Is there a way to reduce cross checking ?

[sandysan]

Exactly. Call it as a penalty and it will go away. It took a while in '06, but after a short spike in penalties called the players will figure out where the new line is and stop crossing it.

I'm just wondering, a guy sets up shop half a foot in front of your goalie and the one way you can currently move him, you want to make that illegal ?

even the NBA says you can't stand immobile in close proximity to the net for prolonged periods ( and no we dont need a three second rule in the NHL).

if you want to make the defenseman's job essentially impossible, lets just force them to wear an eye patch to kill their depth perception and be done with it.

you go the the front of the net, you are going to catch some lumber.

 

[sandysan]

I don't think so, not as long as the defender has established his position. What would it be called?

The only thing that I can think of is roughing, but that's a subjective call (unlike crosschecking) and no ref would consider a push in front of the net to be roughing.

isn't pushing a guy without the puck to a place he doesn't want to be interference ?
And I think the notion that if you only made crosschecking less effective ( with the one hand) that that makes it any better seems kind of silly to me.

 

[blundluntman]

I think just calling the penalties as they should be should suffice. The "let them play" mentality isn't helping the game imo. It might take a season or 2 but players will eventually adjust. If your style of play consistently puts your team at a disadvantage, eventually something's gonna give.

 

[sandysan]

I think just calling the penalties as they should be should suffice. The "let them play" mentality isn't helping the game imo. It might take a season or 2 but players will eventually adjust. If your style of play consistently puts your team at a disadvantage, eventually something's gonna give.

its not "let them play", its " don't change the way the game is defended to sate the moar goalz crowd". if you allow offensive players to go to the crease with impunity yes the goals will go up but the goals would go up if we iced 6 skates and no goalie as well. thanks but not interested.

people who are surprised that a player might get crosschecked riding the paint should spend less time reading the rulebook and more time watching games,

 

[Bank Shot]

I'm just wondering, a guy sets up shop half a foot in front of your goalie and the one way you can currently move him, you want to make that illegal ?

Yeah but crosschecking a guy really doesn't move him unless he is unsuspecting.

It hurts, sure, but the guys that make a living in front of the net like Ryan Smyth just have a bunch of extra padding put in.

Crosschecking doesn't really help defensively unless you bury a guy from behind.

In that case you are probably having to resort to the crosscheck from behind because your defensive play wasn't good enough in the first place.

 

[blundluntman]

its not "let them play", its " don't change the way the game is defended to sate the moar goalz crowd". if you allow offensive players to go to the crease with impunity yes the goals will go up but the goals would go up if we iced 6 skates and no goalie as well. thanks but not interested.

people who are surprised that a player might get crosschecked riding the paint should spend less time reading the rulebook and more time watching games,

are you saying that your only option of defending the crease is cross checking?

It's not about "moar goalz," bc there are plenty of ways to do that besides calling penalties when you're supposed to...... If it's in the rulebook, it's there for a reason. Period.

 

[tfong]

You reduce crosschecking by calling the actual penalties whenever you see them. The problem with this and many other things is that the refs just don't call them because either then you have too many stoppages of play or don Cherry calls the player a wuss for not wanting to eat a few cross checks.

 

[sandysan]

are you saying that your only option of defending the crease is cross checking?

It's not about "moar goalz," bc there are plenty of ways to do that besides calling penalties when you're supposed to...... If it's in the rulebook, it's there for a reason. Period.

its by far the most effective way. what do you propose, standing still that the guy puts his hands on his and tries to push him like a sled ? You want the D to leave their guy, peel off and circle back to move them with momentum ?

I've seen the " there are other ways to get an immobile player to move" in this thread. outside of crosschecking them in the back or asking them politely to move, I don't know what those might be.

Calling a guy clearing the front of the net as a crosschecking penalty is akin to calling a guy who shoots and clips a guy in the follow through for high sticking. both are the result of 100 % completely anticipated plays.

You cross check a guy at center ice like you would in front of the net, that gets called 10 times out of 10. in front of the net, its really the only effective defensive strategy go a guy who is immobile half a foot in front of your goalie.

that part off the rink is called the dirty part of the ice for reason, why do you wantt to change it ? to make it congruent with the rulebook ? I'd rather change the rulebook to reflect what every player coach and fan KNOWS is going to happen in front of the net than fundamentally cripple defensive play.

 

[OneMoreAstronaut]

Players now have to play with sled hockey sticks. 2x slashing, 0x cross checking. Now you only have to eliminate slashing.

 

[sandysan]

Yeah but crosschecking a guy really doesn't move him unless he is unsuspecting.

It hurts, sure, but the guys that make a living in front of the net like Ryan Smyth just have a bunch of extra padding put in.

Crosschecking doesn't really help defensively unless you bury a guy from behind.

In that case you are probably having to resort to the crosscheck from behind because your defensive play wasn't good enough in the first place.

if cross checking doesnt move a guy you either are not doing it right or hard enough.
And lets not pretend that the offensive players that ride the paint are angels either, lots of guys respond to getting wacked in the back with an elbow to the chops, or they will spin around and give the D a slash back.

Space in front of the net HAS to be contestable. If guys could stand there with impunity it fundamentally changes the game. why people want to do that is completely lost on me.

 

[tfong]

that part off the rink is called the dirty part of the ice for reason, why do you wantt to change it ? to make it congruent with the rulebook ? I'd rather change the rulebook to reflect what every player coach and fan KNOWS is going to happen in front of the net than fundamentally cripple defensive play.

Interesting to note though, would crippling defensive play be the possible answer to having higher scoring games again? I mean if we are talking in the case of wanting games to have more goals and all.

 

[Steal Your Faceoff]

if cross checking doesnt move a guy you either are not doing it right or hard enough.
And lets not pretend that the offensive players that ride the paint are angels either, lots of guys respond to getting wacked in the back with an elbow to the chops, or they will spin around and give the D a slash back.

Space in front of the net HAS to be contestable. If guys could stand there with impunity it fundamentally changes the game. why people want to do that is completely lost on me.

Some also seem to be suggesting that dmen are only doing it because their not as skilled a hockey player as the forward their trying to move. It's undeniable that goalies hate traffic in front of their net but no matter how skilled a defenseman is you can't clear the crease by just having better body positioning.

 

[Bank Shot]

if cross checking doesnt move a guy you either are not doing it right or hard enough.
And lets not pretend that the offensive players that ride the paint are angels either, lots of guys respond to getting wacked in the back with an elbow to the chops, or they will spin around and give the D a slash back.

Space in front of the net HAS to be contestable. If guys could stand there with impunity it fundamentally changes the game. why people want to do that is completely lost on me.

Guys already do stand there with immunity. I haven't seen any defenseman in the league move Maroon out of the the front of the net when he's wanted to be there.

Typically on PKs now, defenders just ignore the crease front guy until a shot is taken. There is no clearing.

 

[sandysan]

Interesting to note though, would crippling defensive play be the possible answer to having higher scoring games again? I mean if we are talking in the case of wanting games to have more goals and all.

more goals by fundamentally changing the game is akin to getting rid of the goalie. the scores would skyrocket ! we might even see players posterized like in the nba !!!!! you want that ? Even the NBA knows if you allow guys to stand in perpetuity close the the goal that the game would essentially be reduced to a guy standing on the blocks andd how well you can get him the ball.

thanks but no thanks.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think this is an over reaction to Crosby's hit.

I don't think that's a factor in this topic, TBH. The Crosby hit was a completely different kind of crosscheck, even if it hadn't ended up catching him in the head.

I'm just wondering, a guy sets up shop half a foot in front of your goalie and the one way you can currently move him, you want to make that illegal ?

How often do you actually see a player get moved a significant distance with a crosscheck? Usually it's more a matter of just inflicting a bunch of punishment on his lower back. Once he's set up on the doorstep, he's set up... an NHL player ain't gonna move just because you're whaling away on him.

isn't pushing a guy without the puck to a place he doesn't want to be interference ?

Not really, because in the cases we're talking about both players have a right to their space and are jostling for position. Interference has more to do with putting an actual check on someone (either a body or stick check) rather than hand contact, and it has to do with denying a player space that he has a right to be in (which doesn't apply to space already occupied by a defender).

In any case, interference is a subjective call by a referee, so the rules give the ref latitude to ignore it if he wishes. Crosschecking is an objective penalty, so the ref can't be "right" in ignoring it. It's simply that we culturally look the other way and pretend that it isn't a penalty when it objectively is one.

And I think the notion that if you only made crosschecking less effective ( with the one hand) that that makes it any better seems kind of silly to me.

Well, it would make it legal. That's a good start.

 

[yourbestfriend]

Guys already do stand there with immunity. I haven't seen any defenseman in the league move Maroon out of the the front of the net when he's wanted to be there.

Typically on PKs now, defenders just ignore the crease front guy until a shot is taken. There is no clearing.

Maroon doesn't have immunity there. He's just a big mofo and it's freaking hard to move a guy who's 6"3 230lbs. Don't think he doesn't take a ton of punishment standing in front of the crease.
Anyone who thinks body positioning in front of the net is all you need to be a good dman has never played at a high level.
I'm not really following the ANA/EDM series, but I doubt Sami Vatanen is out there on the PK in that series.

On almost every single PK, the dman is either hacking,whacking, jabbing or crosschecking the net front guy until the shot is taken at which point the dman will then tie up the forwards stick. Basic PK strategy.

 

[yourbestfriend]

I don't think that's a factor in this topic, TBH. The Crosby hit was a completely different kind of crosscheck, even if it hadn't ended up catching him in the head.

Of course that's the biggest factor in this topic. If Crosby wasn't hit the way he was, why would anyone have an incentive to bring this topic up? There would be no precedence to bring this topic up.

A few years ago, when Dubinsky went to town on Crosby, nobody was calling for a change in how crosschecks were called because that wasn't a hockey play. The Niskanen hit was a hockey play which is why there is some basis for people to bring up how crosschecks are called.

 

[Bank Shot]

Anyone who thinks body positioning in front of the net is all you need to be a good dman has never played at a high level.
.

Nobody is saying that. People are responding to the idea that you have to be able to crosscheck to play good defense. It's BS.

The appeal to playing at a high level is a dumb argument too. Mike Milbury played at a high level. Doesn't mean he's not completely out of touch with the game today.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I agree with the Crosby hater, ITS FINE.

Good puck battle.

 

[Tweed]

Good puck battle.

Agreed.

I've got a bunch of "good puck battle" gifs featuring Ulfie and Cooke and The Bruins. Shoot me a PM if you want 'em.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Agreed.

I've got a bunch of "good puck battle" gifs featuring Ulfie and Cooke and The Bruins. Shoot me a PM if you want 'em.

It's a good, physical puck battle. And a penalty. It can be both.

 

[Tweed]

It's a good, physical puck battle. And a penalty. It can be both.

I know. It's the sort of "good puck battle" both you and I like.

I've got a bunch of "good puck battle" gifs featuring Ulfie and Cooke and The Bruins. They feature "good, concussion-inducing puck battles" and "good, career-ending puck battles". Shoot me a PM if you want 'em.

 

[madinsomniac]

Lets face it, Things like cross checking are left in the game so scrubs without real talent can continue to play in the NHL without being openly exposed. The board of governors is made up of all GM's... do you think GMs want to be accountable to find and develop skilled defenders, and coaches that can effectively strategize to use them, or fill rosters with cheap guys who can use lazy tactics to counter the other team's talent...

A crosscheck lets you hit with more force... so its easier to disrupt an opposing player plus it allows a guy to inflict physical wear and tear on someone else without absorbing any oneself... its a lazy play and yes it ought to be called more, because its easy for a fairly routine one to go badly and really hurt someone... as we all obviously seen

 

[Tweed]

It's a good, physical puck battle. And a penalty. It can be both.

I'm sorry, I can't leave it like this. After 24,000 posts, how do you not know that the word "good" in "good puck battle" means "legal"? Like, did you think "good" was being used as an adjective to describe the entertainment value of the puck battle, when people say "good puck battle"? They're saying "there's no penalty on this play."

 

[Channelcat]

Seems to me the best way is to just enforce the rules. Players should only be allowed to use their body to engage another player.