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

[Dustin]

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".

The only strategy would be to leave a defenceman behind and in most cases the 2nd defencemen would be further back as well.

Your offside line allows your defencemen to move forward. Without one, most coaches if not all would employ a strategy to keep defencemen further back thus limited scoring chances even more.

 

[TaLoN]

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".

IMO one of the best parts of hockey is watching the transition game... this rule would absolutely destroy that. The transition happens BECAUSE of zone clears... you get the puck out, the other team MUST clear! That allows you to unleash your best skaters to attack the opposition the moment the puck crosses the line. Thus that very moment, you can completely throw defense out the window and attack full on.

You eliminate the blue line, and you will eliminate a lot of fast transitions and you suddenly have a very slow and plodding game that has lost a lot of it's beauty.

Sorry... but this idea is absolutely horrible.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

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.

If defenders stay back, then your offense takes a hit. It would be unrealistic to expect the team with 3 skaters to hold position against the five defending skaters. Your explanation does not hold up in that regard.

 

[Dustin]

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.

It also means always 2 players back meaning offense is generated by taking 3 players and hoping you don't have to go through 5.

 

[Dustin]

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

Nothing you said there makes sense except the word Blurn.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

The only strategy would be to leave a defenceman behind and in most cases the 2nd defencemen would be further back as well.

Your offside line allows your defencemen to move forward. Without one, most coaches if not all would employ a strategy to keep defencemen further back thus limited scoring chances even more.

But if they keep a defender back, they would essentially be playing a man short on offense, which would allow the defending team ample opportunity to get the puck back and transition to 2 on 1, or 3 on 2.

 

[Dustin]

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.

There plenty of discussion here. I have not attacked anyone.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

IMO one of the best parts of hockey is watching the transition game... this rule would absolutely destroy that. The transition happens BECAUSE of zone clears... you get the puck out, the other team MUST clear! That allows you to unleash your best skaters to attack the opposition the moment the puck crosses the line. Thus that very moment, you can completely throw defense out the window and attack full on.

You eliminate the blue line, and you will eliminate a lot of fast transitions and you suddenly have a very slow and plodding game that has lost a lot of it's beauty.

Sorry... but this idea is absolutely horrible.

Transition would not take a hit with no offsides, if anything there would a boost of different types of transitions. You say that teams must clear, but why would a team clear when they have 1 or 2 more players that the team attacking with 3 and keeping two behind.

 

[TaLoN]

If defenders stay back, then your offense takes a hit. It would be unrealistic to expect the team with 3 skaters to hold position against the five defending skaters. Your explanation does not hold up in that regard.

You don't get it... the zone is the entire rink in size. The defenders staying back can help possession because there is so much more space for the defenders to have to defend.

You're thinking of possession in current terms... possession would change. There is no "pressure" at entering the offensive zone, so the possession is actually EASIER to maintain - since you never actually left the zone either.

It's easier to pass around the perimeter than it is to get the puck in... the defense would stay further back, and that would still be used like you see the "top of the zone" used now... only there is less pressure on them because the defending team fears giving them the open ice lanes closer to the goal... thus the puck spends a LOT more time away from the goal while the forwards down low try to find openings.

So possession isn't harder to maintain... it's much easier to maintain, it's just harder to get an actual scoring chance.

Transition would not take a hit with no offsides, if anything there would a boost of different types of transitions. You say that teams must clear, but why would a team clear when they have 1 or 2 more players that the team attacking with 3 and keeping two behind.

I said in current rules a team MUST clear... if you get rid of offsides, they no longer have to clear, so the d-men keep the advantage, as they force the play to stay on the attack from further out.

The current offsides rules promotes transition the moment the puck clears the zone.

Example... Defenseman attempts offensive zone D to D pass, forward defender tips pass, it crosses the blue line and clears the zone... the forward KNOWING offensive player behind now has to clear the zone is now absolutely free to pounce on said puck and attack the other way.

Now, remove that rule...

Defenseman attempts D to D pass... likely from further up ice... forward defender afraid to give up ice to the D-men playing catch - doesn't play it very aggressively, because if he did, he just gives up a LOT of time/space - never gets close to the puck, Defenseman looks for further cycle options. Transition opportunity never arises.

 

[Dustin]

But if they keep a defender back, they would essentially be playing a man short on offense, which would allow the defending team ample opportunity to get the puck back and transition to 2 on 1, or 3 on 2.

Nope because both team are going to keep the Defenseman back. You're going to see a system where 3 forward are coming through the neutral zone alone facing 3 forwards and 2 defensemen sitting in their "Zone". Once the puck is turned over the forwards who lost it will be flying back into their "Zone" where the 2 defensemen are already situated.

 

[Dustin]

You don't get it... the zone is the entire rink in size. The defenders staying back can help possession because there is so much more space for the defenders to have to defend.

You're thinking of possession in current terms... possession would change. There is no "pressure" at entering the offensive zone, so the possession is actually EASIER to maintain - since you never actually left the zone either.

It's easier to pass around the perimeter than it is to get the puck in... the defense would stay further back, and that would still be used like you see the "top of the zone" used now... only there is less pressure on them because the defending team fears giving them the open ice lanes closer to the goal... thus the puck spends a LOT more time away from the goal while the forwards down low try to find openings.

So possession isn't harder to maintain... it's much easier to maintain, it's just harder to get an actual scoring chance.

I think some people misunderstand the benefits of the blue line. For both defenseman getting involved in scoring and forcing offensive players closer the opposing net.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Nope because both team are going to keep the Defenseman back. You're going to see a system where 3 forward are coming through the neutral zone alone facing 3 forwards and 2 defensemen sitting in their "Zone". Once the puck is turned over the forwards who lost it will be flying back into their "Zone" where the 2 defensemen are already situated.

At once? Can't be.

 

[TaLoN]

I think some people misunderstand the benefits of the blue line. For both defenseman getting involved in scoring and forcing offensive players closer the opposing net.

The zones encourage on ice confrontation, pressure and the making of actual plays.

If you make the zone too big, the team defending loses the impetus to defend aggressively for fear of giving up all that extra space they have to defend.

The smaller areas make for a more aggressive game on both sides.

Without the zones you are left with two teams trying to turtle the moment they lose possession of the puck... and long, slow, plodding periods of possession trying to find "holes" in a defense that is sitting back.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

You don't get it... the zone is the entire rink in size. The defenders staying back can help possession because there is so much more space for the defenders to have to defend.

You're thinking of possession in current terms... possession would change. There is no "pressure" at entering the offensive zone, so the possession is actually EASIER to maintain - since you never actually left the zone either.

It's easier to pass around the perimeter than it is to get the puck in... the defense would stay further back, and that would still be used like you see the "top of the zone" used now... only there is less pressure on them because the defending team fears giving them the open ice lanes closer to the goal... thus the puck spends a LOT more time away from the goal while the forwards down low try to find openings.

So possession isn't harder to maintain... it's much easier to maintain, it's just harder to get an actual scoring chance.


I said in current rules a team MUST clear... if you get rid of offsides, they no longer have to clear, so the d-men keep the advantage, as they force the play to stay on the attack from further out.

The current offsides rules promotes transition the moment the puck clears the zone.

Example... Defenseman attempts offensive zone D to D pass, forward defender tips pass, it crosses the blue line and clears the zone... the forward KNOWING offensive player behind now has to clear the zone is now absolutely free to pounce on said puck and attack the other way.

Now, remove that rule...

Defenseman attempts D to D pass... likely from further up ice... forward defender afraid to give up ice to the D-men playing catch - doesn't play it very aggressively, because if he did, he just gives up a LOT of time/space - never gets close to the puck, Defenseman looks for further cycle options. Transition opportunity never arises.

But in that scenario it would simply be man on man coverage (5v5). The player with the better (stick, speed, positioning) would win the puck. If the defensive forward in your scenario wins the battle, he just got himself a breakway... Why would he care what's happening behind him, he has the puck.

 

[Dimensha]

There plenty of discussion here. I have not attacked anyone.

I posted that before I saw your later replies, and I assumed you were just crapping on the idea and me putting it forward rather than actually discussing the topic. My bad, I apologize.

 

[TaLoN]

But in that scenario it would simply be man on man coverage (5v5). The player with the better (stick, speed, positioning) would win the puck. If the defensive forward in your scenario wins the battle, he just got himself a breakway... Why would he care what's happening behind him, he has the puck.

You don't get it... coaches coach to win games. You can't coach most players to be great goal scorers, but you can coach almost any player to be a decent defender.

You just increased the zone size EXPONENTIALLY... time and space is BAD for defenders. If you have a team setup offensively and are cycling the puck...the defensemen involved in that cycle will not be at what is the equivalent of the current blue-line location... that would actually now be considered "pinching in". So we're talking about two D-men that are more than likely 100-120ft down the ice... the "defending forward" would not follow them there whilst the other forwards are setup down near their goal... that defending forward would be coached to hang back, don't let the D-men find space on them closer to their net. Thus the forward is not even trying to challenge that pass for fear of the defenseman getting by and now having half a clear rink in front of him.

The forward tries that same move that you see now all the time, there is nobody near by him to help back him up. Thus he's simply not going to do it. He'd be giving up more space than the team can afford so the coach won't even allow him to do it.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I think the rule can be tweaked.

I do think the league needs to make it easier for the linesmen to call offsides. This whole "skate on the ice" or "skate off the ice" aspect makes calling plays offside very difficult. Make it something they can actually see.

OR

Just allow the linesmen to make it a judgement call.

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

IMO, changing the offside rule won't do a thing in the long run for increasing scoring. Teams/coaches/players will adapt.

The modern offside rule has been around since 1929. Since then, we've seen low scoring(50's) and high scoring(80's) and everywhere in between.

NHL is like Newton's 3rd law. For every action there is a reaction. You likely won't see the reaction immediately, but eventually it'll show up, and more teams will follow suit.

 

[PG Canuck]

I'd stop watching the NHL in a heartbeat.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I'd like to see it tested out at the very least. The NHL put scrimmages together in the summer to test out what type of no touch icing they wanted to try, don't see why they can't experiment with other rule changes.

Lets not pretend we know whats going to happen. Too many psychics on these boards. Lets see it in action with some nhl prospects in the offseason.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

IMO, changing the offside rule won't do a thing in the long run for increasing scoring. Teams/coaches/players will adapt.

The modern offside rule has been around since 1929. Since then, we've seen low scoring(50's) and high scoring(80's) and everywhere in between.

NHL is like Newton's 3rd law. For every action there is a reaction. You likely won't see the reaction immediately, but eventually it'll show up, and more teams will follow suit.

Exactly, the loser point has done more to ruin the game than any bit of excitement the shootout has created. Salary Cap created parity, also created 25% of a team that belongs in the AHL or are useless immovable objects they can't get rid of, either way fans suffer with filler. It's like paying big money to watch a Rock Concert and every 4th song some crappy bar band comes on stage, surely today's athletes can play an extra few minutes.

Go back to ties or 3 points for regulation win
Get rid of the goalie trapezoid
Drop the 4th line (especially since we don't have goons anymore) or play 4 on 4 to either get talented players more ice time or more ice to play on

 

[TaLoN]

I'd like to see it tested out at the very least. The NHL put scrimmages together in the summer to test out what type of no touch icing they wanted to try, don't see why they can't experiment with other rule changes.

Lets not pretend we know whats going to happen. Too many psychics on these boards. Lets see it in action with some nhl prospects in the offseason.

Scrimmages won't flesh out what coaches will do with their jobs on the line for a change this dramatic.

This would be something you would HAVE to see in a lower league to see what people do when they are coaching for their jobs.

That's what I'm looking at when I analyze how a coach would likely adjust. He wants to keep his job, so he's going to do anything he can to help that cause. The MOST affect a coach can do is on the defensive side, and that is why you will see a BIG reaction defensively first and foremost. Thus there will be much less thought towards taking advantage offensively and a LOT MORE thought in how to limit the damage defensively. Thus you end up with a much slower and plodding game as a result.

It's not being psychic, it's how people react when trying to keep their livelihood in tact.

 

[EspenK]

No just get rid of the vile offsides challenge

100 times this.

 

[Atas2000]

Instead of finally brnging back the 2 lne pass rule people talk about bigger nets and removing offsides.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

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.

Well, I think the point is why is this ok and other rules need to stay?