jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (06/14/85)
On the afternoon of the awards dinner, the NHL announced a rule change.
First, a little background: For as long as I can remember, whenever two
players on opposite teams were given coincident major penalties, the
players would go to the penalty box to serve their penalties, but the
number of players on the ice would not be affected. This seems reasonable
because coincident majors are almost always for fighting, and fights don't
normally affect the play, so the combatants should be prohibited from playing
for a while, but there's no reason to make the teams play short-handed.
Until recently, coincident minor penalties always meant that each team would
lose a man. A year or two ago, the rule was changed so that if one team
was short-handed, coincident minors would not affect the number of players
on the ice. That's reasonable too because if both teams lost another man, it
would increase the advantage to the team that was on the power play, because
4 skaters against 3 is better than 5 against 4.
The new rule announced on Wednesday states that even of the teams are at
even strength, coincident minors will never affect the number of players
on the ice. The new rule seems to be aimed at the Oilers who, because of
their speed, seem to play even better in 4 on 4 situations. So, it's no
surprise that Wayne Gretzky used the awards dinner that evening to criticise
the new rule on national television. Although I'm in favour of narrowing
the gap between the Oilers and the rest of the league, as Gretzky said,
they should try to narrow it by improving the other teams rather than by
weakening the Oilers. However, that's not the main reason I'm against the
new rule. I think that the Oilers advantage in 4 on 4 situations is due
more to the strategy they use in those situations, rather than their
speed. Most teams play 4 on 4 situations defensively, almost as if they
were killing a penalty, so it's no wonder they don't score many goals,
but the Oilers treat it the way it should be treated, as an opportunity
to let the speedsters loose and go for goals. My main objection is that
it almost eliminates one of the many different exciting situations in the
game. Also, the new rule assumes that it's easy for a team to draw
coincident minors, and that there isn't much the other team can do about
it. This assumption is stupid because if a player commits a foul, he
knows his team will be penalised and if the other player doesn't retaliate,
they'll have to play short-handed. The player on the other team knows
that if he does retaliate, it will lead to a 4 on 4 situation and he'll
be giving up a power play opportunity. If the player's stupid enough to
retaliate in that situation, even if he's playing the Oilers, then he
deserves any disadvantages that a 4 on 4 situation entails.
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeffcitrin@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Citrin) (06/17/85)
Regarding the new rule change concerning coincidental minors, I favor it. There is something wrong with a rule that allows a team to gain an advantage by committing an infraction. A good-skating team can provoke coincidental penalties to gain the advantage that comes with a 4-on-4. The same problem exists in basketball where the losing team will commit foul after foul in the final minutes of a game in order to slow the clock and get the ball back. Besides, if 4-on-4's are so exciting, why don't they just play the whole game 4-on-4? Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin)
dyck@alberta.UUCP (Terry Dyck) (06/18/85)
I wonder if Wayne was awake and thinking when he wrote this drivel!! > Regarding the new rule change concerning coincidental minors, I favor it. > There is something wrong with a rule that allows a team to gain an advantage > by committing an infraction. A good-skating team can provoke coincidental > penalties to gain the advantage that comes with a 4-on-4. The same problem > exists in basketball where the losing team will commit foul after foul in > the final minutes of a game in order to slow the clock and get the ball back. > > Besides, if 4-on-4's are so exciting, why don't they just play the whole game > 4-on-4? Some how I don`t think that a powerful team would give up a power play to get a 4 on 4. Neither do I think the weaker team would intentionaly retaliate to an infraction to give up a power play just to have an even number of players. Yes, 4 on 4`s are exciting. But if your intention is to eliminate fast, exciting hockey, lets change the rules and make both teams play with SIX skaters. That way even teams like No-talent-toronto would be the equals of the Oilers or Flyers. Or better yet give the lower ranked team 6 players and the higher 5. Maybe the best idea is for the teams to simply try to improve their game and work a whole lot harder to make up the difference in talent. Contrary to popular belief, people are not born equal, and neither are hockey teams. There will ALWAYS be only one winner. The rest are losers. Terry Dyck ihnp4!alberta!dyck
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (06/19/85)
> Regarding the new rule change concerning coincidental minors, I favor it. > There is something wrong with a rule that allows a team to gain an advantage > by committing an infraction. A good-skating team can provoke coincidental > penalties to gain the advantage that comes with a 4-on-4. Nonsense. The team doesn't gain an advantage by committing a foul. If 4-on-4 is an advantage, then the advantage is gained when the other team retaliates. In order to provoke coincidental penalties, the good-skating team must first commit an infraction and then hope that a player on the other team retaliates. The other player doesn't have to retaliate, so if he does, his team deserves any disadvantages that go with that penalty, including a 4-on-4 situation. > The same problem > exists in basketball where the losing team will commit foul after foul in > the final minutes of a game in order to slow the clock and get the ball back. Not really because there isn't really anything the team with the ball can do to avoid being fouled. In hockey, they may not be able to avoid being fouled, but they can certainly avoid the retaliation that gives them the disadvantage. > Besides, if 4-on-4's are so exciting, why don't they just play the whole game > 4-on-4? Because 5-on-5's are exciting too. It isn't just each individual situation that makes hockey great, it's also the fact that there are so many different situations. The NHL has just practically eliminated one of them. > Wayne Citrin > (ucbvax!citrin) -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
citrin@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Citrin) (06/19/85)
I don't think Terry understood what I was trying to say in my article,
so I'll explain it further.
1) It seems to me that it is easier to provoke offsetting minors than it is
to draw a penalty.
2) The advantage that good skating teams have on the 4-on-4 is almost as
great as the advantage they have on the power play.
3) If a team decides that it can gain the advantage more easily by provoking
coincidental minors than by drawing a penalty (or if they attempt to draw
a penalty with the knowledge that they are at no risk because they can
do almost as well on a 4-on-4) then they will at times deliberately
commit an infraction to gain the advantage.
4) This seems to me to be a flaw in the rules. Penalties exist to prevent
a team from doing certain things, not to encourage them to do those
things. The new rule removes the encouragement by removing the advantage
that good-skating teams would gain by deliberately breaking the rules.
I think that this is a fairly compelling argument. It's not an attack on the
Oilers, who found a flaw in the rules and used it to their advantage (as did
the Canadiens, who used to spend a great deal of time practicing the 4-on-4).
It's just an attempt to plug a hole in the rules of hockey.
Wayne Citrin
(ucbvax!citrin)ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (06/20/85)
In article <8314@ucbvax.ARPA> citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Citrin) writes: >I don't think Terry understood what I was trying to say in my article, >so I'll explain it further. > >1) It seems to me that it is easier to provoke offsetting minors than it is > to draw a penalty. But you have to draw a penalty inorder to get "offsetting minors". Offsetting minors in next seasons play will effectively mean no penalty, whereas in the past it meant a pair of penalties. > >2) The advantage that good skating teams have on the 4-on-4 is almost as > great as the advantage they have on the power play. This is a great exaggeration! The disparity in skating talent is not so huge as to provide this large an advantage! > >3) If a team decides that it can gain the advantage more easily by provoking > coincidental minors than by drawing a penalty (or if they attempt to draw > a penalty with the knowledge that they are at no risk because they can > do almost as well on a 4-on-4) then they will at times deliberately > commit an infraction to gain the advantage. You'd better explain the above point in more detail,the arguement you present here makes no sense at all. How is it possible to attempt to "provoke a pair of minors" with no risk at all?? If both teams are at even strength then you risk giving the other team a power play, if you're on the power play then why would you risk giving up this advantage. The only situations that would justify the risk would be the ones where you'd be forced to anyway i.e. stopping a possible breakway by holding, for instance. > >4) This seems to me to be a flaw in the rules. Penalties exist to prevent > a team from doing certain things, not to encourage them to do those > things. The new rule removes the encouragement by removing the advantage > that good-skating teams would gain by deliberately breaking the rules. > This seems to me to be a flaw in the new rules. Penalties exist to prevent a team from doing certain things, not to encourage them to do those things. If we accept your premise that it is easy to "provoke a pair of minors", then the new rule introduces the encouragement by allowing poorer skating teams to attempt to draw a pair of minors against the better skating team without any risk. The situation I speak of would allow a poorer player to "take" a better player off the ice without putting his team in a 4 - 4 situation, in fact, this sort of "trade" will probably be quite common next season. I predict many clubs will capitalize on the short temper of players like Messier in order to take them off the ice - after all, now they don't have to face a faster team on a 4 - 4 situation right? It is rule changes like this that will promote more violence on the ice rather than decrease it since there are many more mediocre/poor skating teams than good ones. >I think that this is a fairly compelling argument. It's not an attack on the >Oilers, who found a flaw in the rules and used it to their advantage (as did >the Canadiens, who used to spend a great deal of time practicing the 4-on-4). >It's just an attempt to plug a hole in the rules of hockey. The arguement is not compelling. This rule is an attempt to slow down the faster skating clubs. If the NHL feels obliged to play with the rules in order to "equalize" the teams, then they should do it in such a way as to promote better play from all teams rather than to penalize the better ones. Rule changes in the draft selection would accomplish this. > >Wayne Citrin >(ucbvax!citrin) Ken Hruday University of Alberta
dfjmccarthy@watmath.UUCP (Darryl McCarthy) (06/21/85)
In article <8314@ucbvax.ARPA> citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Citrin) writes: > ...a flaw in the rules. Penalties exist to prevent > a team from doing certain things, not to encourage them to do those > things. The new rule removes the encouragement by removing the advantage > that good-skating teams would gain by deliberately breaking the rules. Your right this rule will discourage the good-skating teams from breaking the rules (if that's what their doing now). But your not looking at the other side ofthe coin, the poor-skating teams are NOW encouraged to deliberately break the rules by sending one of their worst players on to the ice to, as you say, provoke a penalty against a Gretzky. So now they've gotten rid of a great player, while they're only losing a so-so player while still staying 5-5. Therefore they are really gaining the advantage. > >I think that this is a fairly compelling argument. It's not an attack on the >Oilers, who found a flaw in the rules and used it to their advantage (as did >the Canadiens, who used to spend a great deal of time practicing the 4-on-4). >It's just an attempt to plug a hole in the rules of hockey. The hole that they tried to plug has only been enlarged because of the many poor-skating teams that will take advantage of this rule. >Wayne Citrin >(ucbvax!citrin) -- Darryl McCarthy University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario (I also have no clever lines)
mike@ucf-cs.UUCP (Ruthless ) (06/21/85)
If the NHL is currently such that a few teams have most of the best
skaters, then one can blame neither the current method of running the
draft, nor the old rules, for the advantages these teams during
coincidental minors.
The draft is run like other drafts, the worst teams get the first picks
and theoretically POTENTIALLY the best hockey players. I emphasize
potentially because sometimes erratic inconsistent players bloom into
stars -- the Oilers for example. In theory this process should
equalize the league over a period of time. In practice it doesn't. The
reasons boil down to better scouting.
The old rules merely demonstrated more vividly the bad scouting some
teams have. Maybe the NHL should go to the root of the problem and
have an annual draft for scouts. But then some teams would have better
scout scouts, otherwise known as general managers. You all can see
that ultimately we need a draft for team owners. Actually, given that
we have gems like Harold Ballard in the league, this might not be such
a bad idea. But my point is that new rule, and complaints about the
draft are all just covers for bad management on some teams.
And thus there is no single solution that the league can find
for the lack of parity; the problems apply to individual
clubs and will have to be solved there.
--
Mike Eisler
uucp: {ihnp4!decvax,peora}!ucf-cs!mike Dept. of Computer Science
arpa: mike.ucf-cs@csnet-relay University of Central Florida
csnet:mike@ucf Orlando, FL 32816jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (06/21/85)
> I don't think Terry understood what I was trying to say in my article, > so I'll explain it further. > > 1) It seems to me that it is easier to provoke offsetting minors than it is > to draw a penalty. That's the only point that gives any amount of validity to the argument in favour of the new rule (offsetting minors, for those that haven't been reading this group lately). I'll have to admit that the referees may be more willing to send off one player from each team than to just penalise one team, but if that's the case, then that's not a problem with the (old) rules, it's a problem with the way they're enforced. Therefore, they don't have to change the rules, they just have to start enforcing them properly so that one team taking a penalty does not affect the chances of the other team being given one. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
citrin@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Citrin) (06/26/85)
Okay, so many people have pointed out the flaws in my argument that even I can see them. Jeff has a good point: that enforcement of the rules would make it harder for a team to provoke a retaliation by punishing the aggressor. Of course, such a rule is already on the books for fighting penalties, in order to prevent a team from sending out their goon to get into a fight with the other team's star. Someone suggested supplemental penalties to be given if a team's penalties went over a certain limit. I don't think that would be a good idea. Teams would be afraid to play aggressive hockey at the end of a game if they were near their penalty limit. This rule might help prevent fights, though, if it just counted penalties other than minors. Wayne CCitrin (ucbvax!citrin)