Why do forwards/centers run the offense in hockey?

[Just Linda]

Getting rid of icing would actually slow the game down and lead to less offence.

How do you figure?

 

[MessierII]

How do you figure?

Because any time your under pressure in your own zone you can just lob the puck down the ice like a penalty kill instead of trying to make a play.

 

[Just Linda]

Because any time your under pressure in your own you can just lob the puck down the ice like a penalty kill instead of trying to make a play.

Ah, I think I muddled up there and meant to say offsides instead of icing.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I would keep the offsides rule you don't want cherry picking. I think it would make the sport less strategic.

I wish the NHL would do the following.

Eliminating the icing or clear rule for the penalty kill team and give a penalty.

The full two penalty or even double minor should be played out.

Make 3 on 3 play the full five minutes.

Widen the net and length of the rink.

One crazy idea would make the 2nd period 4 on 4.

The purists are not going to invite you to their Christmas party.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I would keep the offsides rule you don't want cherry picking. I think it would make the sport less strategic.

I wish the NHL would do the following.

Eliminating the icing or clear rule for the penalty kill team and give a penalty.

The full two penalty or even double minor should be played out.

Make 3 on 3 play the full five minutes.

Widen the net and length of the rink.

One crazy idea would make the 2nd period 4 on 4.

Eliminating the offside would probably make the game more strategic as the defense would have think about letting a center or forward cheat to the middle, while the offense would have to think about leaving a man back to prevent that from happening. It would probably be more interesting in hockey because even if they get away with it they still have to get past the goalie 1-1. Certainly, scoring would increase fivefold at least (and the purists would hate that).

Changing the size of the rink means expenses to owners and maybe the loss of paying seats, so that's not happening. Widening the goal sounds easy, but the goal also impedes the players, and so perhaps to raise the goal instead is a better solution (would keep the goalie from simply spreading out and shuffling from side-to-side). If you just raised the goal six inches it would probably lead to a tripling of scoring.

I still like the idea of replacing the icing penalty with a rule that play continues but the players of the team that iced can't enter the center zone until the puck crosses center ice. That would end those endless stoppages to drop the puck on power plays. For that matter, if the offside rule is retained, let the same thing happen there after the non-offending team takes the puck behind the net.

IMHO, the object of the NHL should be to limit drops to the start of periods, penalty periods, after time outs, and if the puck goes out of play. In all other cases, the non-offending team after taking the puck behind the net (or maybe if their own goalie touches it) should be allowed to cross center ice uncontested.

Of course, then the networks would complain because of the reduced opportunities for commercials.

 

[blundluntman]

To be as literal as possible: goaltending. In the NBA, the rim doesn't move and "goaltending" is literally illegal. Its not like shooting a 3 pointer (which is what the defensemen would be tasked with) where as soon as the shot's fired it's over with, the goalie has an easier time stopping shots they have time to see. Without goalies it'd be a completely different sport and game altogether. The reward of investing time in developing offensive skills is far less in the NBA than it is in hockey, thus you leave it to the players with a greater chance of succeeding (the forwards).

 

[WATTAGE4451]

It's the opposite in the NBA. Guards or backcourt usually run the offense despite its name suggesting "guards" or defenseman. Why is it rare to have the D man run the offense in the NHL? On the other hand forwards/centers rarely run the offense in the NBA unless you're Lebron/Jokic/Embiid/Giannis maybe.

Can't defenseman who are in the back of the ice have better guard-like skills such as puck handling or shooting or speed? I've noticed that forwards are more offensively skilled than defenseman in NHL but in NBA it's the opposite where guards are more skilled offensively.

1. The sports are nothing alike.

2. You are just obsessing over the names. Forwards in the MBA are more like defenders. They are just tall guys that are close to net to use their height offensively and defensively. Guards are smaller and quicker so they stay away from the tall guys at bottom mostly and try to break with speed.

 

[triggrman]

In Nashville historically the defensemen have mostly controlled breakouts and zone entries. It’s one of the reason we always have multiple guys in the top 30 of defensemen scoring but never centers in the top 50.

 

[Mikeshane]

That's ideally how hockey should work because a significant part of it is athleticism and it means the pace of play is fast enough that the forwards are getting scoring chances before the defense have a chance to get into the offensive zone.

On the power play which is more strategic you see defensemen run the offense much more.

 

[PROGFAN66]

Eliminating the offside would probably make the game more strategic as the defense would have think about letting a center or forward cheat to the middle, while the offense would have to think about leaving a man back to prevent that from happening. It would probably be more interesting in hockey because even if they get away with it they still have to get past the goalie 1-1. Certainly, scoring would increase fivefold at least (and the purists would hate that).

Changing the size of the rink means expenses to owners and maybe the loss of paying seats, so that's not happening. Widening the goal sounds easy, but the goal also impedes the players, and so perhaps to raise the goal instead is a better solution (would keep the goalie from simply spreading out and shuffling from side-to-side). If you just raised the goal six inches it would probably lead to a tripling of scoring.

I still like the idea of replacing the icing penalty with a rule that play continues but the players of the team that iced can't enter the center zone until the puck crosses center ice. That would end those endless stoppages to drop the puck on power plays. For that matter, if the offside rule is retained, let the same thing happen there after the non-offending team takes the puck behind the net.

IMHO, the object of the NHL should be to limit drops to the start of periods, penalty periods, after time outs, and if the puck goes out of play. In all other cases, the non-offending team after taking the puck behind the net (or maybe if their own goalie touches it) should be allowed to cross center ice uncontested.

Of course, then the networks would complain because of the reduced opportunities for commercials.

You make great points. The majority of people who are not biased will admit to the great difficulty of the sport. The facts are the players are bigger, faster and the equipment for the goalie is a real issue to me personally.

I don't want the rink the to be widened like the international sized rink. However, maybe just widen the rink three or four feet. The NHL has already expanded the offensive zone and eliminated the two line pass why not just widen the rink.

Tactically, I love the 5 on 5 play, the speed, the passing, the three zones, behind the net, face offs, power plays and penalty kill aspects of the sport. So you can gather I love the sport even though it was not the sport I played.

Just adjust the size of the rink and net its just dated IMO and just the play the penalty & overtime to it's limit. I think the players and fans would probably agree.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

You make great points. The majority of people who are not biased will admit to the great difficulty of the sport. The facts are the players are bigger, faster and the equipment for the goalie is a real issue to me personally.

I don't want the rink the to be widened like the international sized rink. However, maybe just widen the rink three or four feet. The NHL has already expanded the offensive zone and eliminated the two line pass why not just widen the rink.

Tactically, I love the 5 on 5 play, the speed, the passing, the three zones, behind the net, face offs, power plays and penalty kill aspects of the sport. So you can gather I love the sport even though it was not the sport I played.

Just adjust the size of the rink and net its just dated IMO and just the play the penalty & overtime to it's limit. I think the players and fans would probably agree.

Yeah, the huge heavily-clad goalies are starting to look like that Walrus in the GEICO commercials, that's for sure.

 

[supsens]

Eliminating the offside would probably make the game more strategic as the defense would have think about letting a center or forward cheat to the middle, while the offense would have to think about leaving a man back to prevent that from happening. It would probably be more interesting in hockey because even if they get away with it they still have to get past the goalie 1-1. Certainly, scoring would increase fivefold at least (and the purists would hate that).

Changing the size of the rink means expenses to owners and maybe the loss of paying seats, so that's not happening. Widening the goal sounds easy, but the goal also impedes the players, and so perhaps to raise the goal instead is a better solution (would keep the goalie from simply spreading out and shuffling from side-to-side). If you just raised the goal six inches it would probably lead to a tripling of scoring.

I still like the idea of replacing the icing penalty with a rule that play continues but the players of the team that iced can't enter the center zone until the puck crosses center ice. That would end those endless stoppages to drop the puck on power plays. For that matter, if the offside rule is retained, let the same thing happen there after the non-offending team takes the puck behind the net.

IMHO, the object of the NHL should be to limit drops to the start of periods, penalty periods, after time outs, and if the puck goes out of play. In all other cases, the non-offending team after taking the puck behind the net (or maybe if their own goalie touches it) should be allowed to cross center ice uncontested.

Of course, then the networks would complain because of the reduced opportunities for commercials.

No offsides would cause serious charging issues, and the goals might increase but you would also end in a situation where the team with the lead just takes the puck up and back._._ up and back and offense takes a major dive.
You would also have guys jumping off the bench and going deep free and clear during a change, it would be a mess and a bit of a joke.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Because you can’t really hear the goalie and it’s tough for the right side or left side to run things. That’s why once every four years teams elect their centers, so they can find someone who can communicate with both right and left wingers.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Well the average NBA game is like 112-110 whereas an NHL game is 3-2, so each goal is much more crucial. Therefore, leaving much less leeway for defensive players to involve themselves in offense. Plus, if you take a bunch of shots from far away, you're probably gonna get called for icing or go offside instead of getting 3 points

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Unless you're Mike Smith, then he runs the play.

 

[abo9]

Point to ponder: What hockey would be like if there was a 24-second shot clock.

There's a 30 seconds shot clock in Ringuette. I have not seen high level of plays but at the "beer league" level it just seems like the play stops all the time.

I honestly don't see the point of the rule in a sport like hockey were you can't just hold onto the puck though.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

It's the opposite in the NBA. Guards or backcourt usually run the offense despite its name suggesting "guards" or defenseman. Why is it rare to have the D man run the offense in the NHL? On the other hand forwards/centers rarely run the offense in the NBA unless you're Lebron/Jokic/Embiid/Giannis maybe.

Can't defenseman who are in the back of the ice have better guard-like skills such as puck handling or shooting or speed? I've noticed that forwards are more offensively skilled than defenseman in NHL but in NBA it's the opposite where guards are more skilled offensively.

Let me introduce you to TJ Brodie in his prime:

 

[SlingshotVv]

Because in basketball a shot is thrown above everyone’s head, giving the guards as much access, if nothing requiring more accuracy, as anyone down low. In hockey it’s very easy to take a shooting lane completely away from the point by backing off a bit. So, most high quality scoring chances are going to happen after more than one touch after the d-man makes his touch.

Also, setting picks in basketball allows a guard a huge opening to drive a lane and attack, making them not just a ranged threat, but also able to get into a high scoring area quickly, which forces defending players to collapse and open up other lanes. In hockey a defenseman can either pass or shoot through traffic. Not nearly as dangerous a position.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It's the opposite in the NBA. Guards or backcourt usually run the offense despite its name suggesting "guards" or defenseman. Why is it rare to have the D man run the offense in the NHL? On the other hand forwards/centers rarely run the offense in the NBA unless you're Lebron/Jokic/Embiid/Giannis maybe.

Can't defenseman who are in the back of the ice have better guard-like skills such as puck handling or shooting or speed? I've noticed that forwards are more offensively skilled than defenseman in NHL but in NBA it's the opposite where guards are more skilled offensively.

Simply put, just flip your thinking from basketball strategy and it'll make sense.

Centers/Forwards are like guards and wings in basketball
Defensemen are like big men in basketball

Offense is built from down low out instead of up high in

 

[Peltz]

I honestly have no clue what the rationale was behind the creation of the offside rule. I mean, I like it myself. I think it forces teams to play more structured instead of just leaving forwards down in the offensive zone goal sucking. But as to what the specific intent was with the rule, idk.

If you had no offsides rule you can just play "keep away" by passing all over the ice for long stretches of time since the entire ice surface is available to the possessing team at all times and you can spread your players out all over. It's the same reason why we have icing.

Without offsides, there would be too much room out there to get the puck back with any degree of consistency. Look at how hard it is to take possession away at 3 v 3 overtime hockey. It would be similar or worse at 5v5 if players could receive a pass at any end of the ice. The team that has the puck would be able to keep it for a very long time if there were no offsides.

NBA gets around this with the shot clock. Before the introduction of the shot clock, basketball just wasn't that popular of a sport. But with the shot clock, there's no need for offsides since it ensures a shot will be taken within 24 seconds of possession.

 

[robertocarlos]

Bobby Orr is retired.