the history of clutch/grab NHL hockey...

Status
Not open for further replies.

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
Some of the comments you make even prove my points.

There is so much more to be learned about what happened in that era than listing some isolated quotes. I'll bet if you spoke to the players and heard their thoughts, that even you might temper your enthusiasm for your Flyers.

It amazes me that faced with all the evidence of the dirty play of those Flyer teams, that anyone would still consider their victories a result of a great team and not realize all the intangibles that helped the Flyers win. You even admit that the Flyers players were like a wolf pack. Is that something to be proud of?

I'm not French-Canadian but you sound like Don Cherry when you downgrade a race like that. There is no room for that sort of thing. You talk about the skill the Flyer players had, then when faced with the fact that players like Perreault were more skilled (better skater, stickhandler etc.) you say that the Flyers 'played' better. Well, which is it? Better skilled or played better? To me, the Flyers were not better skilled. But yes, they played better. That's obvious because they won the Cups. What I've been trying to say here and you don't seem to understand me, is that they were able to overcome any deficiency in total team skill by using their methods of intimidation and interference. That's the whole point of this.

Regarding the Schultz-Rolfe fight. Schultz jumped Rolfe to start the fight. And, for some reason, in this fight, the linesmen decided not to jump in and break it up and let it go on and on. That seemed more strange to me than why another Ranger didn't want to risk being thrown out as a 3rd man in such an important game.

Did I tell you that even the officials were intimidated by the Flyers?

It might help if you had the chance to research that era by talking to officials and players what their real thoughts are - and not some newspaper quotes.

The point is: The Flyers were not the best team in those years. They were good, but they won because of the extra stuff and that included the intimidation. It was obvious then and obvious now when looking back.

John Flyers Fan said:
Just wondering if Clarke won those 3 Hart trophies because he intimidated the voters ???

Were the Sabres more talented because they had pretty French Canadians ??? How about that Clarke was better than Perreault, Martin or any Sabre, and Parent was miles better than Desjardin/Crozier.

There was one skirmish in the entire series Schultz/Kelly vs. Dudley/Schoenfeld.

I'll take the comments of Eddie Giacomin and Bobby Orr after losing series in 1974:

Giacomin - after giving up a goal "I can't spend all my time slashing at guys like Dornhoeffer, if I do that the puck gets by me. I need some help. You don't see our forwards screening their goalie."

after the series - "Every time you think you're about to gain some ground on them, they kick everything out from under you, they won because they were all over us all the time.

Orr - after Barber won game 4 in the 3rd period "The best wrist shot I've ever seen .. maybe the best ever."

after the series "We went in spurts, when you go to the finals, you don't play in spurts. Call it momentum or desire, whatever it was, they had more of it than we had."

Rolfe shoved Kindrachuk early in game 7, and Schultz pummelled him. The rrest of teh rangers stood there and watched, not one attempted to jump in to the aid of a teammate, to me that is disgraceful. Flyers outshot the Rangers 37-19 through the first 40 minutes of that game 7. Flyersgoals against was more than a full goal better than the Rangers during the season ... that also had just a bit to do with the victory.

while you're watching those old videos put in a tape from the 1974 finals, and take a look at the Bruins using Esposito for shifts that often exceeded 2 minutes, while the Flyers would have 2, and sometimes three different lines out for one Espo shift. There is a reason Clarke dominated Espo in that series, and embarassed him in the face-off circle. The Flyers used their entire team ... Espo had nothing left in the tank.


Would the Flyers have defeated the Habs in 76 with a healthy Parent & MacLeish ??? Possibly. It certainly would have gone at least 6, and quite possibly 7.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
ClassicHockey said:
Some of the comments you make even prove my points.

There is so much more to be learned about what happened in that era than listing some isolated quotes. I'll bet if you spoke to the players and heard their thoughts, that even you might temper your enthusiasm for your Flyers.

It amazes me that faced with all the evidence of the dirty play of those Flyer teams, that anyone would still consider their victories a result of a great team and not realize all the intangibles that helped the Flyers win. You even admit that the Flyers players were like a wolf pack. Is that something to be proud of?

I'm not French-Canadian but you sound like Don Cherry when you downgrade a race like that. There is no room for that sort of thing. You talk about the skill the Flyer players had, then when faced with the fact that players like Perreault were more skilled (better skater, stickhandler etc.) you say that the Flyers 'played' better. Well, which is it? Better skilled or played better? To me, the Flyers were not better skilled. But yes, they played better. That's obvious because they won the Cups. What I've been trying to say here and you don't seem to understand me, is that they were able to overcome any deficiency in total team skill by using their methods of intimidation and interference. That's the whole point of this.

Regarding the Schultz-Rolfe fight. Schultz jumped Rolfe to start the fight. And, for some reason, in this fight, the linesmen decided not to jump in and break it up and let it go on and on. That seemed more strange to me than why another Ranger didn't want to risk being thrown out as a 3rd man in such an important game.

Did I tell you that even the officials were intimidated by the Flyers?

It might help if you had the chance to research that era by talking to officials and players what their real thoughts are - and not some newspaper quotes.

The point is: The Flyers were not the best team in those years. They were good, but they won because of the extra stuff and that included the intimidation. It was obvious then and obvious now when looking back.


If you don't think that Clarke was a better player than Perreault, the discussion should end here. Who gives a damn who was the better skater, stick-handler etc. etc. Clarke was the better player without question.

I fully admit that the Flyers used intimidation as a tool, what you imply is that they only won because they intimidated teams. You replace Parent with Wayne Stephenson, Gilles Gilbert or Roger Crozier and the Flyers never sip from the Cup. You replace Clarke with Perreault, Dionne, or Pete Mahovlich and they never win a Cup.

I believe that the 3rd man in penalty did not exist at that time, so no Ranger would have been tossed. It was added shortly thereafter.

The back-to-back Cups, whupping of the Soviets in 1976 and 3 consecutive Finals appearances shows pretty clearly that they were the best team of that time.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
You can say that they were the best team by winning the Stanley Cup. I maintain that without the intimidation they wouldn't nearly be as successfull. No way.

The 3rd man rule was definitely in effect at that time. Flyers fans may not remember because their players rarely got thrown out because of that rule.

The game against the Soviets is another matter. It was a travesty helped along by the NHL naming Lloyd Gilmour as the referee in that game. He was the worst choice from the Russians perspective as Gilmour always let everything go. The NHL knew what they were doing. I'll bet a lot of people didn't know about the part the NHL played in that game. The NHL had to win that game.

If the Russians didn't walk off like they did, some of their players would have been severely injured.

The Flyers were a black mark on the game.

And you can't change history. That's it from me.


John Flyers Fan said:
If you don't think that Clarke was a better player than Perreault, the discussion should end here. Who gives a damn who was the better skater, stick-handler etc. etc. Clarke was the better player without question.

I fully admit that the Flyers used intimidation as a tool, what you imply is that they only won because they intimidated teams. You replace Parent with Wayne Stephenson, Gilles Gilbert or Roger Crozier and the Flyers never sip from the Cup. You replace Clarke with Perreault, Dionne, or Pete Mahovlich and they never win a Cup.

I believe that the 3rd man in penalty did not exist at that time, so no Ranger would have been tossed. It was added shortly thereafter.

The back-to-back Cups, whupping of the Soviets in 1976 and 3 consecutive Finals appearances shows pretty clearly that they were the best team of that time.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
ClassicHockey said:
You can say that they were the best team by winning the Stanley Cup. I maintain that without the intimidation they wouldn't nearly be as successfull. No way.

The 3rd man rule was definitely in effect at that time. Flyers fans may not remember because their players rarely got thrown out because of that rule.

The game against the Soviets is another matter. It was a travesty helped along by the NHL naming Lloyd Gilmour as the referee in that game. He was the worst choice from the Russians perspective as Gilmour always let everything go. The NHL knew what they were doing. I'll bet a lot of people didn't know about the part the NHL played in that game. The NHL had to win that game.

If the Russians didn't walk off like they did, some of their players would have been severely injured.

The Flyers were a black mark on the game.

And you can't change history. That's it from me.

The 3rd man in rule was added in 1977. Long after the Rolfe beating.

Ahhh more excuses, of course the Flyers could never beat the Soviets fairly, because god knows that if the Habs couldn't do it ... then nobody could.

The Habs dominated the Soviets and tied 3-3. The Flyers more thoroughly dominated the Soviets, outshooting them 49-13. The Flyers lined up 4 across the blueline and dared the Soviets to dump the puck. The Soviets wouldn't adapt, and continued to re-group & re-group and re-group again at center ice.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
puckhead103 said:
i get the feeling by reading fans comments that clutch grab hockey started when the new jersey devils won the cup in 1995....

The Devils get blamed for that a lot, but I think they just played solid defense. Lemaire simply brought the trap system he had played with the Habs to the Devils and refined it more. Scotty Bowman did the same with the Wings.



however clutch/grab hockey has been around since time immortal...

True, but I think what changed is that clutch and grab became a game strategy for some teams instead of something done out of desperation. Obstruction tactics were coached and became part of systems. The Devils success did popularize the trap, but the main thing that happened in 1995 was a new CBA that created a wide gap in talent between rich and poor teams within 3-4 years. Expansion compounded the problem. Clutch 'n Grab hockey became the way to level the playing field until it could be done economically. That's why the league, despite all it's bluster to the contrary, never made a legitimate effort to end obstructionist hockey until there was new CBA.
 

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
John Flyers Fan said:
Ahhh more excuses, of course the Flyers could never beat the Soviets fairly, because god knows that if the Habs couldn't do it ... then nobody could.

Just thought I'd mention: the WHA Jets beat 'em, too! :D

Back in Winnipeg on the evening of January 5, 1978, a packed Winnipeg Arena saw the Jets take on the same Soviet team that had beaten them three straight games half way around the world. Bobby Hull scored three times, while Ulf Nilsson had two goals and two assists as the "Hot Line" redeemed themselves from their self-described sub-par play in the Tokyo series. "After Japan, it was embarrassing for us", said Anders Hedberg. The smaller ice surface, personal pride, and having the home fans behind them was the difference in the Jets victory over the powerful Soviet team. Hull scored his first two goals in the first period, then Nilsson scored his two goals in the second period, and the Jets were off to a 4-0 by the 6:57 mark. At this point, coach Tikhinov replaced goaltender Aleksandr Sidelnikov with Vladislav Tretiak. The Soviets then rallied with two goals in the second and one early in the third. Boris Aleksandrov scored the Soviets' second period goals, the second of which saw him deke his way past Barry Long and around goaltender Joe Daley. The Soviets pressed hard for the tying goal, but despite a third period power play, were unable to get the fourth goal that would tie the game. Long would come up big during the attempted Soviet rally, as he made a save, getting behind Daley, who was down and out on the play. Hull finished his hat trick in the game's final minute, as he directed a Dave Dunn pass past Tretiak, the only goal the Jets scored on the legendary netminder in this game.

Jets 5, Soviet Union 3

First Period
1, Winnipeg, Hull (K. Nilsson, Sjoberg), 2:49.
2, Winnipeg, Hull (Powis, U. Nilsson), 9:52.
Penalties: Babinov, USSR, 1:47; Aleksandrov, USSR, 2:38; Tsygankov, USSR, Powis, Winnipeg, 7:10; Fetisov, USSR, 8:15; Kryskow, Winnipeg, 14:52.

Second Period
3, Winnipeg, U. Nilsson (Hedberg, Sjoberg), 5:46.
4, Winnipeg, U. Nilsson (Hull, Hedberg), 6:57.
5, USSR, Aleksandrov (Lobadov, Fjodorov), 10:59.
6, USSR, Aleksandrov (Vikulov, Fjodorov), 15:40.
Penalties: V. Golikov, USSR (major), Long, Winnipeg, 4:11; Powis, Winnipeg, 9:58.

Third Period
7, USSR, Pervuhkin (Kapustin, Anjsin), 2:43.
8, Winnipeg, Hull (Dunn, U. Nilsson), 19:52.
Penalties: Hull, Winnipeg, 1:04; Fyodotov, USSR, 3:25; Baird, Winnipeg, 14:17.

Shots on goal:
USSR 8 6 10 -- 24
Winnipeg 11 11 9 -- 31

Goaltenders: USSR, Sidelnikov, Tretiak; Winnipeg, Daley.
Attendance: 10,315.
 

jerseydevil

Registered User
Mar 9, 2003
1,914
0
Visit site
Buffaloed said:
The Devils get blamed for that a lot, but I think they just played solid defense. Lemaire simply brought the trap system he had played with the Habs to the Devils and refined it more. Scotty Bowman did the same with the Wings.

Well said..In the 95 finals the Devils did score 10 goals in the last 2 games alone...People forget that the Devils teams that have won the Cup have had offensive talent..especially 95 and 2000( look at rosters...they are actually very impressive and balanced)
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
I'm done dealing with you on this. Its apparent that you only have peripheral knowledge of events of the past and not any real insight based on analyses and real research.

You even have a faulty reference to the 3rd man rule which you are completely wrong on. Any knowledgeable hockey fan knows the rule was in effect then.

If anything, I hope this thread has enlightened a lot of people here that there is more to the story that is readily apparent and the Flyers will go down in history for what they truly were - a bunch of hooligans who terrorized other teams and for sure do not belong among the truly great teams in the history of the NHL.

They were simply an embarrassment to the sport.

I'm moving on.

John Flyers Fan said:
The 3rd man in rule was added in 1977. Long after the Rolfe beating.

Ahhh more excuses, of course the Flyers could never beat the Soviets fairly, because god knows that if the Habs couldn't do it ... then nobody could.

The Habs dominated the Soviets and tied 3-3. The Flyers more thoroughly dominated the Soviets, outshooting them 49-13. The Flyers lined up 4 across the blueline and dared the Soviets to dump the puck. The Soviets wouldn't adapt, and continued to re-group & re-group and re-group again at center ice.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
ClassicHockey said:
I'm done dealing with you on this. Its apparent that you only have peripheral knowledge of events of the past and not any real insight based on analyses and real research.

You even have a faulty reference to the 3rd man rule which you are completely wrong on. Any knowledgeable hockey fan knows the rule was in effect then.

If anything, I hope this thread has enlightened a lot of people here that there is more to the story that is readily apparent and the Flyers will go down in history for what they truly were - a bunch of hooligans who terrorized other teams and for sure do not belong among the truly great teams in the history of the NHL.

They were simply an embarrassment to the sport.

I'm moving on.


Care to prove to me where the was an automatic 3rd man in penalty prior to 1977 ... or should we just accept everything you say as fact ???


I think everyone hear understands how you feel about the Flyres, you've made that quite clear. Any back-to-back cahmps in history will go down as among the best teams of all-time. They also had two of the best players of all-time at their particular position.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,667
37,462
ClassicHockey said:
You can say that they were the best team by winning the Stanley Cup. I maintain that without the intimidation they wouldn't nearly be as successfull. No way.

The 3rd man rule was definitely in effect at that time. Flyers fans may not remember because their players rarely got thrown out because of that rule.

The game against the Soviets is another matter. It was a travesty helped along by the NHL naming Lloyd Gilmour as the referee in that game. He was the worst choice from the Russians perspective as Gilmour always let everything go. The NHL knew what they were doing. I'll bet a lot of people didn't know about the part the NHL played in that game. The NHL had to win that game.

If the Russians didn't walk off like they did, some of their players would have been severely injured.

The Flyers were a black mark on the game.

And you can't change history. That's it from me.



The name of the game is to win. If a team was good enough they would have found a way to beat the Flyers. The Flyers emphasized a part of the game that had never been made part of any prior team's idenity. Much like how clutching and grabbing was another 'phenomenon' that many people frowned upon
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
ClassicHockey said:
The Flyers won the Cup in 1975 with the help of their intimidation. Richard Martin was asked his thoughts on why the more talented Sabres lost the Cup. He said, "Parent was tough to beat, but hell, it was the intimidation".
Its pretty hard to play your game when opponents with no conscience crack their sticks on your back when you had a breakaway.

Goonery played little if any role in that series. The Sabres held the edge in play and scoring chances. The Sabres had a very tough team at that time. They didn't have close to stellar goaltending. Roger Crozier spent most of the season injured and in the hospital with pancreatitis and bleeding ulcers. Journeyman Gerry Desjardin was brought in late in the year to save their playoff hopes. Desjardin was letting in so many soft goals against the Flyers he pulled himself. Crozier was called on to save the day. He gave a commendable effort but was no match for the kind of goaltending the Flyers were getting. Bernie Parent won the Conn Smythe trophy and Rene Robert called him the finest goalie he's ever faced. I can't imagine anyone who watched that series not conceding that if the Sabres had Parent and the Flyers had Desjardin/Crozier, the outcome would have been reversed. The difference in that series was goaltending.

Twenty-two years later the Sabres had startling success under a young coach named Ted Nolan who encouraged goon tactics. Many fans attributed the success of the team to that. The wiser ones realized it was the goaltending of Dominik Hasek, just as Bernie Parent was the key to the Flyers success in the mid-70's. The Flyers had a very talented team. They would have won those cups without the goonery. It's too bad Shero took them in that direction. It tainted their success and introduced the designated goon. It dragged hockey down to the level of roller-derby and professional wrestling. And it overshadowed the accomplishments of Bernie Parent.
 

chooch*

Guest
Buffaloed said:
Goonery played little if any role in that series. The Sabres held the edge in play and scoring chances. The Sabres had a very tough team at that time. They didn't have close to stellar goaltending. Roger Crozier spent most of the season injured and in the hospital with pancreatitis and bleeding ulcers. Journeyman Gerry Desjardin was brought in late in the year to save their playoff hopes. Desjardin was letting in so many soft goals against the Flyers he pulled himself. Crozier was called on to save the day. He gave a commendable effort but was no match for the kind of goaltending the Flyers were getting. Bernie Parent won the Conn Smythe trophy and Rene Robert called him the finest goalie he's ever faced. I can't imagine anyone who watched that series not conceding that if the Sabres had Parent and the Flyers had Desjardin/Crozier, the outcome would have been reversed. The difference in that series was goaltending.

Twenty-two years later the Sabres had startling success under a young coach named Ted Nolan who encouraged goon tactics. Many fans attributed the success of the team to that. The wiser ones realized it was the goaltending of Dominik Hasek, just as Bernie Parent was the key to the Flyers success in the mid-70's. The Flyers had a very talented team. They would have won those cups without the goonery. It's too bad Shero took them in that direction. It tainted their success and introduced the designated goon. It dragged hockey down to the level of roller-derby and professional wrestling. And it overshadowed the accomplishments of Bernie Parent.

They won 2 six game finals series. In other words a break here and there (ie no injury to the Buff goalie in G3 of the Semis v. Montreal) and the Bullies would be forgotten about today.

re 76 - Forget the injuries to MacLeish and Bernie (it was balanced by the kidnapping threats v. Guy and Kenny), had Dryden not retired for a year after winning the cup in 73 the Habs would have won both 74 and 75 Cups (75 for certain).
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
chooch said:
re 76 - Forget the injuries to MacLeish and Bernie (it was balanced by the kidnapping threats v. Guy and Kenny), had Dryden not retired for a year after winning the cup in 73 the Habs would have won both 74 and 75 Cups (75 for certain).

The Flyers missing two of their 4 most important pieces was balanced by threats ??? ... that might be the dumbest of the thousands of dumb things you've written on these boards.

Maybe if the Flyers fans had yelled Boo !! at Bowman, Shutt, Lemaire, and Robinson as they got off the bus ... those threats might have scared them enough to lose the series. :shakehead
 

Marcus-74

Registered User
Apr 27, 2005
165
1
jamiebez said:
Just thought I'd mention: the WHA Jets beat 'em, too! :D

And New England Whalers(!), Quebec Nordiques (by score 6-1!), the Czechs on numerous occasions... and worst of all; the MIGHTY team Poland :eek:

You know, when the Russians were crap, they were REALLY crap. But you don´t find many Soviet losses in the late seventies (season´78-´79) and early eighties (´81-´83). Then they were close to that unbeatable Red Machine (hate that term!).
 
Last edited:

chooch*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
The Flyers missing two of their 4 most important pieces was balanced by threats ??? ... that might be the dumbest of the thousands of dumb things you've written on these boards.

Maybe if the Flyers fans had yelled Boo !! at Bowman, Shutt, Lemaire, and Robinson as they got off the bus ... those threats might have scared them enough to lose the series. :shakehead

You overrate MacLeish. Maybe he was a top 4 Flyer but he was not exactly a big star.
The Habs had what 10 HoFers?
Replace Parent with Stephenson (the Flyers didnt exactly feel the need to go out and get a replacement when Parent was injured) and delete MacLeish and thats = to Lafleur losing 10 lbs in 2 weeks while the RCMP watched him and Dryden, and playing like ..well .. at MacLeish level in the playoffs.

As for yelling boo, the Flyers faced with the Habs might and talent played like true Bullies - if you fight back they get a dumb, befuddled look before cowering. I still remember Hound Dog Kelly jumping on the ice late in the third of G4 and trying to run a few guys in a tie game. Lafleur from Mahov and Mahov from Lafleur and the goons were shaking hands.
 

mcphee

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
19,101
8
Visit site
I remember having the Clarke/Perreault debate with my buddy in high school. The moron never admitted I was right. If I'm a coach, I choose Clarke,if I'm buying a ticket I choose Perreault. I hate to say it,Perreault was always a favorite of mine,the best Jr. I've ever had the pleasure of seeing. The comments earlier attributed to Rick Martin surprise me, first time I've read them. I think they say more about Martin than the Flyers though. You get into the finals, you can't be intimidated. If Don Saleski takes a whack at Rene Robert,score on the power play.

I've always had a vague feeling that that edition of the Sabres didn't win because maybe they just weren't winners,or more accurately,didn't have enough winners. Maybe I'm wrong,but that team should have won something.

As to the flyers tactics, yeah they were deplorable and they were a blight on the sport. OK,now that I've said the high and mighty stuff,when they were on the Saturday NBC broadcast,which it seems they always were, I'd make sure I'd watch to see if Durbano and Kelly went at it. They were what the trap became in the last 10 years, an impediment to good hockey players playing. If Mtl. wants to wear the crown for ending that era, fine. Robinson spoke of it in his book, and was quite specific about his feelings on the subject. All that being said, they were a helluva team, and if someone wanted to end the goon tactics, score on the power play, win the games. A great team can't be intimidated. Philly beat Boston fair and square,as they did Buffalo, no * in the record book.
 

V-2 Schneider

Registered User
Mar 8, 2004
908
0
Philly was a well coached, disciplined and balanced team, and they showed how far teamwork and superb goaltending can go.Shero totally outcoached the Bruins and the Sabres,using Philly strengths to exploit weaknesses on both teams.The Sabres had a tough semi final series vs the Habs, and I agree with McPhee, that they were always a team that lacked an edge and personality, and team toughness.Philly was a much hungrier team.

Shero copied Al MacNeil on how to neutralize Bobby Orr, but unlike the Habs using a trap to clog his lanes, Shero used his high energy and physical wingers he had to pound, Orr in his own end.Lemaire used the same tactic against Detroit in 1995.NJ's forwards were very much like what Philly had from '73-'77.The Flyers D corps was very workmanlike and efficient, and Shero got maximum performance out of such a no name D squad.They cleared the crease, gave Parent room to see the shooters, and stacked their blueline.Buffalo just didn't have enough grit to get through them.

Whether Parent could have turned it around in '76 vs the Habs, well, by that time, Montreal dominated every team in all aspects of the game.They were faster, more skilled, tougher, with more skill,grit and speed on all 4 lines, not just the top 2.Philly's bottom 2 lines just couldn't compare to Montreal's.There was no comparson on the D corps at all, and Montreal could impose their game at any time.I don't even think Montreal played their best playoff hockey that year vs Philly, and if the series was forced to go on, I think would have got stronger.Dryden was superb in game 4, and his play that year often gets overlooked.
 

pld459666

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,775
7,800
Danbury, CT
Think about it

taking out the tag-up rule pretty much spawned the Neutral zone trap.

The point was to give the defenceman room to skate the puck out of the zone, but in effect it forced teams to clog the neutral zone waiting for the puck carrier to cross the blue line without getting a stoppage of play.

The rule itself was what forced teams like the Devils to use it to their advantage and kudos to them for being so good at it.

Yes there's still the Left Wing lock, but that's not so much clogging the center ice area as it is trying to force the puck to one side and clamp down.

The tag up rule being re-instituted allows the speedier teams to get back in on the forecheck and force things abandoning the trap, they can still lock up either side by back-checking hard but the flow of the game opens up due to passing lanes being there that weren't under the no tag-up rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->