In baseball you can no longer use and alluminam bat once you hit the MLB to protect the players on the field (and keep the ball in the park) but I wonder if you would have a few less broken feet and bones in general if players couldn't couldnt use these one piece sticks. |
|
|
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 17:24:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
I know we have talked about elbow pads and shoulder pads needing to be looked at for possible change.
So my question would be do we need to go back to wooden sticks only and possibly restrict the curve even more? I dont know if the curve is really an issue but I believe the sticks these players are using could be cause for concerne. I estimate every player's shot is 10% harder with these one piece sticks.
I am going to use baseball as an example seeing as how were comparing other sport's rules. In baseball you can no longer use and alluminam bat once you hit the MLB to protect the players on the field (and keep the ball in the park) but I wonder if you would have a few less broken feet and bones in general if players couldn't couldnt use these one piece sticks.
Couldnt agree more about going back to wood sticks and I've always thought it was hypocritical to limit goalie eqipment while at the same time allowing players technology to mak their shots 10 - 20% harder.
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem |
|
|
|
Sensfan101
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
500 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 17:31:53
|
Easy to remove visors so players don't have to take of their helmets during fights
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 17:43:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tiller33
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
I know we have talked about elbow pads and shoulder pads needing to be looked at for possible change.
So my question would be do we need to go back to wooden sticks only and possibly restrict the curve even more? I dont know if the curve is really an issue but I believe the sticks these players are using could be cause for concerne. I estimate every player's shot is 10% harder with these one piece sticks.
I am going to use baseball as an example seeing as how were comparing other sport's rules. In baseball you can no longer use and alluminam bat once you hit the MLB to protect the players on the field (and keep the ball in the park) but I wonder if you would have a few less broken feet and bones in general if players couldn't couldnt use these one piece sticks.
Couldnt agree more about going back to wood sticks and I've always thought it was hypocritical to limit goalie eqipment while at the same time allowing players technology to mak their shots 10 - 20% harder.
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem
I'm not sure if they ever limited the effectiveness of the goalie pads, it's simply area they cover.
I personally think there is something wrong with a goalie being down in the butterfly and covering MORE than the entire bottom of the net.
The current rules stat the pad can be 4" to 8" above the knee. I am 5'11", and measuring from the middle of my knee cap, that would be 28" long pads, meaning I can cover 56" at ice level. That's only 6 " less than the entire span of the net. Think of Roberto Luongo, at 6'3". Theortically, he gets 4" more per pad than I do, meaning he is covering 2" more than the entire length of the net.
I think the goalie pads should be even shorter, not any less "deep" or reduce their protective capabilities.
I also don't have an issue with the composite sticks. I don't think the contribute too much to more injuries. I just like the wooden sticks because I HATE seeing that point shot turn into a break away the other way because of a shattered stick. I also think that some of the love taps to the sticks wouldn't be penalties because a wooden stick would not break as quickly or have a specific weak point. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/23/2009 17:52:50 |
|
|
|
Guest7099
( )
|
|
|
Gusteroni
Rookie
Canada
225 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 09:07:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I don't mind the idea of a challenge flag either. But if there is a challenge flag, then they should also follow the suit of football and not have an official challenge except for the final 2 minutes of the game meaning coaches could not challenge in the final 2 minutes. It would be automatic. Other than that, if the coach doesn't throw the flag, there is no replay.
I think the challenge flag should not be on if something is a penalty or not. It should be only on goal changing or penalty shot inducing infractions.
1 challenge per team per game. If the call stands, 2 minute delay of game penalty. If the play is reversed, no penalty and you get your flag back.
But let's make this really interesting. It's not a flag, it's brick. And it must be thrown and strike and official to induce a replay.
If there were challenge flags the NHL would have to get rid of the intent to blow the whistle rule. You don't see that rule in any sport with a challenge flag as the ref could say "yeah you heard the whistle there but I meant to blow it 5 seconds earlier, so the call on the field/ice stands". For instance when the Leafs scored in overtime (most know they did indeed score) against the Hurricanes and it was called back Wilson could have thrown his challenge flag and when the play was reviewed it would be from the point the whistle was blown which was well after the puck had went in...therefore Leafs win on a good challenge. I do agree that there shouldn't be a challenge on a penalty.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season." |
|
|
|
Gusteroni
Rookie
Canada
225 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 09:35:41
|
The Mark Messier Project has helped design a helmet called the Cascade M11 and it is supposed to protect players from concussions a whole lot more than some of the helmets out there. Now they have never said 'eliminate' concussions as your brain rattling around can't be stopped but it is said to absorb a lot more impact than a standard helmet. My questions is why aren't all players wearing this. I heard Avery wears it, and why not it's a good looking helmet and has a 'tooless' adjustment system with less pressure points. I guess the point is there is equipment out there to help reduce injuries but it's ultimately up to the players to use it or not and it seems they prefer the latter.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season." |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 21:34:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gusteroni
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I don't mind the idea of a challenge flag either. But if there is a challenge flag, then they should also follow the suit of football and not have an official challenge except for the final 2 minutes of the game meaning coaches could not challenge in the final 2 minutes. It would be automatic. Other than that, if the coach doesn't throw the flag, there is no replay.
I think the challenge flag should not be on if something is a penalty or not. It should be only on goal changing or penalty shot inducing infractions.
1 challenge per team per game. If the call stands, 2 minute delay of game penalty. If the play is reversed, no penalty and you get your flag back.
But let's make this really interesting. It's not a flag, it's brick. And it must be thrown and strike and official to induce a replay.
If there were challenge flags the NHL would have to get rid of the intent to blow the whistle rule. You don't see that rule in any sport with a challenge flag as the ref could say "yeah you heard the whistle there but I meant to blow it 5 seconds earlier, so the call on the field/ice stands". For instance when the Leafs scored in overtime (most know they did indeed score) against the Hurricanes and it was called back Wilson could have thrown his challenge flag and when the play was reviewed it would be from the point the whistle was blown which was well after the puck had went in...therefore Leafs win on a good challenge. I do agree that there shouldn't be a challenge on a penalty.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season."
I think challenges in hockey are unnecessary. We have instant replays for a reason. If the refs aren't sure, they go to video and 95% of the time, the right call is made. I find it difficult to compare to the other sports. In football, if a guy steps out of bounds with one half of his outside foot and has taken 3 more strides back in bounds before the ref gets the whistle blown, the play is dead and he is ruled out where he went out. Same with basketball. If an offensive player goes up and over a guy looking to rebound, bumps him off the ball, grabs it and dunks it all in one play, the ref's not quick enough to blow the play dead and rule it no basket / offensive foul. However, even though the whistle comes after the ball is in the net, it's no basket and a foul. In soccer, if a forward were to intentionally swat a ball into the net with his hand from a yard out, it's not gonna count just cuz the ref isn't quick enough on the whistle.....see what i'm getting at?
I like the current rules on replays myself...... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Game changing suggestions 
