jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (06/06/85)
> Shootouts (as proposed by Marcel Aubut (sp?) ) or rules changes > are NOT going to attract USA fans. Media attention will. > > Tim Newman I agree. The only rule changes that might help are those that might decrease the amount of time it takes to play a game without decreasing the amount of hockey action, like shortening the intermissions (it takes less than 10 minutes to flood the ice) or cutting one of them out completely. Anyway, back to shootouts, I'd like to know if anyone shares my opinion on shootouts and another suggested rule change or two. There are few things I feel more strongly about than my opposition to shootouts. Whenever somebody suggests that the NHL (or any hockey league, for that matter) should adopt shootouts, I have to really restrain myself from punching him in the face (and I'm not a violent person) because I feel he is trying to ruin my favourite sport. Hockey is a team game and should be kept that way. Shootouts place too much importance on goaltending, which is important enough already. Shootouts are a stupid, bush-league way of deciding a winner. They don't tell you anything about which is the better team; you might as well toss a coin. People argue in favour of them by saying that the penalty shot is the most exciting play in hockey. Personally, I find overtime much more exciting. Penalty shots make sense in the context in which they are used now, but not for breaking ties, and I think part of their excitement is due to the fact that they are so rare. Another rule change that is almost as stupid is Lou Nanne's (North Stars GM) suggestion of not allowing players to be changed while play is stopped. He figures it would speed up the game because these changes take time. That's certainly a reasonable thing to try to do, but not if it means decreasing the amount of hockey action, which it would do because when teams have to change on the fly, they break up what could be an interesting rush by just shooting the puck into the other team's zone and skating to the bench. There are several other things they can do to try to speed up the game, like cutting out those stupid commercial breaks in the middle of periods. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
k9un@ihlpa.UUCP (ague) (06/10/85)
> > Shootouts (as proposed by Marcel Aubut (sp?) ) or rules changes > > are NOT going to attract USA fans. Media attention will. > > > > Tim Newman I agree completely. In the Chicago area we have had no commercial TV coverage since the mid 70's. Before that, we got all of the Blackhawk's away games and an occasional home game. I am an AHAUS coach with the Huskies organization out of Downer's Grove, Ill. I have seen declining numbers in our youth hockey programs in this area. It seems to have coincided with the absence of hockey on TV. Most organizations had no house leagues and were hard pressed to support a full compliment of traveling teams. We had a large number of rinks go out of business. Now that we get some exposure on cable and pay TV, our numbers are growing. Still not as good as it used to be though. Kids emulate what they see and everyone does not (or can not) get cable. Infectuous as hockey is, some decent media coverage would bring on lot's of new fans. The newscast sports coverage inevitably shows the fights but doesn't show all of the scoring highlights. As a side note, by the way, I can't stand those cameramen (camera-persons?) who insist on a waist-up shot of a (for example) Savard or _______ (fill in the player of your choice) while he is carring the puck. What a useless view. No wonder people have trouble following the game on TV. There is no way one can watch a play develop when only the puck carrier fills the screen. A note about rule changes. We have a rule in youth hockey that I would like to see put into the NHL rulebook. When a player comes out of the penalty box, he must skate back to his own zone (just to his blue line) in order to be elligable for a pass from his zone. This would elliminate the momentary advantage a just penalized team has when they are held in their end just when a player exits the penalty box. As a die-hard Chicago sports fan - I'll close with a "wait 'til next year." Wes Ague
rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (06/12/85)
> The only rule changes that might help are those that might >decrease the amount of time it takes to play a game without decreasing >the amount of hockey action, like shortening the intermissions (it takes >less than 10 minutes to flood the ice) or cutting one of them out completely. The players might object to having rest time taken away from them. They need the full two intermissions to prevent exhaustion. Can you imagine someone like Gretzky or Langway playing as much as they do now without that rest? >Anyway, back to shootouts, I'd like to know if anyone shares my opinion >on shootouts and another suggested rule change or two. > ... > Hockey is a team game and should be kept that way. >Shootouts place too much importance on goaltending, which is important >enough already. Okay, I agree. However, how about running a series of 3-on-3's, or 3-on-2's? That might give us the "best" of both worlds. It is still a team game but would actually decide something. HOWEVER, I would still give the losing team a point in the standings for playing to a tie in overtime (the shootout has been proposed for breaking ties after overtime). > People argue in favour of them by saying that >the penalty shot is the most exciting play in hockey. Personally, I find >overtime much more exciting. The reason penalty shots are exciting is that they are so rare. It would get boring to watch (I think) if we got them in 30% (or whatever percent of games end in ties) of the games played. As for 5 minutes of overtime I have to agree with Bill Torrey when he said "5 minutes of overtime is like 5 seconds of sex." >Another rule change that is almost as stupid is Lou Nanne's (North Stars GM) >suggestion of not allowing players to be changed while play is stopped. >He figures it would speed up the game because these changes take time. That is the dumbest suggestion I have ever heard. I think old Louie has gone crackers. If they want to speed up the game then they should reduce the number of stoppages, right? Well, I remember an old WHA suggestion (I think it was Billy Harris' idea): curve the blue line so that it is equidistant from the center of the net. Then the wingers could keep up with the center (carrying the puck) more easily and not go offside so much. You think hockey has high scoring games now? >Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 -- Rick Gillespie ARPANET: rick@ucla-locus.ARPA or (soon) rick@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick SPUDNET: ...eye%rick@russet.spud
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (06/19/85)
>how about running a series of 3-on-3's, or >3-on-2's? That might give us the "best" of both worlds. It is still a >team game but would actually decide something. It sure beats the hell out of shootouts because of the team element. I think it would be far more exciting too, because of the possibility of passing and defence. But I still don't see anything wrong with having a regular season game end in a tie, and I think having tie games is preferable to resorting to shootouts or 3-on-2's, but overtime's okay because it's real hockey. >HOWEVER, I would still >give the losing team a point in the standings for playing to a tie in >overtime (the shootout has been proposed for breaking ties after >overtime). That's not a bad idea, but if you think that the losing team deserves more than the minimum number of points for a shootout loss (as I do), then the same logic says that the winning team deserves less than the maximum number of points for a shootout win, i.e. 0 pts for a regulation or overtime loss, 1 pt for a shootout loss, 2 pts for a shootout win, and 3 pts for a regulation or overtime win. I think the total number of points in the standings awarded at each game must be the same. If not, one game may be worth more than another, which doesn't make sense, and there will a potential for rigging games. >> People argue in favour of them by saying that >>the penalty shot is the most exciting play in hockey. Personally, I find >>overtime much more exciting. > >The reason penalty shots are exciting is that they are so rare. It >would get boring to watch (I think) if we got them in 30% (or whatever >percent of games end in ties) of the games played. I agree 100%, and I'm glad to hear that someone else feels the same way. >As for 5 minutes of >overtime I have to agree with Bill Torrey when he said "5 minutes of >overtime is like 5 seconds of sex." I'll have to agree that 5 minutes of overtime is pretty useless, since at least one team usually plays for the tie anyway. However, it usually produces some excitement, and if no goals are scored, that's okay because there's nothing wrong with a game ending in a tie. I wouldn't mind seeing it extended to 10 minutes, but I wouldn't want it to go any longer than that in the regular season because, in my opinion, if they're still tied at that point, then they deserve to split the two points. (Actually, I was always against regular season overtime because I figured that if the game was tied after 60 minutes, each team deserved a point, but now that I've seen it, I'm in favour of 5 or 10 minute overtimes because a win in that situation is usually a result of gutsy play and the ability to perform well in key situations, both of which are qualities that should be rewarded. Shootouts reward the ability to perform well in key situations, but I've seen them in the NASL and in hockey leagues I've played in, and I still hate them for all the reasons I've already mentioned.) >I remember an old WHA suggestion >(I think it was Billy Harris' idea): curve the blue line so that it is >equidistant from the center of the net. Then the wingers could keep up with >the center (carrying the puck) more easily and not go offside so much. You >think hockey has high scoring games now? I've heard that suggestion more recently and it seems to make a lot of sense because I believe the off-side rule exists to prevent players from camping in the other team's zone waiting for long passes, and the fact that the wingers can't skate a little ahead of the puck is just a side-effect. Logically, it doesn't make too much sense to force the wingers to slow down or stop to wait for the puck if it's only a bit behind them. Since I am a winger who likes to skate but is not terribly good at carrying the puck, it would be ideal for me, but there are a couple of points that must be considered: - I'd add the condition that nobody could enter the area between where the blue line is now and where it would be if it was curved until the puck crosses the centre red line, to prevent camping. - If the blue line was curved in closer to the net, it would also have to be made thicker so that once the puck was over the line, the point men would still be able to stand approximately where they are now. - It would make life a lot tougher on the defensemen, and it may lead to a significant increase in scoring, so I'd have to oppose it on those grounds because I think the NHL is high scoring enough now. (However, I'd love to see them do it in the league I play in.) > Rick Gillespie -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff