NHL has a problem - Lack/style of scoring

[Anglesmith]

Yeah, 3-on-3 overtime and visitors putting their sticks down first in the faceoff dot is going to REALLY open things up!

No, I mean it didn't make headlines, but they were discussing ways to increase scoring during games (yes, including bigger nets and/or smaller equipment). Heard it in an interview on the radio with a person in the meetings. All the media seems way more focused on coach's challenge and 3-on-3.

 

[Hobble]

If you make the nets larger, then goalies won't necessarily be able to go down to their knees everytime and block it.

 

[Seedling]

If you want to fix the scoring problem then you have to do two things IMO.

One, reduce the size of the goalie equipment. There is a direction correlation in that since they started making pads and blockers as well as everything else they wear bigger.

Two, make a penalty last the full time of the penalty like it used to. It was changed in the 80's because the Oilers were scoring too many goals. Powerplays create goals. Make a two minute penalty two minutes in full and you get more goals. Same with double minors.

 

[Anglesmith]

I actually think more goals is better for the game.

I remember the Flames stifled under Brent Sutter. Down by a few goals already in the first? Just turn the TV off because you knew the team wasn't going to claw their way back.

The Flames under Hartley is about more chances and its a lot more entertaining, however, I'll assume watching exciting plays in front of a brick wall gets boring quickly. Good thing the Flames can score.

On the flip side, fans don't want to see every rush become a goal. They would then know their team cant hold down leads. Not only must there be a degree of uncertainty to make things entertaining, there must also be certainty.

Some teams will always be defensive if they don't have the offensive talent (due to concerns of league parity), but the league has always needed to continually implement changes to keep the audiences captivated.

If we know the issue is at the goalie position, then the solution is at the goalie position.

This is key. If you allow the number of goals to be consistently high, then you know that when your team scores the first goal, it doesn't really mean anything. When they score the second goal, so what? Unless you manage to build an 8 or 9-goal lead in that time, the first 40 minutes becomes irrelevant. This is where the basketball comparisons come in. In basketball, you enjoy watching the plays made in the first three quarters and change, but realistically, unless a team blows out the other team, the game will be decided in the fourth quarter. Those first three quarters are just about padding stats and trying to make the highlight reel, and it dilutes the importance of each individual basket. Or at least, that's how it feels as a non-fan who has watched quite a few basketball games.

In today's NHL, when we see a 6-goal first period, it's awesome. People love it. Every goal is celebrated and everyone expresses their awe in how crazy a game it is. But that is in large part due to the fact that every goal has a chance to stand up and be the last goal scored. Every goal after that is defying the odds even more. I don't think it would be anywhere near as exciting if there wasn't a chance for a team to hold a lead they obtained in the first period.

 

[Anglesmith]

If you make the nets larger, then goalies won't necessarily be able to go down to their knees everytime and block it.

Yeah they will, because the only goalies NHL teams will sign will be 6'5" or taller. Their net coverage will be similar to the smaller of today's NHL goalies in today's nets.

 

[haveandare]

I actually think more goals is better for the game.

I remember the Flames stifled under Brent Sutter. Down by a few goals already in the first? Just turn the TV off because you knew the team wasn't going to claw their way back.

The Flames under Hartley is about more chances and its a lot more entertaining, however, I'll assume watching exciting plays in front of a brick wall gets boring quickly. Good thing the Flames can score.

On the flip side, fans don't want to see every rush become a goal. They would then know their team cant hold down leads. Not only must there be a degree of uncertainty to make things entertaining, there must also be certainty.

Some teams will always be defensive if they don't have the offensive talent (due to concerns of league parity), but the league has always needed to continually implement changes to keep the audiences captivated.

If we know the issue is at the goalie position, then the solution is at the goalie position.

I've said it a lot, I guess it's getting lost on different pages - but I don't think the issue is at the goalie position and I don't think the issue is not enough goals. Just a few years ago guys like Crosby, Malkin and OV were 100+ point players. Did goalies really change that much since then? If so, why are the goalies who played then not getting lit up the same way now?

The issue is that top players can't operate without being obstructed. The issue is that mediocre players are able to hold back elite offensive talent, not because they have excellent defensive skills, but because they're allowed to hold and interfere constantly.

I don't want any silly NHL only rules that alienate the league from the leagues potential NHL players play in. I don't want the nets to change size or any gimmick like that. Just call certain penalties more. Make defensive forwards have to actually play good defense to be able to hold back the elite offensive talents of the world.

 

[billybudd]

Why do people keep saying this? The NHL is led by a businessman. His single greatest interest is in the profitability of the league, not some image of how the game ought to be played. He's shown that time and time again. And increasing scoring, by the way, was an item at the GMs' meeting.

Rest assured that if there is a reasonable change that can be easily implemented and will make the game more profitable, then that change will happen, whether people like me like it or not.

Strictly speaking, Bettman recuses himself from all on-ice decisions on the grounds that he's not a "hockey guy" (how, for example, Ray Shero or Patrick Burke are "hockey guys" and Bettman, who has now lived the business of this sport for 30 years, is not is something I don't understand).

The on-ice product is actually run by a #6 defenseman mostly known for grappling people and mostly being crap as a player and who had a middling record as a coach.

 

[billybudd]

I've said it a lot, I guess it's getting lost on different pages - but I don't think the issue is at the goalie position and I don't think the issue is not enough goals. Just a few years ago guys like Crosby, Malkin and OV were 100+ point players. Did goalies really change that much since then? If so, why are the goalies who played then not getting lit up the same way now?

The issue is that top players can't operate without being obstructed. The issue is that mediocre players are able to hold back elite offensive talent, not because they have excellent defensive skills, but because they're allowed to hold and interfere constantly.

I don't want any silly NHL only rules that alienate the league from the leagues potential NHL players play in. I don't want the nets to change size or any gimmick like that. Just call certain penalties more. Make defensive forwards have to actually play good defense to be able to hold back the elite offensive talents of the world.

I think, to me, it seems like making the nets bigger is something goaltenders would adjust to in about a year. If they step out about another six inches from where they would be now, those new holes are closed.

No pucks going in is a byproduct of no plays being there. Part of this is, as you said, obstruction. But part of it is player equipment enabling defensive coverage that allows for certain schemes that used to have drawbacks not having drawbacks any more.

Low collapses (25+ teams play a low collapse in their own end) were just as good at reducing shot quality 20 years ago as they are now. No rebounds, no passes through the center, leave the points. Kevin Constantine picked off several 1 seeds with an 8 playing them. Problem was, they were a recipe for broken feet and broken shins, so he had to collect specialists who would block shots and play through those.

Now that drawback is gone. Unless it's Subban or Weber taking the shot, the shotblocker isn't going to be hurt. So everybody can play like Dan Kesa now.

 

[Oilers10]

I agree with the OP. The 90's had such fun stars to watch. Their skill level was on display you could see dangles, speed, skill etc. Now a days its dump and chase, chip it in etc. As an Oilers fan you should be able to see a discernible difference between our 1st overalls and our 3rd liners but on many nights you can't because skill has been taken out of the game. We likely won't have a 90pt scorer this year in the NHL! It was alot more fun watching Jagr, Fleury, etc get 120pts and their skill was clearly on display.

Its a drones game now. SHoot hope for rebounds and tips. Chip puck in. Dump puck in. THis is exactly how Yakupov is being taught to play.

The game is pretty boring now.

 

[Coastal Kev]

I agree with the OP. The 90's had such fun stars to watch. Their skill level was on display you could see dangles, speed, skill etc. Now a days its dump and chase, chip it in etc. As an Oilers fan you should be able to see a discernible difference between our 1st overalls and our 3rd liners but on many nights you can't because skill has been taken out of the game. We likely won't have a 90pt scorer this year in the NHL! It was alot more fun watching Jagr, Fleury, etc get 120pts and their skill was clearly on display.

Its a drones game now. SHoot hope for rebounds and tips. Chip puck in. Dump puck in. THis is exactly how Yakupov is being taught to play.

The game is pretty boring now.

I was actually thinking about Edmonton recently and the criticism their organization gets for failed draft picks. I think the problem is Edmonton has been too good at drafting skill and if the game was played like it was in the early 90's, they would be among the best in the league.

Trouble is, today's hockey rewards grinders and punishes stars and skilled players. It's a game brought to you by former grinders. They preach work, heart toughness as the most important qualities. The sport is now dominated by Grinders and goalies.

Well they now have what they want, a grinders paradise. The only thing that amazes me is that there are so many hockey fans that actually enjoy this new brand of hockey.

 

[NeedleInTheHay]

This is a perfect league for Dan Bylsma to coach in, i'm surprised he hasn't been picked up yet.

 

[haveandare]

I think, to me, it seems like making the nets bigger is something goaltenders would adjust to in about a year. If they step out about another six inches from where they would be now, those new holes are closed.

No pucks going in is a byproduct of no plays being there. Part of this is, as you said, obstruction. But part of it is player equipment enabling defensive coverage that allows for certain schemes that used to have drawbacks not having drawbacks any more.

Low collapses (25+ teams play a low collapse in their own end) were just as good at reducing shot quality 20 years ago as they are now. No rebounds, no passes through the center, leave the points. Kevin Constantine picked off several 1 seeds with an 8 playing them. Problem was, they were a recipe for broken feet and broken shins, so he had to collect specialists who would block shots and play through those.

Now that drawback is gone. Unless it's Subban or Weber taking the shot, the shotblocker isn't going to be hurt. So everybody can play like Dan Kesa now.

Good point, but is that really a thing this year in particular? Did players not wear equipment that let them block shots in the years that there were 100+ point players? I'm honestly not sure.

 

[billybudd]

Good point, but is that really a thing this year in particular? Did players not wear equipment that let them block shots in the years that there were 100+ point players? I'm honestly not sure.

Only that everyone caught on. I don't know if I've seen this level of homogeneity ever before, and certainly not with that particular configuration. Root cause is probably Team Canada's uncontested gold medal run. Everybody copycatted something impenetrable.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah they will, because the only goalies NHL teams will sign will be 6'5" or taller. Their net coverage will be similar to the smaller of today's NHL goalies in today's nets.

You say this like they aren't already favouring size in their goalie selections with nets the way they are...

 

[MarkGio]

This is key. If you allow the number of goals to be consistently high, then you know that when your team scores the first goal, it doesn't really mean anything. When they score the second goal, so what? Unless you manage to build an 8 or 9-goal lead in that time, the first 40 minutes becomes irrelevant. This is where the basketball comparisons come in. In basketball, you enjoy watching the plays made in the first three quarters and change, but realistically, unless a team blows out the other team, the game will be decided in the fourth quarter. Those first three quarters are just about padding stats and trying to make the highlight reel, and it dilutes the importance of each individual basket. Or at least, that's how it feels as a non-fan who has watched quite a few basketball games.

In today's NHL, when we see a 6-goal first period, it's awesome. People love it. Every goal is celebrated and everyone expresses their awe in how crazy a game it is. But that is in large part due to the fact that every goal has a chance to stand up and be the last goal scored. Every goal after that is defying the odds even more. I don't think it would be anywhere near as exciting if there wasn't a chance for a team to hold a lead they obtained in the first period.

I could counter that paradigm with one that favours the negatives in low scoring, most notably used against soccer. Instead I'll suggest that there is no wrong type of sport. There's things I love about basketball and things I love about soccer.

Hockey would never be a 4th quarter only game, regardless how easy it is to score. Basketball is only like that because of the foul line shot and the nature of calling fouls. Basketball also carries automatic possession after being scored on, 24 second transitions of possession, and a time requirement for teams to get into the offensive zone. A group of rules make it so basketball can have huge offensive swings.

In hockey, however, the net size could increase and it still wouldn't be remotely close to basketball in that offense could swing that dramatically. Teams could still ice one forechecker and clog the neutral zone in order to force dumps, while goaltending and shot blocking could muzzle any offensive attempt.

Lets put it this way: hockey is the only sport of all the big team sports that allow for a player count advantage (one team having extra players on the field). What is the percentage of capitalizing on a power play? Its about 15-25% On a two man advantage? Maybe 50%?

So even under such incredible advantages over the opposition will it still be difficult to score. So how will it become like basketball exactly?

 

[Coastal Kev]

"As a former centerman you always feel you have a little more of an advantage if you can get in there second," Colorado Avalanche general manager Joe Sakic said. "To try and help the offense, why not try it? I think it's a good idea."

Carolina Hurricanes general manager Ron Francis proposed the change. Francis was known as one of the best at faceoffs during his Hockey Hall of Fame playing career.

Colin Campbell, NHL senior vice president of hockey operations, said the recommendation is another example of how the general managers are thinking about increasing scoring in the NHL.

"For example, every puck shot at the net now, crossbars, hitting the netting, we keep the faceoffs in the offensive zone," Campbell said. "It's the same thing with the faceoffs. Ron Francis has felt strongly, having been a center and one of the better faceoff guys, that the defensive player should put his stick down first to add a little more to the offensive part of the game because coaches are always beating up the game defensively. They can prevent goals; it's hard for them to produce goals."

Edmonton Oilers GM Craig MacTavish said players who are tasked with taking a lot of defensive-zone faceoffs will not like the change, but the GMs are in favor of it if it will create more offense.

"It will count for a few more goals for sure," MacTavish said. "I thought it was a good initiative by Ron Francis being an old centerman. If he was taking the faceoffs there would have been a lot more goals"


WOW... this is the best the GM's could come up with to help the offense??? NHL is in big trouble.

 

[Fataldogg]

Rangers vs Hawks last two games are a testament as to why the worlds top players can only score 85 points.

Boring doesnt even begin to describe it. It was plugging up the neutral zone, obstruction, and broken play after broken play.

Darling/Talbot both only had to make one great save each through the first 50 minutes. It was very similar to that last time they met.

Im sorry, but to me, there is nothing entertaining about a 1-0 game with mediocre scoring chances. I find myself more and more disinterested in games that are like this. I just cant get into it. Im a die hard Ranger fan, and the past two weeks Ive been cringing throughout the game. Cant get into it when they arent generating scoring chances and not allowing any. 1-0 gets boring fast. Id like to see the occassional game where there is some flow and some chances.

 

[SladeWilson23]

In offensive / defensive zone face-offs, give last change to the attacking team.

 

[Off Sides]

Rangers vs Hawks last two games are a testament as to why the worlds top players can only score 85 points.

Boring doesnt even begin to describe it. It was plugging up the neutral zone, obstruction, and broken play after broken play.

Darling/Talbot both only had to make one great save each through the first 50 minutes. It was very similar to that last time they met.

Im sorry, but to me, there is nothing entertaining about a 1-0 game with mediocre scoring chances. I find myself more and more disinterested in games that are like this. I just cant get into it. Im a die hard Ranger fan, and the past two weeks Ive been cringing throughout the game. Cant get into it when they arent generating scoring chances and not allowing any. 1-0 gets boring fast. Id like to see the occassional game where there is some flow and some chances.

I watched the whole game as well, and pretty much every Ranger game, and while I did not come to the conclusion it was boring, I do think interference needs to be curtailed.

Not just the guy who is carrying the puck is being interfered with but that usually is the only call made and even that call is sporadic at best.

The pick plays, the slow a guy down plays, the little holds and hooks behind the play, the hold guys up off the face-offs, the "I am going to get beat to the outside so I better get in that lane" play, all that adds up to players not having any time or space to do exciting things with the puck or have anyone open to pass to which would lead to more scoring chances.

If they were stringently called however the unintended consequences are players also being able to play a speed game on the forecheck in terms of nailing the other teams D from time to time, and I think it was Brodeur or someone who said that sort of play makes for high risk of injury, but you know what, I'd live with that. D-men(whomever has the puck) would just have to learn to move the puck quicker or take the hit.

 

[MikeBabchuk]

The idea is that we would raise the difficulty of the position of goalie specifically that it would take a goalie of greater talent (NOT SKILL) to stop an unscreened Alex Ovechkin wrist shot from the top of the circles off the rush. Would you call that a boring goal? I wouldn't. But that's a pretty routine save these days unless a goalie is off his angle or his positioning is off.

By talent I mean natural ability- reflexes, agility, awareness/vision, quickness, and athleticism, not years and years of working on angles and positioning which is more of a 'skill'.

Goaltending seems focused more on skill than talent these days. The difference between average and 'elite' (top 3 in the league) should be greater in my opinion and if we return to a more talent based goalie than a skill based goalie I think we will begin to see the elite talents begin to separate themselves more from the pack.

Save percentages have been at all time highs for the last few years now. It's a no brainer that the position needs to be re-standardized.

 

[kitsel]

The idea is that we would raise the difficulty of the position of goalie specifically that it would take a goalie of greater talent (NOT SKILL) to stop an unscreened Alex Ovechkin wrist shot from the top of the circles off the rush. Would you call that a boring goal? I wouldn't. But that's a pretty routine save these days unless a goalie is off his angle or his positioning is off.

By talent I mean natural ability- reflexes, agility, awareness/vision, quickness, and athleticism, not years and years of working on angles and positioning which is more of a 'skill'.

Goaltending seems focused more on skill than talent these days. The difference between average and 'elite' (top 3 in the league) should be greater in my opinion and if we return to a more talent based goalie than a skill based goalie I think we will begin to see the elite talents begin to separate themselves more from the pack.

A lot of people seem to be missing is that making the nets bigger will naturally lead to selection of larger goalies.

Everyone complaining that the goalies are too big and unathletic, prepare for it to be WAY WAY worse when you increase net size. You're not going to make butterfly suddenly worse than any other style no matter how much you change the net size, and the bigger you make the net the more you select for larger goalies. You make the net bigger and it does not become more "talent" to stop ovi from between the circles. It does quite the opposite, making "talent" nearly worthless - give an Ovi or a Stamkos enough net to shoot at and your reflexes are irrelevant unless you're a Ben Bishop level giant.

Suddenly we'll be selecting for goalies that look like NBA players as longer limbs and torsos become more and more important. And with it we'll see a marked decrease in athleticism. It doesn't matter how athletic Quick or Hutchinson or any of the other goalies under 6'5 are, increase the size of the net and no amount of reflex or "talent" will help you stop that puck when your legs or arms or torso simply don't reach anymore. No amount of "skill" will overcome the extra few inches of coverage the bigger goalies get. Sure, you'll see a few more "exciting" saves and some more goals but you'll also run every smaller goalie right out of the league and continue to select for larger and larger and larger pylon-goalies. And that won't be exciting, and seems to run against what most of the "we need more goals" camp is saying. They want more exciting saves, not shaq sized goalies lumbering around trying to make up for the bigger nets.

I'm admittedly fine with how the league is now, but if you are among the camp that wants to increase scoring, I suggest you think of something besides increasing net size or drastically shrinking equipment as that will only server to further emphasize natural size. And frankly, as a multi-sport athlete with way above average reflexes, playing in net is *so* much harder than people are making it out to be. I play in some high level inline leagues where the pucks reach NHL speeds due to the much lighter pucks inline players use and I promise you there's little to no time to react to most shots.

 

[Cyborg LeClair]

I'd like to see a switch to 4 on 4.

 

[MarkGio]

A lot of people seem to be missing is that making the nets bigger will naturally lead to selection of larger goalies.

Everyone complaining that the goalies are too big and unathletic, prepare for it to be WAY WAY worse when you increase net size. You're not going to make butterfly suddenly worse than any other style no matter how much you change the net size, and the bigger you make the net the more you select for larger goalies. You make the net bigger and it does not become more "talent" to stop ovi from between the circles. It does quite the opposite, making "talent" nearly worthless - give an Ovi or a Stamkos enough net to shoot at and your reflexes are irrelevant unless you're a Ben Bishop level giant.

Suddenly we'll be selecting for goalies that look like NBA players as longer limbs and torsos become more and more important. And with it we'll see a marked decrease in athleticism. It doesn't matter how athletic Quick or Hutchinson or any of the other goalies under 6'5 are, increase the size of the net and no amount of reflex or "talent" will help you stop that puck when your legs or arms or torso simply don't reach anymore. No amount of "skill" will overcome the extra few inches of coverage the bigger goalies get. Sure, you'll see a few more "exciting" saves and some more goals but you'll also run every smaller goalie right out of the league and continue to select for larger and larger and larger pylon-goalies. And that won't be exciting, and seems to run against what most of the "we need more goals" camp is saying. They want more exciting saves, not shaq sized goalies lumbering around trying to make up for the bigger nets.

I'm admittedly fine with how the league is now, but if you are among the camp that wants to increase scoring, I suggest you think of something besides increasing net size or drastically shrinking equipment as that will only server to further emphasize natural size. And frankly, as a multi-sport athlete with way above average reflexes, playing in net is *so* much harder than people are making it out to be. I play in some high level inline leagues where the pucks reach NHL speeds due to the much lighter pucks inline players use and I promise you there's little to no time to react to most shots.

Here's what I counter with:

1) Who cares? Nobody is complaining that NHLers have to be taller than 4'5"? How does this affect you and I, the viewers of this product?

2) Why haven't we seen 7'4" goalies already, if such an advantage is obvious?

3) There's a natural variance of height in our species as it stands. The global population isn't going to all of a sudden start producing more tall men, unless there's some underlying condition. Hockey cannot be that condition. So again, the current distribution of tall goalies will remain the same. Id argue the increase in popularity of the sport is what resulted in taller goalies. Canadians are generally short people

EDIT: Basketball also has a distribution of height, with PGs being as short as 5'11 in rare cases. The entire premise of having to block shots is what makes basketball so tall, as well as having to shoot over those shots. The game is a battle of height, with skill helping along the way. Hockey doesn't have that issue. The goaltender is a batter of reflex, speed, and athleticism, with height/reach helping. Its the exact opposite in principle. Hockey goalies are freaky fast, not freaky tall.

 

[kitsel]

Here's what I counter with:

1) Who cares? Nobody is complaining that NHLers have to be taller than 4'5"? How does this affect you and I, the viewers of this product?

2) Why haven't we seen 7'4" goalies already, if such an advantage is obvious?

3) There's a natural variance of height in our species as it stands. The global population isn't going to all of a sudden start producing more tall men, unless there's some underlying condition. Hockey cannot be that condition. So again, the current distribution of tall goalies will remain the same. Id argue the increase in popularity of the sport is what resulted in taller goalies. Canadians are generally short people

EDIT: Basketball also has a distribution of height. The entire premise of having to block shots is what makes basketball so tall, as well as having to shoot over those shots. The game is a battle of height, with skill helping along the way. Hockey doesn't have that issue. The goaltender is a batter of reflex, speed, and athleticism, with height/reach helping. Its the exact opposite in principle. Hockey goalies are freaky fast, not freaky tall.

Ok, I'll bite

1) That was in direct reference to people saying that goalies are too big and that they're just giant pylons with no athleticism and then going on to say that making the nets bigger would somehow force goalies to be more athletic when in reality it would be the opposite. I'm not saying that I personally care either way, it was just a point that a lot of people were making. I'm fine with larger goalies, and I accept the fact that one of the (many ) reasons I'll never be great is because I'm 5'9 - but a lot of people have been clamoring for more athletic goalies and posing bigger nets as the solution.

2) We haven't seen 7'4 goalies yet because with the current net sizes we don't *need* 7'4 goalies. That was exactly my point At the current net sizes a size of 6'2-6'6 with greater athleticism seems to be more effective than being larger at the cost of speed. But the larger you make the net the more you emphasize and select for size. Make the nets bigger and suddenly we WILL see goalies that size because they will NEED the longer limbs and taller torso. Right now anything above 6'3 seems to be sufficient but that will change if the nets are made bigger. Teams aren't going to randomly teach goalies to stand up if the nets are made bigger, they're just going to find bigger people who are able to more effectively nullify the change.

Your third point/edit I actually somewhat agree with, I think it's just a miscommunication. Right now goalies are freaky fast people who also happen to be tall but as I've now beaten to absolute death the larger you make the nets the more important "freaky tall" is going to be and the less important "freaky fast" is going to be in comparison, though it will obviously still remain important. I'm not actually saying I have an issue with huge goalies. I'm just saying that I like the net size and the incredible mix of size, speed, athleticism, and reactions that it fosters and I'm worried about a larger net fostering mostly size. I think scoring is currently fine but if people insist on a higher scoring game I'm just saying that it should be done in another way rather than by increasing net size. I *love* how goaltending is in the current NHL and watching their extreme athleticism, speed, and skill is my favorite part of hockey at the moment. I think I might have come off as if I thought goalies are just large and unathletic but I was actually trying to refute that and was just using that jumping off point to play devil's advocate.

 

[haveandare]

I watched the whole game as well, and pretty much every Ranger game, and while I did not come to the conclusion it was boring, I do think interference needs to be curtailed.

Not just the guy who is carrying the puck is being interfered with but that usually is the only call made and even that call is sporadic at best.

The pick plays, the slow a guy down plays, the little holds and hooks behind the play, the hold guys up off the face-offs, the "I am going to get beat to the outside so I better get in that lane" play, all that adds up to players not having any time or space to do exciting things with the puck or have anyone open to pass to which would lead to more scoring chances.

If they were stringently called however the unintended consequences are players also being able to play a speed game on the forecheck in terms of nailing the other teams D from time to time, and I think it was Brodeur or someone who said that sort of play makes for high risk of injury, but you know what, I'd live with that. D-men(whomever has the puck) would just have to learn to move the puck quicker or take the hit.

This X 1,000,000.

The interference and obstruction is the root cause of the problem with the style of play, and it is by far the easiest to fix without any stupid gimmicks. Just call the penalties, teams will adjust, the game will gain back a significant amount of flow that it's currently missing in a lot of cases.

The game has an inherently high risk injury no matter what. It'd be interesting to see if there are more or less total man/games lost this year than say, two or three years ago when the obstruction was less prevalent. Are there records for league wide man/games anywhere?