Breaking the Plane = Goal. Thoughts?

[Cawz]

What are people's thoughts on calling it a goal if the puck breaks the plane of the goal line? Right now its only counted a goal if the entire puck crosses the line. What if that was reversed and the puck just needs to break the plane of the line to be a goal. It would mean more goals without affecting the size of the net. It wouldnt slow down the game because the replay rules would still apply since they would just be shifting the goal by the width of the goal line. So it would only affect a handful of goals that would likely be reviewed anyways.

It works in football. Is there any reason why it wouldnt work in hockey, other than the fact that its different?

Click to read more...

 

[Voodoo Child]

I think people are too fixated on the idea of 'more goals = more excitement'.

I wanna see less holding, less clogging up the neutral zone, less goalies forwarding the puck, less 'oh his skate was an inch over the line before the puck so offside' literal adherence to rules like offside.

That and 3 on 3 sudden death overtime...forever - 1 minute, 90 minutes whatever, as long as it takes.

 

[McWeber]

I imagine the goaltender being able to completely cover the puck and obscure it from view with his glove would make for even more iffy goals/ non goals. Not to mention those awesome moments when a Dman stops a goal right on the line would suck to lose. Its a little different having a large round ball breaking the plane as opposed to a small flat puck.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I mean it would be fine I guess

I feel like this would just inflate goals with more garbage type goals. I think most people who want more goals actually want more "nice" goals, which typically wouldn't be effected by this kind of change. I'm not interested in more scrums leading to goals if it doesn't actually make the game more exciting.

 

[D Wakaluk]

Dude, no. Just no. This idea really hurts my brain.

 

[Kale Makar]

This doesn't happen often enough to effect the game and really doesn't add anything. Even so I think it makes more sense for the entire puck to have to cross the line compared to the football rules because in hockey it is a lot smaller of a object and objective.

 

[KPower]

Yes and make the puck bigger.

 

[Bruinaura]

Yes and make the puck bigger.

I am suddenly amused by the thought of playing hockey with a puck the size of a dinner plate.

 

[Cawz]

I imagine the goaltender being able to completely cover the puck and obscure it from view with his glove would make for even more iffy goals/ non goals. Not to mention those awesome moments when a Dman stops a goal right on the line would suck to lose.

That would still happen. Theres no reason why those awesome dman moments would occur any less.

I feel like this would just inflate goals with more garbage type goals. I think most people who want more goals actually want more "nice" goals, which typically wouldn't be effected by this kind of change. I'm not interested in more scrums leading to goals if it doesn't actually make the game more exciting.

I dont think changing the goal line would affect anyones game plan though. It would just make more of those garbage goals count.

Dude, no. Just no. This idea really hurts my brain.

Any reason why, or does thinking outside of the box hurt your brain?

This doesn't happen often enough to effect the game and really doesn't add anything. Even so I think it makes more sense for the entire puck to have to cross the line compared to the football rules because in hockey it is a lot smaller of a object and objective.

Of course if adds something. More goals. I agree it doesnt happen that often, which is maybe a good thing.

What do you mean by objective? An object crossing a line is always objective, be it a puck, football, soccer ball or baseball.

Yes and make the puck bigger.

No

 

[Derrty]

Should switch to a soccer size net, a football and no sticks while we're at it.

 

[SirPaste]

Ban goalies

 

[Quarter]

No.

Just... no.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

So if the puck hit the inside of the post or underside of the crossbar and bounced out it would be a goal? That's sounds great.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

there's something emotionally satisfying about it having to be all the way over. Like you just bounced off a guy who weighs 250 pounds and had to unload a 100mph slapshot, because hockey is not an easy game by any objective measurement, and we're not making it easier by letting you score when you manage to get it 99.999% of the way to the required distance.

 

[Bending and Tending]

So how does this create more goals? Right now, the "plane" is 3 inches behind the goal line (entire puck across). You're essentially moving the goal line 5 inches.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I dont think changing the goal line would affect anyones game plan though. It would just make more of those garbage goals count.

Indeed. Which is why I think it would just be a way to artificially increase goal scoring without actually making the game more exciting.

If they want to make the game more exciting, adding more garbage goals isn't the way to do it.

 

[Kale Makar]

What do you mean by objective? An object crossing a line is always objective, be it a puck, football, soccer ball or baseball.

Objective being the touchdown/goal line.

 

[AINEC*]

The puck should be a golf ball imo

 

[Ogrezilla]

So how does this create more goals? Right now, the "plane" is 3 inches behind the goal line (entire puck across). You're essentially moving the goal line 5 inches.

It means the puck doesn't have to go as far behind the goalie to be a goal. As long as the goal itself doesn't move, the goalie couldn't back up or anything to compensate. This would add quite a few goals I think. Not a crazy amount, but pucks get stopped on the goal line pretty regularly.

That said, I don't think its a good idea.

 

[Space Herpe]

I think people are too fixated on the idea of 'more goals = more excitement'.

I wanna see less holding, less clogging up the neutral zone, less goalies forwarding the puck, less 'oh his skate was an inch over the line before the puck so offside' literal adherence to rules like offside.

That and 3 on 3 sudden death overtime...forever - 1 minute, 90 minutes whatever, as long as it takes.

Bingo.

 

[njdevsfn95]

One of the most exciting games I ever witnessed live was 1-0.

There were 84 shots on goal in 60 minutes.

We need more of THOSE games (free flowing, plenty of chances), not necessarily more goals.

 

[Cawz]

So how does this create more goals? Right now, the "plane" is 3 inches behind the goal line (entire puck across). You're essentially moving the goal line 5 inches.

Um, yeah, How doesnt that create more goals?

Objective being the touchdown/goal line.

Yeah, but you said hockey was more objective, unless I misunderstood you.

Indeed. Which is why I think it would just be a way to artificially increase goal scoring without actually making the game more exciting.

It would make it a bit more exciting. Makes it slightly easier to score at the end of the game with the goalie pulled, where we see more goal-mouth scrums.

there's something emotionally satisfying about it having to be all the way over. Like you just bounced off a guy who weighs 250 pounds and had to unload a 100mph slapshot, because hockey is not an easy game by any objective measurement, and we're not making it easier by letting you score when you manage to get it 99.999% of the way to the required distance.

It works in football. I bet if the reverse idea was proposed in football, you'd see the same kind of push-back.

 

[Shrimper]

I don't see why this is needed?

But, the line is part of the outline of the goal, so it should stay as it is

 

[Ogrezilla]

Um, yeah, How doesnt that create more goals?

Yeah, but you said hockey was more objective, unless I misunderstood you.

It would make it a bit more exciting. Makes it slightly easier to score at the end of the game with the goalie pulled, where we see more goal-mouth scrums.

Meh. I'm not interested in more scrum goals. Those ones shouldn't be easy to score.

It works in football. I bet if the reverse idea was proposed in football, you'd see the same kind of push-back.

Football is different because the defense can stand on the other side of the goal line though. In this, there is a metal frame stopping the goalie from backing up to compensate. As is, the puck pretty much needs to be completely past the goalie to be a goal. A puck could very easily break the plane of the line without actually getting fully past the goalie.

 

[Cawz]

So if the puck hit the inside of the post or underside of the crossbar and bounced out it would be a goal? That's sounds great.

What sounds so bad about it, other than the fact that its different?

If they want to make the game more exciting, adding more garbage goals isn't the way to do it.

Oh, I agree there is a fundamental problem with the way the game is played (and called) nowadays. This idea isnt to take the place of the fact that too much interferece is allowed.

I was just watching NFL this afternoon and wondered why breaking the plane is normal in that sport but not in hockey.