Thursday, March 27, 2008
GM's Say NO to No-Touch Icing
by Jes
No-Touch Icing is a rule that many hockey leagues have had for years, but one the NHL refuses to adopt like Angelina Jolie and any kid from Africa.
Why is that?
As we saw with the recent broken leg injury suffered by Kurtis Foster, the current way of touch icing puts the players at needless risk.
Time and time again, we hear the same refrain: "We can't take away those exciting puck chases. The fans will never stand for another whistle!"
Riiiight... umm... I've watched junior hockey for years, and can't say that I miss the chases for an iced puck. If anything, it spares us the inevitable icing call and just gets on with it. Really, how many iced-puck chases end up being waived off because an offensive player gets to the puck first? Once a game, at most?
It's bad enough that the players' don’t value their own safety, but why do the GM's continue to not care about the well being of their players?
Sure, we know that management groups, throughout labour history, have tended not to give a damn about their employees' safety. Callous management isn't anything new.
The difference between the NHL and your typical steel mill? Replacement cost! It's much easier to replace a steel worker and pays for their medical expenses than it is to do the same for an NHL player.
Not only does the team have to pay a replacement player when their star gets injured, but the team's insurance premiums go up as well.
No-touch icing? That would help prevent needless injuries, and ought to be embraced by GM's as a way to cut some costs and save some limbs.
Alas, the GM's show that, once again, their heads are in the sand, or up Gary Bettman's freshly-shaven ass.
Per Bob MacKenzie of TSN.ca:
Yes, the GM's can't be bothered and influenced by injuries because, well, employees just get injured, and that's that.
*Sigh*
I'd like to ask the GM of the Wild just how much money they'll spend on a replacement player for Kurtis Foster and how much more they'll need to pay in insurance next year. I wonder if a big fat dollar figure would get the message through.
*I'm willing to guess that the GM who couldn't make up his mind was none other than our own Dave Nonis. D00d couldn't make a decision if his life depended on it.
No-Touch Icing is a rule that many hockey leagues have had for years, but one the NHL refuses to adopt like Angelina Jolie and any kid from Africa.
Why is that?
As we saw with the recent broken leg injury suffered by Kurtis Foster, the current way of touch icing puts the players at needless risk.
Time and time again, we hear the same refrain: "We can't take away those exciting puck chases. The fans will never stand for another whistle!"
Riiiight... umm... I've watched junior hockey for years, and can't say that I miss the chases for an iced puck. If anything, it spares us the inevitable icing call and just gets on with it. Really, how many iced-puck chases end up being waived off because an offensive player gets to the puck first? Once a game, at most?
It's bad enough that the players' don’t value their own safety, but why do the GM's continue to not care about the well being of their players?
Sure, we know that management groups, throughout labour history, have tended not to give a damn about their employees' safety. Callous management isn't anything new.
The difference between the NHL and your typical steel mill? Replacement cost! It's much easier to replace a steel worker and pays for their medical expenses than it is to do the same for an NHL player.
Not only does the team have to pay a replacement player when their star gets injured, but the team's insurance premiums go up as well.
No-touch icing? That would help prevent needless injuries, and ought to be embraced by GM's as a way to cut some costs and save some limbs.
Alas, the GM's show that, once again, their heads are in the sand, or up Gary Bettman's freshly-shaven ass.
Per Bob MacKenzie of TSN.ca:
The NHL's 30 general managers were asked the following question: In the wake of Kurtis Foster's broken leg, are you in favor of no-touch icing? Yes or No?Wow, the GM's can't be bothered from their busy schedule of golfing and drinking to discuss an issue for ANOTHER THREE YEARS? Geez, don't work too hard, boys.
Of the 26 GMs who responded, 17 said, No, they do not favor no-touch icing. Eight said, Yes, they would like to see a change to the current rule and go to no-touch. One said he simply can't make up his mind, that he used to be in the No camp but isn't so sure now.
Those results are not a surprise, really. Every year at the NHL GMs' meeting they beat this subject up and come to the same conclusion – the significant majority is not prepared to support a change to the icing rule, they like races for the puck and at the risk of being callous, they say they can't and won't be influenced by injuries because it's the nature of the game. In fact, at the most recent GMs' meeting in Naples, Fla., the GMs decided against even discussing the subject for at least another three years.
Yes, the GM's can't be bothered and influenced by injuries because, well, employees just get injured, and that's that.
*Sigh*
I'd like to ask the GM of the Wild just how much money they'll spend on a replacement player for Kurtis Foster and how much more they'll need to pay in insurance next year. I wonder if a big fat dollar figure would get the message through.
*I'm willing to guess that the GM who couldn't make up his mind was none other than our own Dave Nonis. D00d couldn't make a decision if his life depended on it.
Labels: kurtis foster, No-touch icing, rules
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
NHL Goes A-Tweakin'
by Jes
While not discussing the fate of the Nashville Predators, the NHL head honchos dined on the blood of virgins and made a few minor rule tweaks.
From TSN.ca:
----
A player may now be awarded a free shot if he is fouled on a clear breakaway anywhere in the neutral or attacking zones. Previously, a penalty shot was awarded only when a player on a clear breakaway was fouled on the attacking side of the centre line.
This doesn't look as good as you might think. Most players can't skate with the puck faster than a charging defender, and most anyone who has a clear-cut breakaway from their own blueline will be caught up to.
All faceoffs must now be conducted at one of the nine dots painted on the rink. Some faceoffs, such as when a puck left the playing surface, were previously held on unmarked ice parallel to the dot nearest the place where the puck left the playing surface.
Makes sense. I always found it weird that the linesmen held faceoffs in arbitrary locations.
The interference rule was altered so referees can at their discretion assess a major penalty and a game misconduct when an injury results from an act of interference. Previously, only a minor penalty could be assessed for interference.
Refresh my memory like F5: Has there ever been a major penalty for interference?? If a player commits a major foul, it'll be high-sticking or boarding or kneeing or checking-from-behind. I can't recall ever seeing a plain major penalty for interference.
The term "gross misconduct" was eliminated from the rule book. A game misconduct will now be assessed, and accumulated game misconduct penalties can lead to fines or suspensions.
Ahh, let's soften the language, shall we?
"Gross" sounds almost violent and criminal. Hockey doesn't want anything that might make the sport seem like a barbaric game, so they go to the more tame "Game" misconduct.
Same thing, just worded differently to hide the real impact of such an infraction.
Overall, some decent tweaks, but nothing that will rock your world.
While not discussing the fate of the Nashville Predators, the NHL head honchos dined on the blood of virgins and made a few minor rule tweaks.
From TSN.ca:
----
A player may now be awarded a free shot if he is fouled on a clear breakaway anywhere in the neutral or attacking zones. Previously, a penalty shot was awarded only when a player on a clear breakaway was fouled on the attacking side of the centre line.
This doesn't look as good as you might think. Most players can't skate with the puck faster than a charging defender, and most anyone who has a clear-cut breakaway from their own blueline will be caught up to.
All faceoffs must now be conducted at one of the nine dots painted on the rink. Some faceoffs, such as when a puck left the playing surface, were previously held on unmarked ice parallel to the dot nearest the place where the puck left the playing surface.
Makes sense. I always found it weird that the linesmen held faceoffs in arbitrary locations.
The interference rule was altered so referees can at their discretion assess a major penalty and a game misconduct when an injury results from an act of interference. Previously, only a minor penalty could be assessed for interference.
Refresh my memory like F5: Has there ever been a major penalty for interference?? If a player commits a major foul, it'll be high-sticking or boarding or kneeing or checking-from-behind. I can't recall ever seeing a plain major penalty for interference.
The term "gross misconduct" was eliminated from the rule book. A game misconduct will now be assessed, and accumulated game misconduct penalties can lead to fines or suspensions.
Ahh, let's soften the language, shall we?
"Gross" sounds almost violent and criminal. Hockey doesn't want anything that might make the sport seem like a barbaric game, so they go to the more tame "Game" misconduct.
Same thing, just worded differently to hide the real impact of such an infraction.
Overall, some decent tweaks, but nothing that will rock your world.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
NHL: New Draft Changes are in Order
by Jes
The NHL decided to make some changes to the Entry Draft right out of the radar of most every hockey fan and expert.
From TSN:
I don't mind that a team's performance in the playoffs has a greater importance for the draft. Why should a 15th overall team finish as a Stanley Cup finalist and then draft in the middle of each round? On the other hand, you can get a powerhouse team that has one bad playoff round, and then they get a plum draft position. Of course, the mid-to-late first round isn't nearly as important as the Top 10 picks, so this won't exactly tilt the Earth's axis.
So, who voted against the change? I'm always curious as the reasons why particular teams go against the grain
Buffalo Sabres and San Jose Sharks - Worried about poor draft position after a bad playoff round?
New York Islanders - Would this affect them anyway?
Florida Panthers - Given their lack of playoff success, this ruling won't affect them for years to come.
Washington Capitals - Same thing.
Minnesota Wild - Probably don't want to be penalized for good playoff showings?
Well, what's done is done and now teams can be somewhat compensated for playoff choke. To those who value the playoffs more than the regular season, the new system should really emphasize that fact.
The NHL decided to make some changes to the Entry Draft right out of the radar of most every hockey fan and expert.
From TSN:
Sources tell TSN that NHL teams have voted 23-6 (with one abstention) in favor of introducing a ranking system that places a greater emphasis on playoff performance than regular season results.Could it be the Red Wings proposed this format because they often choke in the early rounds and want a good draft position for themselves? It's not as if they need it! Give them all of their picks in the 5th round and they'd be just fine.
Under the existing format, non-playoff teams were placed one through 14 with the lowest regular-season point totals getting the higher pick in the draft, subject to the draft lottery which allows the winning non-playoff team to move up as many as four places.
The remaining 16 teams were seeded 15 through 30 based on inverse order of regular-season finish with one exception - the Stanley Cup-winning team automatically received the 30th and final pick of the first round.
The new format will work as follows:
- The 14 non-playoff teams will be seeded in inverse order of regular-season finish, just as they used to be, with the draft lottery remaining the same.
- Teams that lose in the first round of the playoffs, except those that won regular-season division titles, will be slotted next in inverse order of regular-season point totals.
- Regular-season division winners that did not advance to the Conference finals will be slotted next, in inverse order of regular-season point totals.
- Teams that make the Conference finals will be slotted next, in inverse order of regular-season point totals.
- The two teams that make it to the Stanley Cup final will get the final two picks - No. 29 for the Cup finalist and No. 30 for the Cup champion.
It is a little more difficult to explain than it was, but the basic premise is the farther a team proceeds in the playoffs, the later it will pick in the entry draft.
The concept was initially proposed by the Detroit Red Wings, who argue that playoff success is the true measure of a team's success in any given year and the draft order should reflect that.
I don't mind that a team's performance in the playoffs has a greater importance for the draft. Why should a 15th overall team finish as a Stanley Cup finalist and then draft in the middle of each round? On the other hand, you can get a powerhouse team that has one bad playoff round, and then they get a plum draft position. Of course, the mid-to-late first round isn't nearly as important as the Top 10 picks, so this won't exactly tilt the Earth's axis.
So, who voted against the change? I'm always curious as the reasons why particular teams go against the grain
Buffalo Sabres and San Jose Sharks - Worried about poor draft position after a bad playoff round?
New York Islanders - Would this affect them anyway?
Florida Panthers - Given their lack of playoff success, this ruling won't affect them for years to come.
Washington Capitals - Same thing.
Minnesota Wild - Probably don't want to be penalized for good playoff showings?
Well, what's done is done and now teams can be somewhat compensated for playoff choke. To those who value the playoffs more than the regular season, the new system should really emphasize that fact.
Labels: Entry Draft, NHL, rules
Monday, March 12, 2007
Soccer Stealing Ideas from Hockey?
by Jes
Soccer (aka Football) is the world's most popular sport outside of North America, where it's just Saturday morning TV filler.
(D'uh, Big Moose, we already know that)
Soccer certainly doesn't need a whole lot of help from Ice Hockey, which ranks about like 200th in world sports popularity. Right?
Well, apparently not...
Wow, the NHL actually having an impact on the world's biggest sport?
Perhaps soccer ought to take a few more hints from hockey to make their sport more interesting
1. Allow some actual body contact - Why punish a player for simply breathing on the guy? Allow some body shoving is the guy has the ball. If he's such a good player, he ought to withstand a clean body-check.
2. Fighting - OK, so soccer players fight like sissies, but why not let the fights happen on the field instead of the stands? Wouldn't you like to see David Beckham's face smashed by a good left bitch-slap from Thierry Henry?
3. Pipe in god-awful emo rock music over the PA. Why let the fans chant and moan this 'whoooooa-whoooa-whoooa' crap that makes no sense? It's obvious that the fans are so bored with the game that they have to resort to singing and chanting. By blaring Nickelback over the stadium speakers, you'll calm the crowd down and allow them to sit there and shut up instead of lighting flares and throwing toilet paper onto the field.
4. How about some real uniforms? What pride can Manchester United really have when the players are running billboards? Did you know their team mascot/name/logo is the Red Devils? Well, I don't blame you if you don't, given how their 'logo' is a small one-inch patch on the upper right of their jerseys.
5. Allow some real numbering - Ever notice how all soccer teams give players numbers in the 1-20ish range? Why can't players wear #88, #69, or #99? How many good strikers have worn #9? Exactly...
6. Stop calling players by one name - It's bad enough that the players suck, but you can't look them up in a phone book to throw a bomb through their frickin' window! Which RONALDO are you talking about? The ugly gap-toothed caveman from Brazil or the pretty boy Metrosexual from Portugal?
7. Have the playoffs AFTER the season, and not during the season. There is simply a lot less thrill to the regular season when there is nothing to play for until the NEXT season.
Or, you can just watch hockey and forget about soccer. North Americans are great at that.
Soccer (aka Football) is the world's most popular sport outside of North America, where it's just Saturday morning TV filler.
(D'uh, Big Moose, we already know that)
Soccer certainly doesn't need a whole lot of help from Ice Hockey, which ranks about like 200th in world sports popularity. Right?
Well, apparently not...
Two moments in World Cup history are guaranteed to start arguments between soccer fans - Geoff Hurst's winning goal for England in 1966 and Diego Maradona's "Hand of God" strike for Argentina 20 years later.
Adding fuel to bar room disputes, modern TV technology now shows up egregious errors by referees who wrongly disallow or award goals when the ball did not cross the line.
That is why Fifa, world soccer's governing body, is considering bringing the sport into the 21st century by looking at introducing goal line technology.
It is not a novel idea - tennis, basketball, rugby and American football have used computer technology or video replays for years to help officials make the right call.
In ice hockey, the use of video to show if the puck has crossed the goal line has become a familiar feature of National Hockey League (NHL) games for a decade.
Fifa president Sepp Blatter has said goalline technology will be in place at the 2007 World Club Cup in Tokyo. A Fifa committee is assessing various forms of technology and whatever they choose will be operational by the December tournament.
Wow, the NHL actually having an impact on the world's biggest sport?
Perhaps soccer ought to take a few more hints from hockey to make their sport more interesting
1. Allow some actual body contact - Why punish a player for simply breathing on the guy? Allow some body shoving is the guy has the ball. If he's such a good player, he ought to withstand a clean body-check.
2. Fighting - OK, so soccer players fight like sissies, but why not let the fights happen on the field instead of the stands? Wouldn't you like to see David Beckham's face smashed by a good left bitch-slap from Thierry Henry?
3. Pipe in god-awful emo rock music over the PA. Why let the fans chant and moan this 'whoooooa-whoooa-whoooa' crap that makes no sense? It's obvious that the fans are so bored with the game that they have to resort to singing and chanting. By blaring Nickelback over the stadium speakers, you'll calm the crowd down and allow them to sit there and shut up instead of lighting flares and throwing toilet paper onto the field.
4. How about some real uniforms? What pride can Manchester United really have when the players are running billboards? Did you know their team mascot/name/logo is the Red Devils? Well, I don't blame you if you don't, given how their 'logo' is a small one-inch patch on the upper right of their jerseys.
5. Allow some real numbering - Ever notice how all soccer teams give players numbers in the 1-20ish range? Why can't players wear #88, #69, or #99? How many good strikers have worn #9? Exactly...
6. Stop calling players by one name - It's bad enough that the players suck, but you can't look them up in a phone book to throw a bomb through their frickin' window! Which RONALDO are you talking about? The ugly gap-toothed caveman from Brazil or the pretty boy Metrosexual from Portugal?
7. Have the playoffs AFTER the season, and not during the season. There is simply a lot less thrill to the regular season when there is nothing to play for until the NEXT season.
Or, you can just watch hockey and forget about soccer. North Americans are great at that.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
NHL Defeats Common Sense Once Again
by Jes
Perhaps we should call it 'uncommon sense', since most people don't seem to possess common sense.
Yes, the NHL, once again, did the WRONG thing and rejected a 3-point system for games.
As it stands right now, not every NHL game is equal. Some games give 2 points to a clear-cut winner, while others give out 3 points (2 to the OT/SO winner and the other to the loser).
It seems like a simple problem to fix...
3 points for a regulation win
2 points for a OT/SO win
1 point for a OT loss
Voila!! Every game is worth 3 points.
Yet, the NHL GMs spout of their usual brand of krap:
Oh, I see. The NHL has been going spastic with major changes (That nobody asked for) for years, and suddenly now Jean-Luc Picard says "The line must be drawn HERE!"
What a crock!
If you have something that is 'broken', you damn well fix it!!
The trapezoids?? What the hell was that for? THAT was a useless change.
Fixing the current system of standings madness is something that needs to be done, lest the NHL wants to look like the biggest joke in North Amerikan sports. YEah, the fans are just going to be SO confused. How could they ever figure out a new set of standings... trust me, fans can remember exactly how many beers they had at a Ducks/Kings back in 2003, and they can certainly learn a new set of standings (which are less confusing than the dreck they use now).
It's just amazing how the NHL has ever succeeded given the headless chickens running the operation.
---
Edit: Hockey Analysis presents a very simple, but thought-provoking analysis of the current point scheme vs. the old point scheme vs. the 3-point scheme.
Perhaps we should call it 'uncommon sense', since most people don't seem to possess common sense.
Yes, the NHL, once again, did the WRONG thing and rejected a 3-point system for games.
As it stands right now, not every NHL game is equal. Some games give 2 points to a clear-cut winner, while others give out 3 points (2 to the OT/SO winner and the other to the loser).
It seems like a simple problem to fix...
3 points for a regulation win
2 points for a OT/SO win
1 point for a OT loss
Voila!! Every game is worth 3 points.
Yet, the NHL GMs spout of their usual brand of krap:
"Because it's a terrible idea," Anaheim general manager Brian Burke said Wednesday as three days of GM meetings wrapped up. "That's why it didn't have any support."Terrible idea??? This is coming from the guy who wants Power Plays to be just a minute long in OT?? C'mon Burkie, you ought to be smarter than this!
Colin Campbell, the NHL's director of hockey operations, says the game needs a breather from the constant change.
"It's time to establish continuity, you can't keep making changes," he said. "Let' s not confuse the fans."
...
Said Burke: "We made some radical changes when we came back from the work stoppage. The game is faster, the game is better, and the game is more entertaining. If something ain't broke, there's no reason to try and fix it."
...
"I think we've had too much change of late," said New Jersey Devils GM Lou Lamoriello. "It's a good game, let's enjoy it."
Oh, I see. The NHL has been going spastic with major changes (That nobody asked for) for years, and suddenly now Jean-Luc Picard says "The line must be drawn HERE!"
What a crock!
If you have something that is 'broken', you damn well fix it!!
The trapezoids?? What the hell was that for? THAT was a useless change.
Fixing the current system of standings madness is something that needs to be done, lest the NHL wants to look like the biggest joke in North Amerikan sports. YEah, the fans are just going to be SO confused. How could they ever figure out a new set of standings... trust me, fans can remember exactly how many beers they had at a Ducks/Kings back in 2003, and they can certainly learn a new set of standings (which are less confusing than the dreck they use now).
It's just amazing how the NHL has ever succeeded given the headless chickens running the operation.
---
Edit: Hockey Analysis presents a very simple, but thought-provoking analysis of the current point scheme vs. the old point scheme vs. the 3-point scheme.
Labels: bettman, Brian Burke, NHL, opinion, rants, rules
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
NHL: Is the 'New' Standard Starting to Erode?
by Jes
It happens most every season without fail: The refs crack down hard on obstruction early in the season, and then let up later in the season, claiming the 'players are adjusting'.
Last season, such adjustment was not so pronounced, but now the media and some fans are starting to wonder if we're slowly, and surely, crawling back to the 'dark ages' of hooking, holding, and water skiing.
From John MacKinnon, The Edmonton Journal:
This is not something I've watched closely over the past few months, but I have noticed that a few 'borderline' incidents are not being called as penalties, while they likely would have been last season.
Are we crawling back to the dark ages? I'd like some of your thoughts and maybe somebody has some numbers to suggest, one way or another, what the standard of obstruction really is. I hate chinsy penalties, but I'd also hate to see a return to the good times for the sloths like Derian Hatcher and Brendan Witt.
It happens most every season without fail: The refs crack down hard on obstruction early in the season, and then let up later in the season, claiming the 'players are adjusting'.
Last season, such adjustment was not so pronounced, but now the media and some fans are starting to wonder if we're slowly, and surely, crawling back to the 'dark ages' of hooking, holding, and water skiing.
From John MacKinnon, The Edmonton Journal:
Wasn't the crackdown on obstruction supposed to let the speed and skill flow freely in the New NHL? As a byproduct, it cut fighting almost in half last season. This year, turning the tough guy loose is re-emerging as the way to provide some space for the skill players, just like the good old days.While Sidney Crosby does get a lot of attention, he also brings a lot on himself by the style he plays. I can't say he gets an undue amount of 'love' from the likes of Derian Hatcher.
Much has been made of the liberties taken with the league-leading scorer, Pittsburgh's Sidney Crosby. But, curiously, Penguins GM Ray Shero is not among the posse who want to change the instigator rule.
At least one head coach, Buffalo's Lindy Ruff, sounded alarm bells during the all-star break about what he perceives as the rising level of unpenalized obstruction fouls. Rather than echo his concern, other coaches have voiced the view that so-called "soft penalties" be overlooked, or at least called less rigorously. Tilting back in the direction of the old-fashioned situation ethics of the past, in other words.
This is not something I've watched closely over the past few months, but I have noticed that a few 'borderline' incidents are not being called as penalties, while they likely would have been last season.
Are we crawling back to the dark ages? I'd like some of your thoughts and maybe somebody has some numbers to suggest, one way or another, what the standard of obstruction really is. I hate chinsy penalties, but I'd also hate to see a return to the good times for the sloths like Derian Hatcher and Brendan Witt.
Labels: Crosby, NHL, obstruction, opinion, rules
Instigating Real Change in the NHL?
by Jes
The instigator penalty has always been a complete fallacy. If you allow fighting (and the NHL basically does), why would you unduly punish the initiating party for starting it?
As it stands right now, not only does a player get booted from the game, but they earn a 2-game suspension if they get 3 instigators.
Well, this issue has been a bone of contention for many folks out there, from the Rock 'Em Sock'Em Don Cherry, to the fighting-is-ebil Mike Bossy.
It was nice to hear the NHL GMs were discussing the issue, instead of bickering over revenue sharing or ways to avoid going to the nightclubs with Gary Bettman.
From TSN.ca:
Of course, there are the idiot GM's out there that suck the teat of Bettman's milk
...said the GM who has never played an NHL game.
So, in the end, don't expect anything good to be done in that regard.
One interesting idea was put forth by Brian Burke: the idea of going to one-minute penalties in overtime...
The instigator penalty has always been a complete fallacy. If you allow fighting (and the NHL basically does), why would you unduly punish the initiating party for starting it?
As it stands right now, not only does a player get booted from the game, but they earn a 2-game suspension if they get 3 instigators.
Well, this issue has been a bone of contention for many folks out there, from the Rock 'Em Sock'Em Don Cherry, to the fighting-is-ebil Mike Bossy.
It was nice to hear the NHL GMs were discussing the issue, instead of bickering over revenue sharing or ways to avoid going to the nightclubs with Gary Bettman.
From TSN.ca:
Currently the rules stipulate that a player who picks up three instigator penalties warrants a two-game suspension. Some GMs believe that makes it too difficult for tough guys to protect their star teammates.So, the GM's weren't actually talking about SCRAPPING the stupid game-misconduct and suspension part entirely *sigh*... solving an issue half way is such a cop-out
"That's an agenda item that I requested," Anaheim Ducks GM Brian Burke said after the first day wrapped up at a posh resort hotel. "I think we need to raise the number of instigator penalties a player can take before getting suspended. I do not favour the elimination of the penalty but I think we've got to get to five or six (instigator penalties) before a player gets suspended so they can do their jobs and protect their teammates."
Through Feb. 15. there were 47 instigator penalties handed out this season, up from 39 through the same number of games last season.
Ben Eager of the Philadelphia Flyers is the only player to have earned the two-game suspension so far this season for earning three instigators, but the issue with some GMs is that some players get two instigators and are hesitant to drop the gloves.
"So the question is, when a guy is at two instigator penalties, does it affect him to say, `I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to protect my guy. I'm not going to protect my goalie because I'm going to be suspended.' That was really the debate today," said Columbus Blue Jackets GM Doug MacLean.
Of course, there are the idiot GM's out there that suck the teat of Bettman's milk
"I do think there's enough time in the game to play tough and deliver that message appropriately," echoed Toronto Maple Leafs GM John Ferguson. "I do think it would be hard to go backwards in terms of vigilance against it."
...said the GM who has never played an NHL game.
So, in the end, don't expect anything good to be done in that regard.
One interesting idea was put forth by Brian Burke: the idea of going to one-minute penalties in overtime...
"I don't know how far that one's going to get," said Burke. "The logic of it, obviously, if you take a tripping penalty in the first period it's 10 per cent of the period and it's a 5-on-4 power play."It's easy to see Burke's logic, but I feel a penalty should be a full penalty no matter what time of the game it is. It's bad enough that refs tend to let up late in the games and OT anyway, so why make a penalty less of a penalty just because it's OT? You SHOULD punish teams for taking dumb penalties at such a point of the game.
"That same foul in overtime is 40 per cent of the period and it's a 4-on-3 power play which has a dramatically higher conversion rate. So to me it makes sense. But I'm not sure my logic will carry the day here."
Labels: Brian Burke, business, fighting, instigator, NHL, rules
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Following the Leader Isn't Always a Good Thing
So, I was surfing the internet tubules and came upon a story over at OffWing.com about the United Hockey League (UHL) struggling to adapt to the New NHL rules and keep their minor league identity.
One thought instantly came to mind: "Why is the UHL adopting NHL rules?"
What are the chances of a UHL player ever making the NHL? Slimmer than Nicole Richie after throwing up her dinner.
When Michael Franke’s family bought the Komets in August 1990, he brought new marketing strategies to minor-league hockey. Almost 17 years later, he wonders if minor-league hockey hasn’t gotten too far from its roots.Yes, the UHL is not a development league for the NHL and never will be. The AHL? Yes. The ECHL? Slightly. Fans have always been drawn to lower-minor and beer leagues because of the violence, physical play, and boatloads of offense. Just because the NHL changes things doesn't mean the UHL or any other league other than AHL should.
Particularly with rules enforcement, minor-league hockey has always been quick to follow National Hockey League guidelines. Franke says that has hurt the minor-league product.
“As businessmen and women, we have to look at this and make sure we’re not doing the wrong things, because I think we are,” the Komets president said last week. “I think we’ve taken the element of fan appeal, which is very, very important to any business, and we’ve put it in the back seat. We’re too worried about what the NHL is doing.”
While the NHL has tried to legislate some forms of physical play, Franke says that hurts the minor-league games because that’s not what fans want. The minor leagues follow the NHL’s lead closely because they’d like to be considered developmental leagues.
“There’s only one league in all of minor-league hockey that truthfully is a developmental league to the NHL, and that is the AHL,” Franke said. “We are minor leagues that are trying to create a form of entertainment for the people who live in our towns. We have to put that in the forefront. There are a very, very small percentage of players who are ever going to go to the NHL from these leagues, and we can’t be worried about that. It’s not worth sacrificing your business for some rules that turn the game into a non-interesting form of entertainment.”
This blog already documented how the lower-league refs were struggling to uphold the NHL's standards because their officials just aren't quite good and experienced enough.
Note to UHL: You are in the business of entertainment, and fans of your clubs don't want an endless parade to the penalty box for touching a guy with a stick. While the changes may help the NHL, they won't necessarily make your league any better.
On another note, the NHL decided to press on with the third year of their 3-year schedile rotation. Gary Bettman is so hard-on to finish his precious rotation that the league is basically screwing good marketing opportunities to save $5 on jet fuel. Say good-bye to a true Hockey Day in Canada next season.
Labels: bettman, marketing, rules
