Phil Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 On the safety side, the GMs want a rule that will penalize players who don't leave the ice immediately after their helmets fall off. George Parros, NHL senior vice president of player safety, said the League is the only one in the world that doesn't currently have a rule governing players losing their helmets in the flow of play. The GMs will also propose a rule that will allow the team starting a power play to choose which side of the ice they want to have the face-off. The location is currently decided by which side of the ice the puck went out of play or was touched. It would only be for the first face-off on the power play. The GMs were also in favor of recommending a rule change to keep the face-off in the end zone when a puck is shot out of play by an attacking player. The face-off is now held outside the end zone if a shot by the attacking team goes out of play without touching anything. The GMs are also considering a recommendation to prevent teams from changing lines if their goalie freezes the puck on shots that come from outside the blue line. The emphasis is on pace of play and keeping the game moving. https://www.nhl.com/news/gms-approve-concepts-for-player-safety-rule-changes-at-meetings/c-305492838 Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 On the safety side, the GMs want a rule that will penalize players who don't leave the ice immediately after their helmets fall off. George Parros, NHL senior vice president of player safety, said the League is the only one in the world that doesn't currently have a rule governing players losing their helmets in the flow of play. Seems like a no-brainer. The GMs will also propose a rule that will allow the team starting a power play to choose which side of the ice they want to have the face-off. The location is currently decided by which side of the ice the puck went out of play or was touched. It would only be for the first face-off on the power play. I don't really understand why. Seems reasonable that the puck is dropped from the nearest point of stoppage in play, but it's not a huge deal. The GMs were also in favor of recommending a rule change to keep the face-off in the end zone when a puck is shot out of play by an attacking player. The face-off is now held outside the end zone if a shot by the attacking team goes out of play without touching anything. I'm not sure about this one. It could open up a can of worms. What's stopping me from snapping a wrist shot over the glass if I don't like my options as an attacking player? The GMs are also considering a recommendation to prevent teams from changing lines if their goalie freezes the puck on shots that come from outside the blue line. The emphasis is on pace of play and keeping the game moving. This is a good thing. Forcing goaltenders to play the puck from dump ins will almost certainly have an effect on pace of play. It'll probably generate quite a few scoring opportunities as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 Seems like a no-brainer. I don't really understand why. Seems reasonable that the puck is dropped from the nearest point of stoppage in play, but it's not a huge deal. I'm not sure about this one. It could open up a can of worms. What's stopping me from snapping a wrist shot over the glass if I don't like my options as an attacking player? This is a good thing. Forcing goaltenders to play the puck from dump ins will almost certainly have an effect on pace of play. It'll probably generate quite a few scoring opportunities as well.Regarding faceoffs... If you've got a center who's by far better on one side, it helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 It can be advantageous for the attacking team, but my point was I'm not sure that rule change makes sense or is needed. Why shouldn't they drop the puck from the nearest point? Is there a need to give the team going on the PP a slight advantage? To be honest I don't really give a shit, it's not like it's a huge change, it just seems a bit redundant. And this seemed like a good opportunity to get my daily moan in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 It can be advantageous for the attacking team, but my point was I'm not sure that rule change makes sense or is needed. Why shouldn't they drop the puck from the nearest point? Is there a need to give the team going on the PP a slight advantage? To be honest I don't really give a shit, it's not like it's a huge change, it just seems a bit redundant. And this seemed like a good opportunity to get my daily moan in.Yea, I guess that's the thinking. PP gives you an automatic faceoff in the O zone where you pick the side you want the draw on and don't have to put your stick down first. That's a pretty good advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillyb Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 Yeah, definitely advantageous. Some of these guys are definitely stronger on one side. During the TSN broadcast last night, I think Dreger commented about Sakic's opinion on this proposed change. Sakic said something along the lines of, "yeah, always my backhand," and I think Sakic might know a thing or two about taking faceoffs and what would be advantageous. Edit, found the quote. I can tell you, there are general managers here who are applauding the idea of the faceoff option, one of them of course is Hall of Fame centreman [and Colorado Avalanche GM] Joe Sakic. He says I love the idea because automatically it allows you to set up and we asked him, given the option back in your day, what would he have preferred and he said, I?m going to my backhand every single time. https://www.tsn.ca/insider-trading-changes-to-the-game-coming-in-2019-2020-1.1268455 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 Right, but I'm not saying it isn't advantageous. I'm saying I'm not sure that's a necessary change to the rules. I'm also a bit confused now as to whether the idea is that the puck is dropped in the O-Zone at the start of the power play regardless of where play stopped. If that's the case it's a huge advantage to the attacking team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Right, but I'm not saying it isn't advantageous. I'm saying I'm not sure that's a necessary change to the rules. I'm also a bit confused now as to whether the idea is that the puck is dropped in the O-Zone at the start of the power play regardless of where play stopped. If that's the case it's a huge advantage to the attacking team.they made the change last year that the team with the power play always gets an offensive zone draw to start it. No matter where the fuck was frozen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Are you telling me I’ve watched close to two full regular seasons of hockey without noticing that? Fuck me. I need to lie down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillyb Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Even icing? Or is that dropped at center? Team takes penalty. Opposing team ices the puck. FO at center? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCCP Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Even icing? Or is that dropped at center? Team takes penalty. Opposing team ices the puck. FO at center? I don't think u can ice the puck when called for penalty. the wshistle will blow once the puck is touched Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 I don't think u can ice the puck when called for penalty. the wshistle will blow once the puck is touched Rangers are in their own zone, Strome takes a high stick to the face, delayed called. Smith gets the puck with no one in front of him and ices the puck. Faceoff is in the opponents zone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCCP Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 why would he ice it? what reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 They were just pinned in their own zone for 1:39, and Fast broke his stick, Strome is laying on the ice bleeding. Smith reacted out of instinct and panic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 why would he ice it? what reason? Because he tried to make a pass, but since he's Brendan Smith, it ended up being an icing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCCP Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Because he tried to make a pass, but since he's Brendan Smith, it ended up being an icing. that's more reasonable situation. I don't see why it such a big problem that it should matter. how often scenario like this happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillyb Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 It happens, which is why it's already been taken into account where the FO happens. I didn't realize that in that scenario, the puck gets dropped in the offensive zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCCP Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 cant be very often. I don't think I've ever seen it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 Who cares how often it is? You've seen it if you watch hockey lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 This is all really inconsequential stuff. Given that literally everyone hates the offside review as now constituted, how about reforming that? First, instead of putting reviewers in the impossible position of determining whether a back skate on the blue line is on or off the ice, why not make it that the back skate must be within the plane of the blue line and forget about trying to determine if it is an inch off the ice or not? Second, how about no review if the goal is scored more than say six or seven seconds after the play entered the zone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 This is all really inconsequential stuff. Given that literally everyone hates the offside review as now constituted, how about reforming that? First, instead of putting reviewers in the impossible position of determining whether a back skate on the blue line is on or off the ice, why not make it that the back skate must be within the plane of the blue line and forget about trying to determine if it is an inch off the ice or not? Second, how about no review if the goal is scored more than say six or seven seconds after the play entered the zone? Good with the first change, not with the second. Also I don't mind the offside review. I think it's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaveByRichter35 Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 I think the offside review is ok but I agree with Sod that it needs to be updated. This touching the ice/not touching the ice needs to go. Make it in the plane of the line or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now