Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

[purpleinnebraska]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

There are a few odd rules in the book that don't necessarily get called, including some timing related rules based on what point in the game you're in (see the rule on dislodging the net). I can understand this rule because it goes along the lines of delaying of game, but if there's a forechecker, you can't really call this because forward movement is being prevented. Seems more like a response to that one Devils game where they set up the 1-3-1 defense and the puck just stayed behind the net.

I think that was a Philly-Tampa game. NJ did popularize the trap, but they weren't involved in the game when some coach finally said "enough."

 

[NCAA watcher]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VV1PrbkK3E

 

[Split-N]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I'd like to see the OT change go to 5x5 or 4x4 OT with each team getting 1pt after a regulation tie. If still tied then go to a shootout with the shootout winner getting the 3rd pt.

I was with you until you got to the part about shootouts. #nothockey

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

There are a few odd rules in the book that don't necessarily get called, including some timing related rules based on what point in the game you're in (see the rule on dislodging the net). I can understand this rule because it goes along the lines of delaying of game, but if there's a forechecker, you can't really call this because forward movement is being prevented. Seems more like a response to that one Devils game where they set up the 1-3-1 defense and the puck just stayed behind the net.

I don't consider dislodging the net an odd rule, but I agree that many don't get called, or only called late in a game. As for advancing the puck out of the defensive zone, the rule has existed since 1986-87, when it was Rule 6, Section 34. b.

Sean

 

[e.cat]

I was with you until you got to the part about shootouts. #nothockey

I don't necessarily like the shootout either but I would rather have a shootout win than an OT tie to end the game.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

The way that the rule book is written now seems to be an appropriate compromise between the two crowds when consideration is in place for the national tournament. I would consider taking it one step further, and eliminate overtime from the consideration altogether unless the playoffs format (i.e. keep going 5v5 until someone scores) is used. Let the leagues decide how they want to handle overtime. If they want to do 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, tie after x minutes, shootout, or even just end the game after 60 and call it a tie, it can be up to them. At the end of the day, league standings mean jack squat for national tournament consideration, only for how the league determines who to send as their auto-bid. And in all reality, the same could theoretically also be done for league playoffs, although you might have a riot on your hands if you actually did that, because as much as it is taxing on the players, stalemate is historically exciting for the spectators, and has been used in the past for match fixing by producers to garner ratings.

 

[Split-N]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I don't necessarily like the shootout either but I would rather have a shootout win than an OT tie to end the game.

Why in the world would you object to each team receiving a standings point when, after regulation plus OT, neither team proved to be better than the other? It's the only fair outcome. Neither a shootout nor any other "gimmick" establishes the superiority of one team over the other to the extent that it justifies an artificial advantage in the standings. #nothockey

 

[e.cat]

Why in the world would you object to each team receiving a standings point when, after regulation plus OT, neither team proved to be better than the other? It's the only fair outcome. Neither a shootout nor any other "gimmick" establishes the superiority of one team over the other to the extent that it justifies an artificial advantage in the standings. #nothockey

My view has evolved on this. If I had my druthers at this point. I'd like to see each team get a point after a regulation tie. A team can get an extra point if they win the OT.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

....and also the player health. The grinding game takes such a physical toll on the players, painkillers and other sort of systemic issues. From hits due to being cornered with less ice space, to blocking shots to clog lanes rather than free skating, the players pay a price.

I'm not buying this. A couple more shifts every 4th game isn't going to take time off a player's playing career or turn a player into an addict.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I don't consider dislodging the net an odd rule, but I agree that many don't get called, or only called late in a game. As for advancing the puck out of the defensive zone, the rule has existed since 1986-87, when it was Rule 6, Section 34. b.

Sean

Dislodging isn't really odd so much as the "within the last two minutes or in overtime" clause.

 

[Koho]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Why in the world would you object to each team receiving a standings point when, after regulation plus OT, neither team proved to be better than the other? It's the only fair outcome. Neither a shootout nor any other "gimmick" establishes the superiority of one team over the other to the extent that it justifies an artificial advantage in the standings. #nothockey

I don't know if that is what e.cat meant, but I agree with your point.

 

[Koho]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I can trace the minute I began to lose interest in the NHL to the exact time they adopted the loser point. It makes the standings and the game artificial. Hockey should be like baseball and basketball, just figure the standings on wins and losses. If deciding a winner is so important and the fans love the shootout so much, just give the winner the points and the loser goes home with nothing. If anyone thinks the team that loses in a shootout still needs something to show for their efforts, then they have to admit the shootout is an abomination. What's next? If you manage to outshoot a team in all three periods and you only lose the game by one goal in regulation you get half a point? I mean you almost won and you did do some things better. The real reason for the loser point is it artificially keeps more teams within skating distance of the last playoff spot, because the entire regular season is just a 5 month narrative on the coming playoffs. 82 games are just to seed the Stanley Cup playoffs. Of course the NHL then screws that up, and has the two best teams meet in a second round playoff series. College hockey would do well to copy very little of what the NHL does.

I disagree. I agree the shootout is an abomination, but one we are probably stuck with. But if a team is tied with another after a full game and an OT, played 5 on 5 as the game is meant to be played, why would you suddenly give all the points to one team based on a shootout? I see it as each team gets a point for being even, and there is a bonus for the skills competition. A compromise for fans who need a winner. For someone who doesn't like shootouts to then say it should decide who gets all the points in the end just seems ridiculous.

Now as for how points are awarded (3 points for every game v. 2 point with a bonus added for a shootout) doesn't actually matter that much to me. I can understand the feeling that bonus points are bogus, but I can't wrap my head around a three point win either. Just too many years with a win being 2 points.

And as for the NHL, I have become more interested in the game since they have cracked down on holding, hooking, interference and other penalties that slowed the game down to the point that each team had goons who weren't good skaters just there to fight. With the better rule enforcement, the game has become better to watch. It is a much better product on the ice. To me that is way more important than how team standings are decided. If standings is what matters, just follow them in the paper. But to suggest that the faster, more skilled play of today is less watchable than the goon days because shootouts and the way they are scored has ruined the game makes me wonder why you are watching hockey.

 

[joecct]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

As to 3 points v 2 points. It's math. Having a game worth 2 points for a 60 minute game but then 3 points for any game > 60 minutes doesn't add up.

By making all games 3 points, the math adds up

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I disagree. I agree the shootout is an abomination, but one we are probably stuck with. But if a team is tied with another after a full game and an OT, played 5 on 5 as the game is meant to be played, why would you suddenly give all the points to one team based on a shootout? I see it as each team gets a point for being even, and there is a bonus for the skills competition. A compromise for fans who need a winner. For someone who doesn't like shootouts to then say it should decide who gets all the points in the end just seems ridiculous.

Now as for how points are awarded (3 points for every game v. 2 point with a bonus added for a shootout) doesn't actually matter that much to me. I can understand the feeling that bonus points are bogus, but I can't wrap my head around a three point win either. Just too many years with a win being 2 points.

And as for the NHL, I have become more interested in the game since they have cracked down on holding, hooking, interference and other penalties that slowed the game down to the point that each team had goons who weren't good skaters just there to fight. With the better rule enforcement, the game has become better to watch. It is a much better product on the ice. To me that is way more important than how team standings are decided. If standings is what matters, just follow them in the paper. But to suggest that the faster, more skilled play of today is less watchable than the goon days because shootouts and the way they are scored has ruined the game makes me wonder why you are watching hockey.

How about we ask the question in the other direction: Why does international play utilize the shootout? If it's because of soccer's extra time and penalties, why do they utilize it?

 

[Koho]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

How about we ask the question in the other direction: Why does international play utilize the shootout? If it's because of soccer's extra time and penalties, why do they utilize it?

Not sure what you are getting at, and what soccer rules have to do with hockey, but I would guess that most international games are part of a tournament where a winner needs to be selected to move on. And if the tournament is being played in one venue, a couple triple overtime games can really mess up a schedule.

 

[Koho]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

As to 3 points v 2 points. It's math. Having a game worth 2 points for a 60 minute game but then 3 points for any game > 60 minutes doesn't add up.

By making all games 3 points, the math adds up

'Doesn't add up' to what? The math with the other option is that all wins are worth 2 points, whether in regulation or OT. Who says that by the end of the year, if you add all the points of all the teams, it has to add up to a certain value? What matters is that the best team is crowned the conference champion (or in the NHL, that the top 8 teams make it from each conference). I just don't see how one method does a better job of this than the other.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

'Doesn't add up' to what? The math with the other option is that all wins are worth 2 points, whether in regulation or OT. Who says that by the end of the year, if you add all the points of all the teams, it has to add up to a certain value? What matters is that the best team is crowned the conference champion (or in the NHL, that the top 8 teams make it from each conference). I just don't see how one method does a better job of this than the other.

The idea is the points should be reflective of the percentage of effectiveness of a team in a given season. By making OT games worth 3 and regulation worth 2 (aggregate of course), you're adding more value to games going to overtime. Likewise, if we go the other way and look at soccer, you have 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw, so points get "left on the table" (or they go "to the house" for a draw). If the point is that draws should not be worth a one-half win and only one-third, then so be it. However, by adding more value to OT, you get to the feeling where some teams will play for the regulation tie in order to improve their situation.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Stolen from myself at http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/:

It’s time to look at “points” realistically and align them to risk and reward.

I’m not talking goals plus assists; I’m talking about points used in league standings.

I’d like to see every league game worth five points. Yes, five. I know it’s a vast departure from the past, but points really don’t serve a purpose other than sorting out league standings. Points are merely a standings shorthand, an accounting trick*.

If you get 21 wins and win the league title, does it matter if that standings column says “42 points”, “63 points”, “60 points”, or “105 points”? The key is this: You finished first in the standings. No one remembers the points.

Here’s my proposal:

5 – Win in regulation time
4 – Win in overtime
3 – Win in a shootout
2 – Lose a shootout
1 – Lose in overtime
0 – Lose in regulation time

The opponents will say, “You should get nothing if you lose.” What are they getting? “Standings Points” are just an accounting trick to sort out the standings. You don’t “get” those points to hang from rafters.

So what would be the benefit?

You’d have teams playing to win during the whole game. A team would actually benefit by winning in regulation instead of overtime. And instead of going into a shell in overtime to get the “overtime point” and reach a shootout you have a reason to try to win.

It’s a different approach, but it would make the standings clearer and probably reduce the need tiebreakers to set the seeds at the end of the season.

*Points matter as much as, ... well, ... points on "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"

 

[UncleRay]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Stolen from myself at http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/:

If you're going to steal stuff, it might as well be from somebody you think is smart.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

If you're going to steal stuff, it might as well be from somebody you think is smart.

Why wouldn't he think himself as such?