What is your opinion on removing the offside rule from hockey?

[Spearmint Rhino]

Typically every rule change they try has the adverse affect to increasing scoring once the coaches dissect it

I like the one they were talking about having it judged based on the plane of the blue line, not if your skate is on the ice or not, maybe expand it to being your stick, still prevents cherry picking as you can't get too far ahead of the play

Would be a nightmare for the linesmen though

 

[Dimensha]

Literally never heard of such a 'strong movement'. Simply put, it would be terrible.

Why would it be terrible? I am interested to know.

 

[yubbers]

It's not an interesting topic, it's straight silly

No offsides in football, soccer or any zone sport for that matter. No rules at all. Offense for everyone

 

[TaLoN]

Why are people constantly coming up with ideas to fix a game that is not broken?

 

[Dustin]

Recently there has been a strong movement on the side of removing the offside rule from hockey as way of improving offense in the game. I am wondering what the opinion is of fans of the game on whether they feel that this would be an improvement or not.

Don't see the benefit to the game. More goals does not equate to better hockey.

 

[Dimensha]

It's not an interesting topic, it's straight silly

No offsides in football, soccer or any zone sport for that matter. No rules at all. Offense for everyone

No offsides does not equal no rules. If you want to deal in hyperbole than that's fine, that is your prerogative, but that is not what I am looking for in a discussion.

 

[Lebowski]

Don't see the benefit to the game. More goals does not equate to better hockey.

For me it wouldn't be about goals, it'd be about having more flow, and fewer whistles in a game. That's the important part.

 

[TaLoN]

No offsides does not equal no rules. If you want to deal in hyperbole than that's fine, that is your prerogative, but that is not what I am looking for in a discussion.

You posted a ridiculously bad idea... expect the responses to be ridiculously bad.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

Why are people constantly coming up with ideas to fix a game that is not broken?

Depends on your vantage point, parity has made games more interesting for more teams but the games themselves are generally more boring than what many of us grew up with

Having said that typically everything they do backfires

I'd get rid of the trapezoid first, goalies aren't as good at handling the puck anymore so would add excitement letting them roam free again

 

[Dustin]

For me it wouldn't be about goals, it'd be about having more flow, and fewer whistles in a game. That's the important part.

But the reality is it would be about 3 or 4 more breakaways a night or the exact opposite where the defence are always forced to stay back therefore reducing goal scoring and chances.

 

[yubbers]

No offsides does not equal no rules. If you want to deal in hyperbole than that's fine, that is your prerogative, but that is not what I am looking for in a discussion.

Fair enough

Let's keep in mind it's 2pm my time on a Saturday

Defenseman would be ****ed. Home teams would have a ridiculous advantage with the shorter change. Visiting teams defensemen would get hemmed in hard cause the centre line essentially becomes the new blue line. Injuries would follow

I think hockey is quite unique in the fact that the physical exertion required for every second your playing is unparalleled.

 

[Dimensha]

Don't see the benefit to the game. More goals does not equate to better hockey.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I love seeing more goals and am bored by extremely defensive hockey. I think that removing the offside rule would create a fascinating new type of hockey that would be much more dynamic than the current product that we have now.

 

[Dimensha]

You posted a ridiculously bad idea... expect the responses to be ridiculously bad.

Please feel free to go into more detail about why it is a ridiculously bad idea rather than just crapping on it without putting much critical thought into it. Seriously, explain to me why its a bad idea instead of just craping on it and moving on.

 

[SAK11]

Recently there has been a strong movement on the side of removing the offside rule from hockey as way of improving offense in the game. I am wondering what the opinion is of fans of the game on whether they feel that this would be an improvement or not.

I can see that you've taken your fair share of hits from this post, so I'll try to address it a more productive way- It's a big no from me. While I do agree that the NHL needs to look at ways to create more offense, this is way down the list of things I'd change to address that.
I'd look at making goalie equipment smaller.
I'd call penalties more consistently.
I'd make the ice slightly bigger, or even the nets.
I'd make it so players have the long change in 2 of the 3 periods, rather than just in the 2nd.
I'd even use the ball hockey floating blue line rule [where after you enter the blue line, the red centre ice line becomes the offside].
[not saying I'd do all these things, just that I'd consider these before taking away offside]

Offside is and has always been a fundamental rule of hockey. It's a rule that make sense, there's no need to promote cherry picking/ selfish play, and it's not as if offense is so hard to come by that this is a rule that needs to change.
I really don't think this is a rule change that will ever even be considered.

 

[Dustin]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I love seeing more goals and am bored by extremely defensive hockey. I think that removing the offside rule would create a fascinating new type of hockey that would be much more dynamic than the current product that we have now.

But where I disagree is the type of goals you would see would be random and not indicative of good play.

Furthermore as I stated above removing the very line that ensures forwards can't really get behind defencemen allows said defencemen to pinch and to participate in scoring. Without that line you may very well see a 3 on 3 battle occuring in the neutral zone while yours and theirs defencemen stay back always to protect from a cherry picking forward. Neither exciting nor an increase in scoring chances.

 

[TaLoN]

Fair enough

Let's keep in mind it's 2pm my time on a Saturday

Defenseman would be ****ed. Home teams would have a ridiculous advantage with the shorter change. Visiting teams defensemen would get hemmed in hard cause the centre line essentially becomes the new blue line. Injuries would follow

I think hockey is quite unique in the fact that the physical exertion required for every second your playing is unparalleled.

That's just it... the center line isn't even a blue line, so even if the puck is cleared further, you'd see the d-men retreat to get the puck, but the forwards would stay in what was the offensive zone for the quick easy pass to resume the pressure.

Having offsides is what allows the transition game to be fluid in an of itself... the puck clears the zone, the players MUST exit, so the other team can then back off defensively and go on the attack themselves without worry that they are going to be attacked in the attempt.

It's simply a BAD IDEA that would cause teams to get hemmed in one zone or the other for very long periods of time... and force teams to ice the puck more often.

You'd see very few breakaways too, because the defenders would be playing so far back as "part" of the offensive attack... a lot more possession would take place a lot further from the goals, promoting less offense.

It's just such a fundamental bad idea in so many ways it's ridiculous anyone could possibly conceive of it as being a "good" idea.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

But the reality is it would be about 3 or 4 more breakaways a night or the exact opposite where the defence are always forced to stay back therefore reducing goal scoring and chances.

Basically what happened when the red line was dropped, I'd say goal scoring maybe went up a little initially and then back down maybe even lower

Maybe a hybrid, bring the red line back into play, still count offsides as it is now on entry but in order to clear the zone you have to get the puck over the redline

 

[Dustin]

That's just it... the center line isn't even a blue line, so even if the puck is cleared further, you'd see the d-men retreat to get the puck, but the forwards would stay in what was the offensive zone for the quick easy pass to resume the pressure.

Having offsides is what allows the transition game to be fluid in an of itself... the puck clears the zone, the players MUST exit, so the other team can then back off defensively and go on the attack themselves without worry that they are going to be attacked in the attempt.

It's simply a BAD IDEA that would cause teams to get hemmed in one zone or the other for very long periods of time... and force teams to ice the puck more often.

You'd see very few breakaways too, because the defenders would be playing so far back as "part" of the offensive attack... a lot more possession would take place a lot further from the goals, promoting less offense.

It's just such a fundamental bad idea in so many ways it's ridiculous anyone could possibly conceive of it as being a "good" idea.

This guy gets it. Coaches are defence oriented. They will always look for ways to limit scoring against. All this does is ensure that defencemen stay away from anything involving offense really.

 

[Dustin]

Basically what happened when the red line was dropped, I'd say goal scoring maybe went up a little initially and then back down maybe even lower

Maybe a hybrid, bring the red line back into play, still count offsides as it is now on entry but in order to clear the zone you have to get the puck over the redline

Someone mentioned a moving blueline in the past that I thought was interesting.

Again whenever you are thinking about changing rules like this that will have an impact on the game you really have to think how a coach will try to use it to their advantage. Removing lines on the ice changes the zones where play can flow and doesn't always have the intended purpose you were seeking.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

I've already posted about this, but I will do so again.

Taking offsides out of the game would make the sport much more exciting and less up for grabs in terms of officials changing both the pace and outcome of a game. Not to mention, the need for challenging them would be all but gone.

People who are saying that teams would cherry pick aren't thinking rationally. Let the other team cherry pick, they will be defending with one less player, or how about simply leaving a defender behind? There would be many new strategies to offset these "issues".

 

[Dimensha]

I can see that you've taken your fair share of hits from this post, so I'll try to address it a more productive way- It's a big no from me. While I do agree that the NHL needs to look at ways to create more offense, this is way down the list of things I'd change to address that.
I'd look at making goalie equipment smaller.
I'd call penalties more consistently.
I'd make the ice slightly bigger, or even the nets.
I'd make it so players have the long change in 2 of the 3 periods, rather than just in the 2nd.
I'd even use the ball hockey floating blue line rule [where after you enter the blue line, the red centre ice line becomes the offside].
[not saying I'd do all these things, just that I'd consider these before taking away offside]

Offside is and has always been a fundamental rule of hockey. It's a rule that make sense, there's no need to promote cherry picking/ selfish play, and it's not as if offense is so hard to come by that this is a rule that needs to change.
I really don't think this is a rule change that will ever even be considered.

Thanks for this post. I agree that there are many more things that can be done to improve offensive output in the game, and you make some excellent points. Outside of increasing ice size, as I don't see this happening because teams won't accept the loss in revenue due to removing seats, but these are definitely some good ideas.

 

[Lebowski]

But the reality is it would be about 3 or 4 more breakaways a night or the exact opposite where the defence are always forced to stay back therefore reducing goal scoring and chances.

If the defense stays back, it means more speed in the neutral zone. Less broken up plays and icings as well. More puck possession. Less dump and chase.

It's not as bad of an idea as some people in this thread try to make it sound.

 

[Man Bear Pig]

Let's add extra pucks too. Blurn!!!

 

[Dimensha]

Now that I look at it I worded my question wrong. I was hoping for a discussion on how removing offsides would affect the game, both positive or negative.

I thought this would lead to an interesting discussion but I guess I forgot how people just like to go on the attack here rather than get involved in actual discussion.

 

[tigervixxxen]

You can't remove offsides completely but they can tweak the rules to allow more situations which would not be offsides. The ones where a player is on a clear breakaway but there's question when the puck lands in the zone, that should be allowed. There's a lot of great scoring chances that get blown dead from that alone.