New Rule Changes
- Thread starter thadd
- Start date
AlowlyMcOilersfan
Comrade
- Oct 30, 2011
- 7,526
- 3
mostly minor tweaks
I like that there will be more offensive zone draws(potentially) and the extended trapezoid. The spinorama came and went without that much fuss. I'm happy enough without it.
I'm not sure that the fines and publicizing of players(in regards to diving) is going to make much of a difference.
I like the slight adjustment to the kicking motion decision on goals that go off the foot. The added video review rule seems more like a stopgap than anything.
The making contact with the puck first rule was one of my favourite, but they pretty much axed it. I don't think it'll change too much(is it going to actually be called in the playoffs? that's when it really matters).
I also like the new faceoff rule in terms of players delaying games. Maybe this will lead to not overloading on centres for a defensive draw.
I think the changes to overtime are minor.
Oiltankjob Fail
Registered User
- Feb 10, 2013
- 6,686
- 0
Yup. I agree I don't see so many centres being put on the ice at once. In fact I think this could go in the direction of "You're either taking the face-off or you're taking a penalty", which would make it meaningless to have a team with tons of centres.
With the defensive rule that stops the d-men from waiving their sticks around so frivolously, I think that could get us a few extra penalty shots per year and given who we've got to take those shots I think that favours us. If Yakupov learns to play better positionally this year he's got the skills and speed to catch the d-men off guard.
Also: The rule that leads to the puck staying in the offensive zone after it accidentally deflects into the stands encourages teams to shoot more and that's something we need to do.
Some good changes. I hope I'm reading this right and the guys in Toronto will have the ability to override some of the ref's "intent to blow the whistle calls". It seems every so often a goal is scored that should clearly count, but in the infinite power of the ref he's able to say he intended to blow the whistle, even when sometimes the puck is in the net well before he comes close to blowing it down.
Replacement*
Checked out
Anybody should. Because its basis is false reasoning that people actually retroactively correctly assess what their intent was. In instances that occur fast (hockey) people make mistakes in assessing exactly when something happened. For instance even when they blew their whistle may not be accurately linked to the corresponding play without video review. Including "intent" to blow whistle includes a non event that the ref wouldn't be able to accurately time in his mind in anycase.
It just gives the ref the opportunity to arbitrarily supercede a play with "well I intended to blow the whistle" If you intended you would have blown the damn whistle. Did your brain freeze and you forgot how to blow the whistle? (maybe some remedial whistle blowing training...) If its stuck in your mouth and you're not blowing you're either stunned, have ADHD, or you did not know for sure with the latter being the most likely reason for not blowing the whistle.
Retroactive analysis of events is often wrong. The distortion is it allows a ref to say they were sure about blowing the whistle when in fact they didn't blow it and were unsure.
I should note that this intended to blow the whistle nonsense also gives a seemingly biased ref one more important way to be that. It just makes for more WWE type nonsense where the zebras get to have the game be all about them. Going home with a **** eating grin that they decided the result of a pro hockey game. Probably even a boner...
As to the other changes I don't like the faceoff penalty. The vast majority of face off sets are already illegal. Players cheat on 90% of draws with a ref occasionally intervening and almost at random. A ref doing this twice in a row is more likely to be arbitrary than sound. Just another way to screw a team or player over and give refs licence to make a bonehead call and opportunity to hand a club a PP. I never like rules that give refs MORE discretion. They already screw up the amount afforded them.
The tripping rule is just plain bad. Now Coffey, Orr, the legends of the game, get a penalty for a perfectly executed slide across to block scoring chance EVEN when they make contact with the puck. Whoever deemed this change necessary shouldn't be let anywhere near this kind of task. Punt the bugger back to writing tickets for parking violations
Trapezoid rule is possibly an improvement, as is inadvertently shooting the puck out. I also like that they nixed the spinaround stuff. That was ridiculous anyway. Any shooter theoretically could execute 3 or more spins before taking a shot which frankly looks like a joke. Is this a shootout or an artistic 10pt scoring event..In the spinaramas that were allowed it often seemed like the puck wasn't really moving forward. I don't recall one being called back on puck motion recently. More than anything it seemed the officials just forgot to call those.
Last edited:
I get why the intent to blow the whistle is there. If a goalie has the puck covered, and people are trying to dig at it...occasionally they succeed after the ref wanted to blow the whistle, but before it actually went.
Other times though, the puck is never covered and the puck gets knocked in yet inexplicably the ref will call it no-goal, when it really should have counted.
Other times though, the puck is never covered and the puck gets knocked in yet inexplicably the ref will call it no-goal, when it really should have counted.
Replacement*
Checked out
Its not hard to blow a whistle. Blow the whistle, wave your arms immediately, do something.
The backwards analysis of when exactly intent is formulated in relation to when real time events occur is poor in humans. All kinds of internal subprocessing of events goes on that lends itself to people not having acute retrieval of split second responses.
Determining after the fact that the ref intended to blow the whistle is worse than a quick blow. The steamboat it takes a ref to actually blow the whistle for a covered puck is fair and good in that it allows the more than split second of puck cover that demonstrates the goalie likely has the puck under control.
McJadeddog
Registered User
rule 57 is dumb... if you hit the puck first, it shouldn't matter.... there are a lot of times in a game, where the dman hits the puck, and then inadvertently trips up the offensive player ... now that is going to be a penalty? very dumb
Captain Catatomic
SuprstitionCondition
The healthy human nervous system generally takes one second for the neocortex in the frontal lobe to intend to make a decision to conciously override an impulse generated by the amigdala in the brain stem.
oobga
Tier 2 Fan
- Aug 1, 2003
- 23,345
- 18,476
Poor Gordon is going to be taking a crazy amount of defensive draws thanks to the change keeping draws inside the zone no matter who deflects the puck out. Wonder if we will have a period where we don't ever leave our zone against a team like the Kings.
