lake@alberta.UUCP (Robert Lake) (06/14/85)
I see from reading the newspapers today that the NHL Board of Governors have passed a new rule no longer requiring both teams to play shorthanded whenever coincidental minor penalties are called. The intent of the rule, as stated by Scotty Morrison, is "for the sake of consistency in the handling of minor and major penalties". Objectively speaking, this rule takes away one of the more exciting parts of the game - namely the 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 situations. This also hurts teams such as the Oilers, Jets, Nordiques, and Black Hawks which rely on more of a free-wheeling type of game. Why is it so important to have minor and major penalties consistent? Or, why not have "consistency" the other way (i.e. teams play 4-4 during offsetting major penalties)? This rule makes penalties far less meaningful and is a throwback to the "bump and grind" style of hockey - the style played by teams possessing more brawn than talent. Now for my biased thoughts. This rule was brought to the table by Calgary Flames' GM Cliff Fletcher. It's a pity that he has to resort to subtle rule changes such as this to attempt to increase his Flames chances of getting past teams like the Oilers and Jets. And it is even more unfortunate that there are a majority of teams in the NHL who agree with him, and feel their Stanley Cup chances are close to nil for the next 5 years unless something is done to handicap fast and talented teams. Why implement this rule at a time when the Stanley Cup champion is a team which has been very successful at playing these situations? Clearly, CONSISTENCY (ha ha!) isn't the only thing on the mind of Fletcher (and others). Robert Lake (alberta!lake) University of Alberta P.S. Say Fletch, how about a rule for next year requiring the Oilers to play without skates? Bet Keenan will second the motion and you'll get it passed!