Comments on: DG's Quick Hits- March 4, 2003 Edition

By: Jejunum

Jejunum — Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:14:55 +0000

A shootout would also affect a goalies numbers too much, if he got scored on 5 times in a shootout his save % would be screwed

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:19:58 +0000

He’s just leaving out the important part of moving the nets back. You’d then broaden the neutral zone so there’s more room there. Several players have suggested it as a way to speed the game up. It used to be that way, but they changed it sometime in the early nineties.

By: DG

DG — Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:41:58 +0000

Interesting ideas, though personally I prefer what Brett Hull said- after sixty minutes, the game is over, tied or not. You don't need overtime unless you need to determine a winner- like in the playoffs- so to have it in the regular season seems pointless. Also, as Hull said, with the current set-up, teams just wait for overtime just to ensure they'll get something out of the night, making the last few minutes of the game pointless because the teams are playing cautiously. It goes against what the National Hockey League wanted all along- to end catious play in desperate moments like OT- because it basically just moves that period to the end of the third. Also, as Bill Chadwick once said, "OT just allows a stronger team more time to beat a resilient weaker team", thus weakening parity.

Above all else, though, if you lose, you lose. You shouldn't be rewarded for it because you don't deserve it. No team should be rewarded for failure.

RealityCheck

By: maynard

maynard — Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:17:06 +0000

these are some of the worst ideas ever, first of all if you had a 20 minute OT period, and the team had to play the next night against a team that didnt play, there would be a tremendous unfair advantage. these guys play too many games as it is. Moving the nets back does nothing, and 2 minutes for fighting is irrevelant, who cares if your goon has to sit for 5 minutes. Curving the blue lines would just create more off sides so thats out, besides i dont see the point of doing it to begin with. And the other ideas here are generic and have been thrown around by everyone. we all know getting rid of the red line would make a better game.

By: NYIchooch75

NYIchooch75 — Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:52:57 +0000

Can't have a shootout because teams like Nashville, Columbus, even Minnesota, who don't have a Jagr, Bure, Kovalev, Forsberg type would be at a disadvantage. These are teams who were/are close to a gaining a playoff berth.

I agree, move the nets back. Too much of the game is played behind the nets. Hell, Gretzky's office was back there without the extra 2 feet.

Get rid of the two line pass. Dumb rule. You're talking about an an extra few feet and it's called at least 10 times a game. Yet, if you flip the puck in the air and it goes across all 3 lines, play is allowed to continue.

Offsides, go back to the old way. Too many times the flow of the games is slowed down because of that whistle.

By: swedishvoice

swedishvoice — Wed, 05 Mar 2003 07:27:22 +0000

Ok her's a thougt taken from our Swedish system.

No redline offside, the game gets bigger and faster, the passing game gets more relevant and the game getts alot mor fun to whatch.

And for the OT loss. her's how it works in Sweden. A win in ordenary time is 3points, a overtime win is 2points, a overtime loss is 1point (if the game is not setled after one 5min overtime 4on4 the game goes in to a (suddendeath) shoutout.

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 05 Mar 2003 07:08:12 +0000

OT is a hell of a lot more exicting w/ the "stupid OTL point". Hey, that gives me an idea. Why not bonus points in the standings for scoring a lot of goals? Would never go over, but it would open the game up.

Players are never going to agree on another 20 minutes OT period. Most teams play about 20 OT games a season, so that would be so much additional ice time. They'd never even consider agreeing to that.

Arching the blue lines? What the hell would that accomplish? Asides from creating about 15 muffed off sides calls a game?

By: keon

keon — Wed, 05 Mar 2003 01:50:54 +0000

First, who cares about Federov and Anna...really? Second, Brett Hull is absolutely right. Take away that supid OT loss point. Some other changes I would make are:

a) Move the nets back.

b) No red-line

c) 2 minute minors for fighting...THAT'S IT!

d) penalties don't end on a goal

e) OT = 1, 20 minute period of 4x4, THEN a shootout

Here's a thought, what about arching the bluelines, you know...make them about 5 feet further out at the centre? it's just a thought...

I hope the trade deadline is better this year, than the past couple of years. Law of averages says we are in for a good blockbuster one of these days. Well that's my take on things

CHEERS!

MJ