So, I get home from the gym today and there is a series of tweets from ESPN NHL columnist, Pierre LeBrun discussing the various rule change possibilities the NHL is exploring at it's "Research, Development, and Orientation" camp. I understand keeping your options open and all, but all but one of these ideas are blatantly ridiculous. And the one that's not, I'm not fond of. Here's a list from his tweets:
"Hybrid" Icing - It's a 'hybrid' between the NHL/AHL rule of normal icing, where a defender must touch the puck and international rules (and lower leagues) where all icing is "no touch". The play is dead on an icing as soon as the puck crosses the goal line. So in this proposed rule, if it's clear that no offensive players will be touching the puck, the linesman can blow the play dead with a "no touch" type call. But if there is doubt, then the play would continue as normal until either the defender touches up and play is stopped or the offensive player touches the puck and play continues.
I don't have a huge problem with this possible rule. I just worry about too much discretion given to officials. I know it wouldn't happen often, but what if Martin St. Louis was 5 steps behind Brad Stuart? At first glance, the linesman could potentially blow the play dead and call icing. But looking further, Martin St. Louis could make up that ground in about 1.5 seconds. I don't have a problem with "no touch" icing. Just pick one or the other and drop this "Hybrid" silliness.
No line changes for the offending team on an off-sides - Would follow the same rules as after an icing call.
Absolutely hate this. The spirit of the icing rule is to prevent teams from icing to make a change. I don't see too many instances where a hockey team purposely goes offsides to stop the game when they have possession and are gaining the offensive zone. Just silly.
Face-offs - They experimented today with one circle in each zone and no dropping of the puck for face-offs. The referee would place the puck on the circle and neither player could move until the whistle.
I don't even understand the reasoning behind one big circle instead of two. Maybe someone can enlighten me. And the idea of a "street hockey" style face-off is too dumb for me to comment on.
Finally, the most egregious experiment in the history of hockey...
Overtime - According to LeBrun, they experimented with an OT session consisting of 3 minutes of 4 on 4, 3 minutes of 3 on 3, and 2 minutes of 2 on 2.
I officially checked out of this R& D debacle at this point. This is just Vince McMahon XFL crap. Call me a traditionalist, call me old school, call me a crotchety middle aged jerk, but can we please just play a 5 minute OT. Heck, even go 4 on 4. I'm fine with it. I'd like to see the shootout go the way of stand up goalies, but it will never happen. The casual fan enjoys them too much. And I will sacrifice a little bit of enjoyment for a packed house.
I could learn to like the hybrid icing. The others should never happen in any respectable league. I say, stop tinkering with the rules and get your CBA straightened out, teams in markets that deserve them and teams out of markets that don't appreciate the best sport in the world. Face it, hockey is a niche sport. It's big in Europe, Canada, and the northern United States. Sure, there are exceptions (San Jose, Dallas), but we shouldn't ever hope to compete with the NFL or even the NBA. Accept what you are and make it strong and more appealing to your loyal fan base. Don't sacrifice the integrity and the spirit of the game for people who would rather be at a Julia Roberts movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment