Breaking the Plane = Goal. Thoughts?

[tempest2i]

If a goal could be scored by just breaking the plane, wouldn't it then be possible to score goals by hitting any part of the inside half of the goal post?

 

[JadedLeaf]

Am I the only person who misread the title as break the (glass) pane = goal?

Nope lol

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

No. Absolutely not.

 

[stokes84]

There is nothing satisfying about a goal that eeks across. I want more goals, but this is not the way. Players should be able to beat a goalie clean on occasion.

Nets bigger. Push the goalposts out 1 inch each way, and that's an additional 8 square inches to shoot at, it wouldn't look different at all, but it would add a ton of scoring. I don't understand the refusal to adapt by this league.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

It would be pretty dramatic if the puck broke the plane by 0.1 mm only to be called back by being offside by the same measurements.

 

[BPD]

Yeah, pretty much.

No there wouldnt.

Yeah, pretty much. Its not a major idea. Just a thought after watching a football game.

I do kind of like the idea of moving up the goal line to line up the back of it with the middle of the post. Again it wouldnt add that many more goals, but the puck would still have to completely cross the goal line and just get more than 50% past the post. The goal line is what goals are measured against, so having the middle of the post as the goal would be an easy minor change.

Many have said it, but I think that any change to this rule is a statistical increase that doesn't play out in the ways the NHL would need it to. It'd raise GPG, but would it raise viewership, or perception of excitement, or sell merch, or put fans in the stands? Probably not. It might increase vitriol spewed at Toronto though.

Think about the recent change to PATs in football: they were such "gimmes" that they weren't exciting at all. They bumped the PAT 15 (?) yards back, and suddenly....well...they're not gimmes. It's made PATs SOMEWHAT exciting, at least.

What we're seeing regarding scoring/excitement is a threefold phenomenon:

1 - The barrier to entry into the NHL is MUCH higher from a skill sense. Pluggers, plodders, and thugs do not make today's NHL. This has a double effect: we all see the potential for a wide open, skill based game, but we also acknowledge that the play style that kept these players in the NHL (largely bruising, fighting, etc) was actually kind of exciting for the casual fan. It leaves us in a weird space, because....

2 - Defensive schemes. We're all familiar with the trap, but we're in an era where defensive strategy has evolved and offensive strategy simply has not adapted. We routinely harp on statistics like Corsi and Fenwick - and we know them to be solid proxies for the defensive strength of a team. Put simply, there's a premium on defensive strategy and puck possession in a way that doesn't necessarily equate to forward motion toward the opponents goal. Unfortunately and entirely unlike an NFL defense, your best NHL defenses are pretty mundane - that is, there's almost nothing exciting about them. When they do their jobs well, you don't notice them.

3 - Goalie coaches. When did this actually become a thing? I feel like the first time I EVER heard of a goalie coach was in the post-lockout season with Henrik + Benoit Allaire. Shoot me down if I'm wrong, but this feels like a really recent phenomenon. Teams have front office positions solely dedicated to thinking through their netminders now - stance, positioning, reaction speed, location, puck tracking, pad placement, equipment use/color, awareness, stickwork, vision - literally EVERY DETAIL of the role. While exceptional goaltending is almost always exciting, it doesn't catch the eye of the casual observer.

There's so much more to this "issue" than the above. It's a start.

There are a few reasonable ways to open the game up.

You're seeing a lot of it come to the forefront in team strategy - high quality shots and speed are now becoming the "meta" in the NHL - because if you can outpace a defender or simply place a hard shot well, you can break the defensive scheme.

I'm still a huge proponent of an expansion of the ice surface (even 5 feet total would be a nice experiment). It's a hard sell because those are the primo seats, but I'm sure that there's an experiment to be had here.

I've heard a few fun ones (remove offsides, move that line to the red line/between the circles) that could be fun to mess with too. I'm just not sold that the solution to increasing excitement is a technicality like breaking the plane.

 

[Cawz]

It would be pretty dramatic if the puck broke the plane by 0.1 mm only to be called back by being offside by the same measurements.

Haha, yeah.

Am I the only person who misread the title as break the (glass) pane = goal?

Now that would be a creative idea...

 

[missingchicklet]

I've been wanting for years for the NBA to count baskets as long as the ball hits the rim, and for MLB to count a homer for any ball that hits the wall in the air. Would increase scoring by so much.

 

[Cawz]

If a goal could be scored by just breaking the plane, wouldn't it then be possible to score goals by hitting any part of the inside half of the goal post?

Yeah, which wouldnt be that bad. I did change my idea though, to move up the goal line.

Many have said it, but I think that any change to this rule is a statistical increase that doesn't play out in the ways the NHL would need it to. It'd raise GPG, but would it raise viewership, or perception of excitement, or sell merch, or put fans in the stands? Probably not. It might increase vitriol spewed at Toronto though.

...

I'm just not sold that the solution to increasing excitement is a technicality like breaking the plane.

Yeah, it wasnt meant as a solution, more of an idea thrown out there. Good points made though. Nice post.

Edit: Its nice to see someone actually put some thought into a response for a change.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Why not start every game tied 2 to 2? More goals. More exciting hockey.

 

[Cawz]

I've been wanting for years for the NBA to count baskets as long as the ball hits the rim, and for MLB to count a homer for any ball that hits the wall in the air. Would increase scoring by so much.

Have you also wanted the NFL to require the full ball to cross the goal line? Since you like making comparisons, why did you exclude the only relevant one I was referring to?

 

[WreckingCrew]

Nets bigger. Push the goalposts out 1 inch each way, and that's an additional 8 square inches to shoot at, it wouldn't look different at all, but it would add a ton of scoring. I don't understand the refusal to adapt by this league.

You don't know how to calculate area do you? 1 in x height of goal post x 2 (since both posts are moving) >>>>>> 8 in^2 plus of course if your also raising the crossbar you'd have to add in that.

As others have said, more goals also doesn't necessarily mean more excitement, there are other ways of increasing goals such as changing net size. If you just have to "break the plane", wouldn't any puck that hits the post basically be a goal? You'd need multiple cameras as well so you could get different angles to see if a post-shot is a goal...take a lot more time and momentum out of every game. No reason to change that

 

[Guardian17]

I like the rule the way it is.

 

[missingchicklet]

Have you also wanted the NFL to require the full ball to cross the goal line? Since you like making comparisons, why did you exclude the only relevant one I was referring to?

A hockey goal is more similar to an NBA hoop than it is to a goal line in the NFL.

 

[gorangers0525]

I think more skilled goals would make the game more fun, but garbage goals certainly won't.

 

[stokes84]

You don't know how to calculate area do you? 1 in x height of goal post x 2 (since both posts are moving) >>>>>> 8 in^2 plus of course if your also raising the crossbar you'd have to add in that.

As others have said, more goals also doesn't necessarily mean more excitement, there are other ways of increasing goals such as changing net size. If you just have to "break the plane", wouldn't any puck that hits the post basically be a goal? You'd need multiple cameras as well so you could get different angles to see if a post-shot is a goal...take a lot more time and momentum out of every game. No reason to change that

Lol, you are correct. Pretty bad brain fart. Even better.

 

[Bedards Dad]

No. Horrible idea.

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but I for one don't want to see a goal from a puck deflecting back out off the inside of the post.

 

[colchar]

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.

First you claim it would result in more goals, then you claim it would only affect a handful of goals. Which is it?

And what is with this obsession with increasing scoring? If you desperately want more goals, go watch lacrosse or something.

 

[Plante]

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

Are you serious?

 

[colchar]

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.

 

[colchar]

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.

When was the last time you saw a goal mouth scrum with no goalie in the net?

It works in football.

Then go watch football if you like its rules so much.

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

Does basketball allow baskets for the ball breaking the plane?

Does baseball call it a homer if the ball breaks the plane of the wall?

 

[Deaner]

My favourite part of the game is the goal reviews - sitting on the edge of your seat, lump in your throat, wondering what those crazy lunks in the NHL office will decide! Now, work with me here, if the puck only had to nick the goal line, we could have so many more reviews and challenges!

Of course, the ancillary benefit to all the extra in-game thrills is that we would have endless fodder for threads about the league's incompetence, inconsistencies and perceived biases. Our days will be full, picking a side will give our lives meaning. Nothing but benefits.

 

[Mubiki]

I mean, you're just exchanging lines in the sand. It wouldn't really make that much of a difference.

 

[Cawz]

First you claim it would result in more goals, then you claim it would only affect a handful of goals. Which is it?

And what is with this obsession with increasing scoring? If you desperately want more goals, go watch lacrosse or something.

Then go watch football if you like its rules so much.

Whats with the "go watch other sports" comments. Its a message board to discuss things. If you have issues with that, fee free to avoid threads with discussion points you don't like. As you can see, the mature people in this thread can disagree and provide good arguments without resorting to such juvenile retorts.

And what do you mean "which is it" in your first point? Are you unable to realize that a handful of goals is more goals?

When was the last time you saw a goal mouth scrum with no goalie in the net?

Is this a serious question? Really? Wow...

 

[Cawz]

I mean, you're just exchanging lines in the sand. It wouldn't really make that much of a difference.

Yeah, pretty much.