So i assume you mean DOG, an acronym for delay of game, and not the '90s game of pogs, which was ****ing awesome and something I'd totally die for- dude, it's a thread about rule changes, I'd like that rule change. Nowhere did I say that that's the hill I'd die on. Please respond with an actual point. It's not the biggest issue in the game, but I'm tired of seeing guys cost their teams because of bad ice/bad luck/bad timing. If it's especially bad, give 2 minutes. If not, **** happens, the mere threat of a call would stop 90% of the problems in the first place.
While I understand what you're saying here, I think you're mixing 2 ways of viewing the current point system. You can say there are 3 point and 2 point games, but there are no 1 point or 0 point games. You can also say a team can earn 2, 1 or 0 points in a game, but there's no way for a team to earn 3 points.Change 3-2-1-0 points awarded per game to:
* 2 pts = regulation win
*1 pt = OT or shoot-out win
*0 pts = lose
There should be no way both teams can move up in the standings. Make teams play to win. Give rid of the incentive to play for OT and hope for the best.
While I understand what you're saying here, I think you're mixing 2 ways of viewing the current point system. You can say there are 3 point and 2 point games, but there are no 1 point or 0 point games. You can also say a team can earn 2, 1 or 0 points in a game, but there's no way for a team to earn 3 points
Remove the instigator penalty. And slowly bring back the violence, in any way possible.
That's just stupid.I think teams should have to shake hands after every game.
I understand completely what you're saying. The thing is the NHL is currently a league with no games ending in a tie. So with the 2 point system without the extra point for OT/SO you might as well do away with the points and just use win % like the MLB. That's what the points are going to reflect anyway.I'm not sure you understand. Perhaps a story will illustrate my point better.
Back in 1980 there was a soccer league called the NASL. They awarded two points for a win. To encourage offense, they also would award a point for every goal scored up to a max of 3 additional points.
During this time a goaltender named Shep Messier (I kid you not. I know the name sounds made-up. Here is a link to the Wiki page: Shep Messing - Wikipedia). He was the player that would say controversial things, essentially the Brett Hull of the NASL at the time.
Messier told the media he had a conversation with the opponent mid-game: He would let in a goal, if they let in a goal thus guaranteeing both teams making the playoffs.
This didn't happen. One of the teams finished the game out of the playoffs. It was said that Messier told this to the media to point out the stupid system of awarding points in the NASL.
The point is the standings should not allow both teams in a game to benefit. Currently in the NHL, two teams could potential coordinate going to OT to guarantee they each move up in the standings. The point system I advocate cannot be manipulated.
-parrotdude
If they want to use a point system in a league with no ties then you need to hand out points for an OT/SO loss so the point system isn't pointless
LOL - my point is this:
Pre-POG penalty called: puck went over the glass 10+/- times a game
Post-POG penalty called: puck goes over the glass once every 2 or 3 GAMES - if that.
Are you able to see a not-so-subtle difference there? It's not bad ice/bad luck/bad timing, LOL
Ya think players have adjusted on what to do with the puck in their D zone?
Put solid pipes back in holding the net in place. Seeing the net being dislodged so often is ridiculous.
Don't worry, I see this as a friendly debate.Not trying to be argumentative. I just want to understand the rationale for why you say this.
Why does there need to be a loser point?
I believe that awarding only one point for an OT/SO win will encourage teams to play to win in regulation. Seems like there are more OT games the last half of the season than the first half. It seems like every team plays to go into OT as playoffs get closer.
--parrotdude
delay of game for players who try to freeze the puck along the boards because they're afraid to lose possession or obviously killing time
shouldn't result in a face off, should result in a penalty if you're not trying to move it and just trying to prevent play
nes, just the threat of it is enough of a deterrent to keep players from making this play on purpose.
You admit the POG rule is working... so, why not just keep it?
Put solid pipes back in holding the net in place. Seeing the net being dislodged so often is ridiculous.
Amidst all of the big changes I've heard being discussed, some more seriouisly than others, my personal favourite would be the puck over glass changing from a minor penalty to an icing-esque rule with players being unable to change.
Of all the penalties I think everyone can agree this one is the most infuriating to watch, moreso in the playoffs and especially when the refs need to get together and figure out whether or not they saw anyone touch the puck with some mental reconstruction.
Not as intended it isn't. It isn't the biggest issue, granted, but I don't like to see penalties for bad luck. 4 outta 5 times it's just penalizing a team for having to deal with a rolling puck or something. If that's what the NHL wants, eh, I'd still disagree, but it was put in place to keep players from doing it on purpose. Just the threat of a call is enough to keep players playing the way they do now, so you only have to call it when it's an especially stupid/lazy play to keep players honest.
What? Why?- Losing team gets full 2-minute penalty at the end of a game if only down by one