NHL looking for ways to improve

[princedpw]

Some of those are reasonable but not letting you ice the puck on a powerplay is one of the ideas there that is just insane and I could never see happening.  I don't really see a need to create more offence, there are plenty of scoring games and the nhl isn't at a point where we have soccer style 1-0 games all the time.

Icing the puck on the penalty kill can be one of the most enjoyable plays in hockey.

For example: when the Leafs are winning 3-2 with 1:48 to play in the third and get called for a penalty. An icing to clear the zone can have me yelling and hopping out of my seat.

A love that play because it can become about pure will. It can be an exciting play, a player hammering the puck down the ice where the other team has to retrieve it.

I agree that an icing can be exciting sometimes.  I also find it exciting when there is continuous pressure against a team in the defensive zone.  I can also imagine it being exciting when a team is able to clear the zone in the more difficult circumstance in which they are not allow the puck to be iced.  In other words, it isn't completely obvious to me whether or not this is a bad idea.  I think it really just depends on exactly where the power play percentages go.  If they go to 50% then it is definitely a bad idea -- too many games will be decided by penalties as opposed to 5-on-5.  If the league average pp percentage goes from 15 to 20 percent then it may be fine, even a good thing.  I do think that 2nd period and 5-on-3 penalties will be exceptionally difficult to kill so I am a little skeptical at this point.  But I think trying it out to see what happens makes sense because I don't really know.  It's just good scientific method!

 

[Deebo]

If they call icing on the PK and don't allow player changes on icings, I think that would significantly reduce PK%.

 

[Bender]

If they call icing on the PK and don't allow player changes on icings, I think that would significantly reduce PK%.

And have a penalty be served in its entirety. Could you imagine early on in the season some teams could have a PP above 100%? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[cw]

Good commentary on yesterday illustrating some of what they're trying to do:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=587064

Here's a link to NHL.com's stories on the camp:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/newsindex.htm?location=/researchdevcamp/2011

 

[bustaheims]

Well, the whole verification line seems like a no-brainer to me - doesn't actually impact the on-ice play and makes video review a little easier and a little more accurate.

 

[hockeyfan1]

 

[hockeyfan1]

Some trick shots from the NHL Research and Development Camp......

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Video-Awesome-trick-shots-from-NHL-Research-Cam;_ylt=AnIHNYIrrpw4emYVvXlFD8t7vLYF?urn=nhl-wp10844

 

[Kin]

And have a penalty be served in its entirety. Could you imagine early on in the season some teams could have a PP above 100%? It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know why that would be so mind blowing. That's already possible in the current NHL because of major penalties. This would just treat minors like majors.

 

[Frank E]

And have a penalty be served in its entirety. Could you imagine early on in the season some teams could have a PP above 100%? It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know why that would be so mind blowing. That's already possible in the current NHL because of major penalties. This would just treat minors like majors.

I'm OK with this, as long as the minors still get called properly. 

I can appreciate that some officials might be less inclined to call a penalty given the increased severity of the penalty.

 

[ZBBM]

And have a penalty be served in its entirety. Could you imagine early on in the season some teams could have a PP above 100%? It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know why that would be so mind blowing. That's already possible in the current NHL because of major penalties. This would just treat minors like majors.

I'm OK with this, as long as the minors still get called properly. 

I can appreciate that some officials might be less inclined to call a penalty given the increased severity of the penalty.

Your last points tips it to the "no" side for me.  Keep that as one of the two distinctions between majors and minors.

 

[bustaheims]

I don't know why that would be so mind blowing. That's already possible in the current NHL because of major penalties. This would just treat minors like majors.

Keeping a player in the box for the full two is something the league did in its infancy and decided to move away from it. Not sure I like the idea of going back to that (not that I saw any of it originally). While I'm all for protecting players and trying to keep things more by the book and all that, I think there are better ways to do that. For instance, I like keeping icing in effect on the PK (maybe modify it to the team killing the penalty having to get out of their own zone instead of across centre ice). I feel like that's something that will keep players more accountable to their teammates and, hopefully, keep them more in-line, without taking things to an extreme. Keeping the player in the box for the full two minutes strikes me as something that could easily have the opposite effect - it will lead to players being more fatigued and more frustrated and, therefore, more likely to do something stupid. It also leaves them more vulnerable and susceptible to getting injured as well, what with fatigue leading to losses of concentration and such. Of all the ideas being tested, this is probably the one I like the least.

 

[Deebo]

If they call icing on the PK and don't allow player changes on icings, I think that would significantly reduce PK%.

And have a penalty be served in its entirety. Could you imagine early on in the season some teams could have a PP above 100%? It doesn't make sense to me.

After a goal on a major, its considered a new PP opportunity for PP% purposes.

I'd imagine the same would apply if they make that change.

 

[hockeyfan1]

One of the ways to increase goals is to expand the size of the nets.  This has been discussed in some circles at the the NHL R & D camp, but for this season, the nets will be made shallower so as to give the playmaker more room to manoever, both behind and to the sides of the net.

Today's goalkeepers aren't diminutive.  Gone is the era of the Rogie Vachons and the Mike Palmateers, and many more who once played at a time when small was considered big in a goalkeeper.  Circa to today's NHL where the Gustavvsons and the Rinnes are a standard 6'1 - 6'3, even bigger.  Since manyof today's netminders seem to practically cover the entire net, it may be deemed a wise choice to widen the nets altogether.

If the experiment with the shallower nets does not lead to an increase in goals, or even to a lesser extent, then, the NHL may just consider the alternative, as mentioned above.

There are those who don't believe that any of the above will lead to greater goals being scored.  Well, when one considers the fact that some of the league's elite players such as the Crosbys, the Ovechkins, the Perrya, the Sedins types are still capable of scoring anywhere from 30-50 goals in a season, think of how many more players may get the chance to score more if the nets were made slightly larger.  Would it mean more work for today's netminders?  It is an option that will remain to be seen if implemented.

 

[cw]

Keeping a player in the box for the full two is something the league did in its infancy and decided to move away from it. Not sure I like the idea of going back to that (not that I saw any of it originally). While I'm all for protecting players and trying to keep things more by the book and all that, I think there are better ways to do that. For instance, I like keeping icing in effect on the PK (maybe modify it to the team killing the penalty having to get out of their own zone instead of across centre ice). I feel like that's something that will keep players more accountable to their teammates and, hopefully, keep them more in-line, without taking things to an extreme. Keeping the player in the box for the full two minutes strikes me as something that could easily have the opposite effect - it will lead to players being more fatigued and more frustrated and, therefore, more likely to do something stupid. It also leaves them more vulnerable and susceptible to getting injured as well, what with fatigue leading to losses of concentration and such. Of all the ideas being tested, this is probably the one I like the least.

Me too.

The Habs dominated in the 50s with their PP which is why they went away from it.

Dale Tallon felt there would also be a drop off in penalties if it were implemented which would offset the effect on scoring some. One might argue that's a good thing but I think it flirts with affecting the game quite a bit. Maybe players significantly reduce being physical for example and it becomes a game of no-hit shinny.

 

[cw]

One of the ways to increase goals is to expand the size of the nets.  This has been discussed in some circles at the the NHL R & D camp, but for this season, the nets will be made shallower so as to give the playmaker more room to manoever, both behind and to the sides of the net.

Today's goalkeepers aren't diminutive.  Gone is the era of the Rogie Vachons and the Mike Palmateers, and many more who once played at a time when small was considered big in a goalkeeper.  Circa to today's NHL where the Gustavvsons and the Rinnes are a standard 6'1 - 6'3, even bigger.  Since manyof today's netminders seem to practically cover the entire net, it may be deemed a wise choice to widen the nets altogether.

If the experiment with the shallower nets does not lead to an increase in goals, or even to a lesser extent, then, the NHL may just consider the alternative, as mentioned above.

There are those who don't believe that any of the above will lead to greater goals being scored.  Well, when one considers the fact that some of the league's elite players such as the Crosbys, the Ovechkins, the Perrya, the Sedins types are still capable of scoring anywhere from 30-50 goals in a season, think of how many more players may get the chance to score more if the nets were made slightly larger.  Would it mean more work for today's netminders?  It is an option that will remain to be seen if implemented.

The goalies are playing with equipment that was larger than in previous eras. They maintain they need to keep it for their safety. I'm curious with making the net a little bigger if they truly feel it will help the game. I think the acrobatic goaltending we saw in previous eras has been significantly reduced. Due to the speed of the puck with the new sticks and the scientific/percentages understanding that has developed to play the position, it will never come back completely but I think a larger net would help us see more of it and it's exciting to see.

I wouldn't mind them checking it out but I'm not committed to it.

 

[Kin]

Keeping a player in the box for the full two is something the league did in its infancy and decided to move away from it. Not sure I like the idea of going back to that (not that I saw any of it originally). While I'm all for protecting players and trying to keep things more by the book and all that, I think there are better ways to do that. For instance, I like keeping icing in effect on the PK (maybe modify it to the team killing the penalty having to get out of their own zone instead of across centre ice). I feel like that's something that will keep players more accountable to their teammates and, hopefully, keep them more in-line, without taking things to an extreme. Keeping the player in the box for the full two minutes strikes me as something that could easily have the opposite effect - it will lead to players being more fatigued and more frustrated and, therefore, more likely to do something stupid. It also leaves them more vulnerable and susceptible to getting injured as well, what with fatigue leading to losses of concentration and such. Of all the ideas being tested, this is probably the one I like the least.

Me too.

The Habs dominated in the 50s with their PP which is why they went away from it.

Dale Tallon felt there would also be a drop off in penalties if it were implemented which would offset the effect on scoring some. One might argue that's a good thing but I think it flirts with affecting the game quite a bit. Maybe players significantly reduce being physical for example and it becomes a game of no-hit shinny.

It's funny because what you're describing here is the reason I think it's interesting. Contrary to Busta's suggestion the reason the NHL went away from it isn't because it led to player fatigue or mental breakdowns, it's because the habs of the time were so stacked and it led to such an advantage for them. That's simply not the case these days. Even the best of teams scores on a quarter of their powerplays.

The effect it would have on penalty killers would also be minimal. The average team already kills probably 82 or 83 percent of their penalties. We're probably talking about another minute or so of PK time per game.

Like Dale Tallon, I think the only real tangible effect this would have would be fewer penalties being committed. I don't know that this is the best way to get there but I think it's a worthwhile goal.

 

[bustaheims]

It's funny because what you're describing here is the reason I think it's interesting. Contrary to Busta's suggestion the reason the NHL went away from it isn't because it led to player fatigue or mental breakdowns, it's because the habs of the time were so stacked and it led to such an advantage for them. That's simply not the case these days. Even the best of teams scores on a quarter of their powerplays.

Just for the record, I didn't mean to suggest that's why they changed it at all, just that I feel that will be a result of changing back to that now.

 

[Tigger]

Hey if they can reverse the 'Gretzky rule' they can look at this as well but it would need a good think to avoid losing some the physicality of the game. I don't see the benefit right now.

 

[Kin]

I think the idea that it would affect the physicality of the game is a canard. The vast majority of penalties, I think, have little to do with physical play.

 

[Tigger]

I think there's a chance that a full two minute advantage could have an affect on how players make decisions and their subsequent play overall, especially if it meant putting their team down 5 on 3 under those rules.

Maybe more of Robin Williams style mallard! mallard!.