Well, sure. If scrums behind the goal line inherently carry increased risk of injury, and the trapezoid rule necessarily increases the number of scrums behind the goal line, the question is whether the higher rate of injury is worth the higher rate of scoring. I wouldn’t know enough to answer that, but I’m curious if someone does, or if anyone who watches more hockey than I do can weigh in on that specific question. Personally, I was just happy to see the two-line pass rule abolished, because the Swedish torpedo offense was just a joy to behold at Salt Lake. I wish more NHL teams used something like that.
That’s an interesting idea. I think that would certainly jack up the offense, since it would automatically bring the puck right back to the faceoff circle in front of the goalie. Of course, NHL coaches don’t necessarily play offensive-zone faceoffs like I do in videogames Let’s just say that Luc Robitaille led the league in goals and Brian Smolinski led the league in assists when I had a PlayStation…
I’m of the opinion that the trapezoid has been quite effective in neutering the trap. New Jersey has not been a contender since the rule was instituted(in fairness, losing Stevens, Neidermeyer and Danyeko was a huge part of that).
As to no-touch icing, it will lead to less offence, not more. Icing gets waived off way more often than most people thing. No touch icing keeps the game moving, and the vast majority of injuries on icings are due to illegal plays. If the NHL were to crack down on dangerous hits near the boards, whether on an icing or not, you’d see the majority of those injuries disappear.
My beef is more that they refused to have draws. Sometimes teams deserve to tie. The clock issue isn’t a big deal, but since it’s not a big deal, why change it?
The NBA introduced a new ball, made of fancy modern material, rather than the traditional leather (size/weight were basically unchanged; I assume bounceability was designed to be about the same as before, too). Players complained that it didn’t feel like what they were used to and so it was shelved. I don’t remember any complaints about damaging player’s hands, though.
Yes. I read an interview with an NFL kicker and he was talking about this very thing. He said he always kicks onside kicks into the turf because once the ball hits the ground, the receiving team cannot fair catch it.
But with no-touch icing, the other team gets a faceoff near the goal.
Unless you have some evidence to back it up, I don’t know why I’d buy your assertion against mine. They seem relatively equal to me in terms of effect of offense. One, however, will DEFINITELY reduce injuries.
Let’s ignore the case where the defence wins the race. Both ways, there’s a faceoff in the offensive zone.
With no touch icing, there’s a faceoff in the offensive zone. The offense has a 50% chance of winning that draw and getting possession in the offensive zone. Without no touch icing, the offense has a much, much higher chance of retaining possession by virtue of the fact that they were first to the puck.
Even if you don’t agree with that reasoning, my way you see a measurable decrease in the number of whistles per game(I’d say that 2 would be a conservative guess), and most things that reduces the number of whistles improves the game IMO.
Finally, how often does a player get hurt on an icing where the opposition doesn’t commit an illegal action? Pretty well never. The issue, as I will repeat until the end of time, is not no-touch icing, but that players are taking down other players illegally near the boards. Eliminate that and you eliminate the injury problem, but the NHL for whatever reason refuses to crack down on it. It’s unbelievable to me that hits to the head get more attention than hits into the boards in the NHL, when the former is an inherent part of the game while the latter is an illegal action that is rarely punished at all.
No touch icing should increase the chance to score.
Every team runs the trap, the trapezoid makes no substantial difference. The trap is less effective because they don’t let you hook and block like thy used to.
Am I misremembering, or is the NHL considering calling a penalty on any contact during a race for the puck in an icing situation? I seem to recall seeing something about it awhile ago. If that were implemented, it would cut down on injuries, not just from guys getting boarded but just getting knocked down and crashing into the boards from their own momentum.
I don’t notice much of a change in pacing during IIHF games and I wouldn’t really be averse to no touch icing myself, I think I would rather see that than more penalties. Although if they cracked down on incidental contact, I suppose it would make players more cautious. I don’t know, it’s not a huge factor for me, I would have to wait and see if a rule change would really reduce my enjoyment of the game.
“Any contact between opposing players while pursuing the puck on an icing must be for the sole purpose of playing the puck and not for eliminating the opponent from playing the puck. Unnecessary or dangerous contact could result in penalties being assessed to the offending player.”
So I guess this is a rule, but there doesn’t really seem to be much consistency in the way it’s applied.
IF they’re first to the puck, which more than 50% of the time, they are not. The offensive team sometimes gets the puck but more often than not, the puck is either blown dead on icing, or if icing is waved off, is retrieved by the team whoze zone it was dumped into.
With no touch icing there’s a 50% chance that a team in the offensive zone gets the puck. With touch icing, the percentages still add up to 50% - it’ll be 50% for all iced pucks and some combination of a lesser percentage for each team on cleared pucks that aren’t called back, which will always add up to 50%. (After all, if the puck’s not in the neutral zone, it must be in someone’s offensive zone.) But what IS for sure with no touch icing is
Reducing headlong crashes into the boards, which is the central point, and
No touch icing may place a chilling effect on defencemen winging the puck down if they know no-touch icing is in play.
Both of us are just guessing at the effects; without hard data, it’s purely conjecture. But I think you’d agree reducing injury absolutely WOULD happen.
I agree fewer whistles = good. Whether that’s worth the safety issue is your call.
The boarding rule is not easily enforced and it’s very unclear in the rulebook. Rule 42 is frustratingly vague, saying basically that it’s “At the discretion of the referee,” and I am 100% confident that if you and I watched a replay of 100 hits near the boards we wouldn’t have the same ruling on at least a third of them.
I may be mistaken, but weren’t they used routinely, to eliminate drawn matches, rather than solely as a final decider in knockout competitions? Very different from the more usual soccer league system of 3 points/1 point/0 points.
Let’s just say that Luc Robitaille led the league in goals and Brian Smolinski led the league in assists when I had a PlayStation…