Going to be on the road for work reasons for a week so I figured I would write up a quick post on some miscellaneous items:
A) don't miss this post by Vic over at IOF - absolute gold
B) great 'history was, history is' post over at Lowetide's
C) CIO discusses various rule changes he would like to see and in that spirit I include a few comments of mine own (below).
Immediate Rule Changes in the world of YKOil:
1) Player helmets have to be properly strapped on. Failure to do so is an automatic 2 minute penalty.
A) don't miss this post by Vic over at IOF - absolute gold
B) great 'history was, history is' post over at Lowetide's
C) CIO discusses various rule changes he would like to see and in that spirit I include a few comments of mine own (below).
Immediate Rule Changes in the world of YKOil:
1) Player helmets have to be properly strapped on. Failure to do so is an automatic 2 minute penalty.
--- I have heard that the proper distance between the strap and the bottom of the chin is approximately a fingerwidth. If so, then that is what it should be.
Safety first. This is a no-brainer. Pun intended.
2) No touch icing at the plane of the goal line.
--- if the puck passes the plane of the goal line and there is no apparent pursuit of the puck** it is whistled down as automatic icing
--- if pursuit of the puck is apparent and the defenseman reaches the plane of the goal line first the whistle blows and it is automatic icing.
--- if pursuit of the puck is apparent and the forward reaches the plane of the goal line first then playcontinues on
Pursuit of the puck is a rule of thumb term best given in the form of two rhetorical questions:
a) Is there a player(s) chasing the puck?
b) Is the players(s) in question able to overtake the puck before it hits the boards?
If the answer to either question results in a 'no' response then there is no apparent pursuit of the puck. Should speed up the game and result in markedly fewer injuries while sltill allowing the odd foot-chase to occur.
3) Change the goal posts. Not the shape or size of the net - just the goal posts.
--- I have attached a crude drawing (above) to this post that shows what I am aiming at. Admittedly I am not the greatest student of physics and geometry but even I know that the half-post concept would result in fewer pucks deflecting away from the goal line.
--- in this age of high-tech metal composites I do not believe that shrinking the post would result in dramatically weaker net frames.
--- an important side benefit is that a 1 inch shave would result in an extra 168 inches of open net (just over 1 square foot)
More net to shoot at, more shots counting for goals and a committment to the traditional dimensions of the frame... what's not to love?
So there you have it - were I commish for a day those would be my changes.
------
Have a great evening everyone. See you in a week.
Safety first. This is a no-brainer. Pun intended.
2) No touch icing at the plane of the goal line.
--- if the puck passes the plane of the goal line and there is no apparent pursuit of the puck** it is whistled down as automatic icing
--- if pursuit of the puck is apparent and the defenseman reaches the plane of the goal line first the whistle blows and it is automatic icing.
--- if pursuit of the puck is apparent and the forward reaches the plane of the goal line first then playcontinues on
Pursuit of the puck is a rule of thumb term best given in the form of two rhetorical questions:
a) Is there a player(s) chasing the puck?
b) Is the players(s) in question able to overtake the puck before it hits the boards?
If the answer to either question results in a 'no' response then there is no apparent pursuit of the puck. Should speed up the game and result in markedly fewer injuries while sltill allowing the odd foot-chase to occur.
3) Change the goal posts. Not the shape or size of the net - just the goal posts.
--- I have attached a crude drawing (above) to this post that shows what I am aiming at. Admittedly I am not the greatest student of physics and geometry but even I know that the half-post concept would result in fewer pucks deflecting away from the goal line.
--- in this age of high-tech metal composites I do not believe that shrinking the post would result in dramatically weaker net frames.
--- an important side benefit is that a 1 inch shave would result in an extra 168 inches of open net (just over 1 square foot)
More net to shoot at, more shots counting for goals and a committment to the traditional dimensions of the frame... what's not to love?
So there you have it - were I commish for a day those would be my changes.
------
Have a great evening everyone. See you in a week.
6 comments:
Hard to disagree with those, especially the chin strap one. My wife could probably tell you better than I how many times I've yelled "do up ya fuckin chinstrap you freaking idiot!" at the teebee.
You see six million dollar man Pronger waltzing around on the ice with his strap hanging down around his knees, and you really wonder why insurance companies don't go "extra premium please." Or maybe they do.
I'm with you on those, though I think an increased risk of injury would be the biggest problem with the goalpost change. It now becomes possible to impact it on a narrow edge, and at the speeds players crash into them, you're looking at more fractures, at very least.
I like the no touch idea because there could still be good puck chases/battles and the possibility for hardwork to eliminate the call still exists. However, I can just see defenceman getting hurt because there was a blown call by the ref, or if there was an ambiguous situation (ie. defenceman/forward cross at same time but ref belives forward first).
As for the helmets, its astonishing GMs/Owners/Coaches haven't pushed a rule like this through yet. Costs money.
I think that the icing rule that you propose is terrific. You should send that on to the NHL competition committee as a suggestion. Seriously.
For me the goalpost idea is harder to like, for the reason krankor mentions. I mean why not just make the nets a smidge bigger?
In regards to the goalpost question - is having a couple of extra goals that wouldn't have happened before really going to make the game better?
Thanks for the comments. On the goalpost idea:
a) The current holding pegs for the posts are already considered pretty lenient in terms of their release point - ESPECIALLY when one remembers the Glen Anderson years. Heck, you could sharpen the posts to a fine edge and probably not cause the damage those old ones did.
b) Goalposts are hit several times a game. Most of those are of the non-scoring variety but I would love to see the math done. I have a feeling it would work out to a extra goal every 4th or 5th game. If one assumes 5 games then it would result in:
82 * 15 = 1230 / 5 = +246 goals
Not an insubstantial number. The 1230 is a pretty rough guess btw - 3:26 am here and I am past caring.
:-)
Post a Comment