NHL looking for ways to improve

[cw]

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/15/nhl-looking-for-ways-to-create-more-offence
TORONTO - Doug Armstrong won?t dismiss such radical concepts as shallow nets, liberal hand passes or panting penalty killers who defend for the full two minutes of a power play.
....
This year, the hockey-operations boys are highlighting special teams and faceoffs.

Two teams of 2012 draft propects must skate through a penalty killing minefield. Getting puck possession on a delayed call won?t be enough to stop play, the penalized team must also exit the zone, possibly down six skaters to five. During the penalty, they?ll be charged with icing (sans substitutions) and the man in the box is stuck there the whole 120 seconds, no matter how many goals against.

?I?m not sure if it?s the bigger equipment or good (PK) strategy, but everyone?s blocking shots and filling up the middle of the ice,? Armstrong noted. ?These ideas could put the advantage back in the power play?s hands or cut down on penalties.?

Armstrong is also keen on seeing consistency returned to the faceoff circle. The same linesman will be dropping the puck during camp, with the dots cut from nine to the five with defined outer circles and hashmarks. When a centre is waved out, the other team can pick the replacement on the draw and there?ll be another look at leaving the puck on the dot and whistling play in.

?It?s just looking for fairness,? Armstrong said. ?There are a lot of ?Ts? and ?Ls? marked out there (where players are supposed to set up), but it could be tidier.?

Toronto general manager Brian Burke will get to see his pet project, the bear-hug rule, where a player can steer another into the boards while briefly wrapping him to lessen impact.

?I think it can reduce and/or eliminate the ?billiard ball? hits we see now five or six feet from the boards,? Burke said. ?Especially in light of the widespread tactic used by forwards protecting the puck while exposing the numbers on their backs. And I believe our officials can handle this without the bear hug itself turning into a tactic.?

I don't mind experimentation and being open to new ideas but my hope would be that the PP doesn't dictate results the way it did in '06. It ruined the game substantially for me. The refs got more sensible after that and I haven't minded it as much in recent years. More five on five scoring is much more preferable to me if they feel the need to increase scoring.

 

[hockeyfan1]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=585925&navid=mod-rr-headlines


The NHL Research and Development Camp will take place in Etobicoke, ON, on August 17-18/'11.


Here are the things they will be looking into:



? No-touch icing
? No line change for team committing an offside
? Faceoff variations (penalty line for center committing an infraction; all faceoffs in circles; same linesman drops puck for all faceoffs)
? No icing permitted while shorthanded
? Verification line (additional line behind the goal line)
? Overtime variation (four minutes of 4-on-4 followed by three minutes of 3-on-3)
? Shootout variation (5-man shootout precedes sudden-death format)
? Shallow-back nets

? After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team's end
? Faceoff variations (both centers must come set on whistle; all faceoffs in circles; same linesman drops puck for all face-offs)
? Delayed penalty variation (offending team must exit zone in possession of puck to stop play)
? Changes only permitted on-the-fly (except after goals and upon manpower changes)
? Strict enforcement of goaltenders covering puck outside crease (Rule 63.2)
? Remove trapezoid
? Verification line
? Allow hand passes in all zones
? Overtime variation (switch ends)
? Shootout variation (5-man shootout with repeat players if tied after 5 shooters)
? Thin-netting nets

? 'Hybrid' icing
? Offside variation (offending team can't change and faceoff in its end zone)
? Faceoff variations (player encroaching can't replace thrown-out center, all faceoffs in circles; same linesman drops puck for all faceoffs)
? All penalties to be served in their entirety
? Strict enforcement of goaltenders covering puck outside crease (rule 63.2)
? Bear-hug rule
? Verification line
? Overtime variation (switch ends for four minutes of 4-on-4, followed by three minutes of 3-on-3)
? Shootout variation (3-man shoot out with repeat shooters if tied after 3 shooters)
? Shallow-back nets

? All-Star Skills competition (fastest skater, breakaway challenge, accuracy shooting, skills relay challenge, hardest shot, elimination shootout)

Other technology/modifications to be tested during various sessions:

? On-ice officials communication -- ref-to-ref wireless
? Overhead camera -- to assist Hockey Operations reviews of various initiatives (verification line/goal netting/in-net camera)
? In-net camera -- mounted camera at one end with one net with camera view focused on the goal line to help verify goals
? Robotic camera --  to test camera angles for coverage closer to ice
? Video replay application review
? Curved glass -- protection options at players bench areas

 

[AvroArrow]

Ugh...why is offence the only thing that interests these idiots?  A guy who sacrifices his body ala Tim Brent or Matt Stajan did to block shots is just as amazing as many goals, to me.

 

[Bullfrog]

I like the idea of icing while short-handed and having the offending team clear the zone.

I agree with cw though, that 5-on-5 should be the priority.

 

[L K]

I like the idea of icing while short-handed and having the offending team clear the zone.

I agree with cw though, that 5-on-5 should be the priority.

If they want to increase scoring, stop letting interference at the blueline as teams try and enter the zone on dump-ins.

The offside rule seems really stupid, you get massively punished for a guy having his skate blade barely over the line?

 

[Bender]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=585925&navid=mod-rr-headlines


The NHL Research and Development Camp will take place in Etobicoke, ON, on August 17-18/'11.


Here are the things they will be looking into:



? No-touch icing
? No line change for team committing an offside
? Faceoff variations (penalty line for center committing an infraction; all faceoffs in circles; same linesman drops puck for all faceoffs)
? No icing permitted while shorthanded
? Verification line (additional line behind the goal line)
? Overtime variation (four minutes of 4-on-4 followed by three minutes of 3-on-3)
? Shootout variation (5-man shootout precedes sudden-death format)
? Shallow-back nets

? After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team's end
? Faceoff variations (both centers must come set on whistle; all faceoffs in circles; same linesman drops puck for all face-offs)
? Delayed penalty variation (offending team must exit zone in possession of puck to stop play)
? Changes only permitted on-the-fly (except after goals and upon manpower changes)
? Strict enforcement of goaltenders covering puck outside crease (Rule 63.2)
? Remove trapezoid
? Verification line
? Allow hand passes in all zones
? Overtime variation (switch ends)
? Shootout variation (5-man shootout with repeat players if tied after 5 shooters)
? Thin-netting nets

? 'Hybrid' icing
? Offside variation (offending team can't change and faceoff in its end zone)
? Faceoff variations (player encroaching can't replace thrown-out center, all faceoffs in circles; same linesman drops puck for all faceoffs)
? All penalties to be served in their entirety
? Strict enforcement of goaltenders covering puck outside crease (rule 63.2)
? Bear-hug rule
? Verification line
? Overtime variation (switch ends for four minutes of 4-on-4, followed by three minutes of 3-on-3)
? Shootout variation (3-man shoot out with repeat shooters if tied after 3 shooters)
? Shallow-back nets

? All-Star Skills competition (fastest skater, breakaway challenge, accuracy shooting, skills relay challenge, hardest shot, elimination shootout)

Other technology/modifications to be tested during various sessions:

? On-ice officials communication -- ref-to-ref wireless
? Overhead camera -- to assist Hockey Operations reviews of various initiatives (verification line/goal netting/in-net camera)
? In-net camera -- mounted camera at one end with one net with camera view focused on the goal line to help verify goals
? Robotic camera --  to test camera angles for coverage closer to ice
? Video replay application review
? Curved glass -- protection options at players bench areas

I agree with Avro here. Increasing offense is nonsense at this point. Does nobody care about strong defense or shutout wins? They're going to keep pushing for offense until 7-6 games are commonplace. It's unbelievable.

And an icing charge while you're on the PK? That's just bloody insane. They're hamstringing good defensive play.

 

[Kin]

Where are you guys reading that they're trying to increase offense? What it looks like they're doing, what makes a lot of sense for them to do, is to make penalties more of a deterrent for the teams who commit infractions. I don't want to see more of the 90's where "good defense" got confused with trapping, hooking and obstruction. Like LK says, we're already seeing obstruction creep back in. I know cw said he didn't like the penalties called during the 05-06 season but there was no other way to get teams to stop relying on illegal tactics. Nothing is more frustrating to me than fans who whine about too many penalties if the penalties are correctly called.

 

[Bender]

Where are you guys reading that they're trying to increase offense? What it looks like they're doing, what makes a lot of sense for them to do, is to make penalties more of a deterrent for the teams who commit infractions. I don't want to see more of the 90's where "good defense" got confused with trapping, hooking and obstruction. Like LK says, we're already seeing obstruction creep back in. I know cw said he didn't like the penalties called during the 05-06 season but there was no other way to get teams to stop relying on illegal tactics. Nothing is more frustrating to me than fans who whine about too many penalties if the penalties are correctly called.

I will go ahead and bold the items that either have something to do with increased offense, which may put the defending team into an unfair detriment, or are just plain unecessary. Of course some will be up to a matter of opinion.

? No-touch icing - This one is prudent to pass for obvious reasons
? No line change for team committing an offside? Faceoff variations (penalty line for center committing an infraction; all faceoffs in circles; same linesman drops puck for all faceoffs)
? No icing permitted while shorthanded? Verification line (additional line behind the goal line)
? Overtime variation (four minutes of 4-on-4 followed by three minutes of 3-on-3)
? Shootout variation (5-man shootout precedes sudden-death format)
? Shallow-back nets

? After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team's end
? Faceoff variations (both centers must come set on whistle; all faceoffs in circles; same linesman drops puck for all face-offs)
? Delayed penalty variation (offending team must exit zone in possession of puck to stop play)
? Changes only permitted on-the-fly (except after goals and upon manpower changes)
? Strict enforcement of goaltenders covering puck outside crease (Rule 63.2)
? Remove trapezoid
? Verification line
? Allow hand passes in all zones
? Overtime variation (switch ends)
? Shootout variation (5-man shootout with repeat players if tied after 5 shooters)
? Thin-netting nets

? 'Hybrid' icing
? Offside variation (offending team can't change and faceoff in its end zone)
? Faceoff variations (player encroaching can't replace thrown-out center, all faceoffs in circles; same linesman drops puck for all faceoffs)
? All penalties to be served in their entirety
? Strict enforcement of goaltenders covering puck outside crease (rule 63.2)
? Bear-hug rule
? Verification line
? Overtime variation (switch ends for four minutes of 4-on-4, followed by three minutes of 3-on-3)
? Shootout variation (3-man shoot out with repeat shooters if tied after 3 shooters)
? Shallow-back nets

? All-Star Skills competition (fastest skater, breakaway challenge, accuracy shooting, skills relay challenge, hardest shot, elimination shootout)

Other technology/modifications to be tested during various sessions:

? On-ice officials communication -- ref-to-ref wireless
? Overhead camera -- to assist Hockey Operations reviews of various initiatives (verification line/goal netting/in-net camera)
? In-net camera -- mounted camera at one end with one net with camera view focused on the goal line to help verify goals
? Robotic camera --  to test camera angles for coverage closer to ice
? Video replay application review
? Curved glass -- protection options at players bench areas

Some are repeats and some I may be interpreting it wrong. But from what I can tell, those constitute rules aimed not at hooking or obstruction, rather for offensive gain save for a few.

For example: Offsides. Not every offside is intentional. Some may be in order to get a line change. I agree, then don't allow a line change. But why bring it back into the defending team's zone? The team is penalized that much for a timing error that occurs much of the time due to the speed of the game?

Aside from increased offense, some just seem downright nutty.
Overtime: Four minutes of four-on-four followed by three minutes of three-on-three? Where are the numbers coming from? Sure, for consistency purposes the numbers align. But what's wrong with five minutes of four-on-four and five minutes of three-on-three if overtime is originally 5 minutes anyway?

I'm not buying some of these changes. I like the removal of the trapezoid, no touch icing, no line change on offside, 5 man shootout.

 

[Kin]

Some are repeats and some I may be interpreting it wrong. But from what I can tell, those constitute rules aimed not at hooking or obstruction, rather for offensive gain save for a few.

I could go line by line to dispute it but I think most of the ones you're highlighting either fall into one of two categories. One is treating offsides harsher which would discourage teams from going offside which would probably mean more tentative rushes into the offensive zone, which seems to not help offense at all, and the others relate to penalty killing and making penalties more punitive to the teams getting them. You could view that as encouraging offense and you could see it as cracking down on teams who commit penalties.

Either way, the point behind these camps are to try things out and see how they impact the game. Just because they're trying something out doesn't mean they love it and want to implement it, just that they're seeing the effect it has on play.

 

[cw]

I know cw said he didn't like the penalties called during the 05-06 season but there was no other way to get teams to stop relying on illegal tactics. Nothing is more frustrating to me than fans who whine about too many penalties if the penalties are correctly called.

In 2006, there were 14390 PPs or close to 12 per game.
In 2011, there were 8716 PPs or over 7 per game.
Even strength scoring grew a few percent between those years.

In '06, the pendulum swung too far the other way. Diving was way up to draw penalties, etc. Guys were drawing hooking calls by pinching a stick under their armpit. Calls were made on guys trying to clear the front of the net. Etc. Too many bogus penalties in my opinion that did nothing for the integrity of the game or proving who the better hockey club was. I can say with absolute certainty that if they had remained the same as '06, I would have stopped watching and following the league. I could not continue to watch pussified, stupid penalty-fests.

I have no problem with the refs calling the rules equally on both teams - even if I don't care for the rules because the rules however flawed, must be applied fairly. I can even excuse to some limited extent some refs puting their whistles in their pocket - as long as they do it consistently, equally and moderately without compromising the safety of the players and the overall integrity of the game. Some penalties are subjective and human refs make mistakes. 2006 was over the top and a lousy brand of hockey in my opinion. 2004 and before, even with obstruction seemed like a better game to determine the best hockey team.

Has the pendulum swung too far the other way since '06? Maybe a little. But I'm appreciative of the distance they put between 2006 and 2011. It's a more reasonable game in terms of penalties called.

I could go for things like:
- stricter but reasonable enforcement of goaltenders freezing the play as long as part of the goalie is in the crease.
- maybe some of the offside stuff as long as it doesn't kill offence ... I need to give their ideas more thought
- Overtime variation (four minutes of 4-on-4 followed by three minutes of 3-on-3)
- Shallow-back nets
- improvement to faceoffs once I get a better handle on their ideas
- Delayed penalty variation (offending team must exit zone in possession of puck to stop play) - after that, it's as it currently is on the PK. 5 on 3's would be brutal to defend if one couldn't ice the puck.

Most of those would hopefully help 5 on 5 scoring without screwing up the integrity of the game.

For safety concerns, I also like :
- trying Burke's bear hug idea
- 'Hybrid' icing (for God's sake do something)
- Curved glass - protection options at players bench areas

And the verification line should be a no brainer to speed up goal review.

 

[Kin]

In 2006, there were 14390 PPs or close to 12 per game.
In 2011, there were 8716 PPs or over 7 per game.
Even strength scoring grew a few percent between those years.

In '06, the pendulum swung too far the other way. Diving was way up to draw penalties, etc. Guys were drawing hooking calls by pinching a stick under their armpit. Calls were made on guys trying to clear the front of the net. Etc. Too many bogus penalties in my opinion that did nothing for the integrity of the game or proving who the better hockey club was. I can say with absolute certainty that if they had remained the same as '06, I would have stopped watching and following the league. I could not continue to watch pussified, stupid penalty-fests.

Post lockout the game had to change. Nobody wanted to watch the Devils, not even Devils fans. What happened in '06 was transitional. Players had to learn the new rules, the Refs had to adjust to calling them. It's not a number of penalties I wanted to see continue either but the way for it to reduce was teams to learn to play by the actual rulebook and not hope that their whining and bitching about the number of penalties being called could replace skill and proper defensive play.

To some extent, that's what we've seen in the years afterwards. Like I said, I didn't love 05-06 either but I think it was necessary for the better hockey we've seen since. 

I have no problem with the refs calling the rules equally on both teams - even if I don't care for the rules because the rules however flawed, must be applied fairly. I can even excuse to some limited extent some refs puting their whistles in their pocket - as long as they do it consistently, equally and moderately without compromising the safety of the players and the overall integrity of the game. Some penalties are subjective and human refs make mistakes. 2006 was over the top and a lousy brand of hockey in my opinion. 2004 and before, even with obstruction seemed like a better game to determine the best hockey team.

Nobody's arguing for bogus penalties to be called. I just want to see a game, and I think that's what we have now, where the number of penalties called reflects the number of infractions in a game and not the number of penalties in a game that a referee decides to call to try and control the flow of the game or appease fans who don't want to see a lot penalties.

If a lot of penalties are being called and the refs are doing their jobs the answer has to be for the teams to knock it off. I think 05-06 produced that and we've seen better hockey as a result.

 

[McPwnage]

Some of those are reasonable but not letting you ice the puck on a powerplay is one of the ideas there that is just insane and I could never see happening.  I don't really see a need to create more offence, there are plenty of scoring games and the nhl isn't at a point where we have soccer style 1-0 games all the time. 

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

If they want to increase scoring, stop letting interference at the blueline as teams try and enter the zone on dump-ins.

This is kind of my pet peeve, as they have the rule there and seem to turn a blind eye to it a lot of the time. I mean, of all the things they let slide, why that one? It's enormously aggravating to watch it during a game. Also, it's not like it is easy to miss either, it's plain as day out there, the refs are just allowing the rule to disintegrate before the fans eyes.

Maybe it's because defensemen are getting hurt with the speed of the forwards coming in on the fore-check, but for me, there is other rules to help curb that. I just hate rules that are in place and they get called periodically, what's the use of having it at all, because it changes the outcome of games at times and that shouldn't happen.

 

[cw]

In 2006, there were 14390 PPs or close to 12 per game.
In 2011, there were 8716 PPs or over 7 per game.
Even strength scoring grew a few percent between those years.

In '06, the pendulum swung too far the other way. Diving was way up to draw penalties, etc. Guys were drawing hooking calls by pinching a stick under their armpit. Calls were made on guys trying to clear the front of the net. Etc. Too many bogus penalties in my opinion that did nothing for the integrity of the game or proving who the better hockey club was. I can say with absolute certainty that if they had remained the same as '06, I would have stopped watching and following the league. I could not continue to watch pussified, stupid penalty-fests.

Post lockout the game had to change. Nobody wanted to watch the Devils, not even Devils fans. What happened in '06 was transitional. Players had to learn the new rules, the Refs had to adjust to calling them. It's not a number of penalties I wanted to see continue either but the way for it to reduce was teams to learn to play by the actual rulebook and not hope that their whining and bitching about the number of penalties being called could replace skill and proper defensive play.

To some extent, that's what we've seen in the years afterwards. Like I said, I didn't love 05-06 either but I think it was necessary for the better hockey we've seen since. 

I was all for changes to reduce obstruction and exhibit more skill.Transition to that was a necessary evil. What I wasn't for was waiting for a whole season before they made adjustments to things that were silly. The implementation left something to be desired where they should have planned reviews and adjustments in the season for the stuff that was clearly going off the wall when they implemented so many changes. Reasonable folks should have anticipated there would be issues and I don't buy the notion that they couldn't be addressed during the season (like we saw with head shots for example).

I have no problem with the refs calling the rules equally on both teams - even if I don't care for the rules because the rules however flawed, must be applied fairly. I can even excuse to some limited extent some refs puting their whistles in their pocket - as long as they do it consistently, equally and moderately without compromising the safety of the players and the overall integrity of the game. Some penalties are subjective and human refs make mistakes. 2006 was over the top and a lousy brand of hockey in my opinion. 2004 and before, even with obstruction seemed like a better game to determine the best hockey team.

Nobody's arguing for bogus penalties to be called. I just want to see a game, and I think that's what we have now, where the number of penalties called reflects the number of infractions in a game and not the number of penalties in a game that a referee decides to call to try and control the flow of the game or appease fans who don't want to see a lot penalties.

If a lot of penalties are being called and the refs are doing their jobs the answer has to be for the teams to knock it off. I think 05-06 produced that and we've seen better hockey as a result.

The improvements did not come merely by the players learning to adhere to the new rules. That was part of it but not the majority of the problem. A bunch of the improvements beyond '06 came from camps like the one we're about to see and the league and refs adjusting the way they called those rules. Guys who dove started to pay the price when they got called for it in '06-07. Guys who pinched a stick in their underarm to draw a hooking call subsequently risked being called for holding the stick. Dmen were allowed more latitude in the refs interpretation of obstruction rules to clearing the front of the net after '06. etc. These things were talked about and got resolved. It did not merely come about by the players learning to play within the new rules of '05-06.

 

[dappleganger]

Some of those are reasonable but not letting you ice the puck on a powerplay is one of the ideas there that is just insane and I could never see happening.  I don't really see a need to create more offence, there are plenty of scoring games and the nhl isn't at a point where we have soccer style 1-0 games all the time.

Icing the puck on the penalty kill can be one of the most enjoyable plays in hockey.

For example: when the Leafs are winning 3-2 with 1:48 to play in the third and get called for a penalty. An icing to clear the zone can have me yelling and hopping out of my seat.

A love that play because it can become about pure will. It can be an exciting play, a player hammering the puck down the ice where the other team has to retrieve it.

I think not allowing a team to ice the puck on the penalty kill could lead to some sloppy hockey games.   

 

[Tigger]

Where are you guys reading that they're trying to increase offense?

Might have been referencing Lance Hornbys Sun article?

Removing the trapezoid and some kind of no touch icing I agree with but on the surface I'm not sure what to think about most of the rest. I really don't like the offside suggestions nor do I like the 'no icing during a pk' notion and one safety concern missing is reducing the amount of body armor a player wears, for me that's moving into no touch icing territory as an issue but then perhaps a camp isn't the best place to test something like that out...

 

[bustaheims]

Where are you guys reading that they're trying to increase offense?

Yeah. I mean, I get why some people might interpret the list that way, but, to me, it seems like what they're really trying to do is decrease the number of stoppages in play by either minimizing the number of times they're applied (hand passes, stricter enforcement of rules on goalies freezing the puck, etc) or making the punishment for those events more severe so teams will make a greater effort to avoid them (offsides, etc). And, of course, they're looking at things to protect the players (no touch icing, Burke's bear-hug, all the penalty and PK changes). There's very little that I see which is really there as a clear attempt to increase offence, though, some of them likely have the possibility to.

 

[Tigger]

I can see some of the PP suggestions going towards 'increasing offence' but not much else. Penalizing an offside with a defensive zone faceoff could be seen that way a bit too I suppose.

 

[cw]

The top post linked an article titled "NHL looking for ways to create more offence"

Obviously, from the list of things they're looking at and items cited within the article, the NHL is doing more than just "looking for ways to create more offence"

 

[pnjunction]

Dunno about that bear hug thing, I already lament that grabbing someone on open ice for a fraction of second is interference/holding but somehow pinning them to the boards for 10 seconds after contact is legit.