Let's get back into this vibe.
The NHL doesn't have as many dumb rules as college hockey, but there are some things we can change to improve the sport. As always, I want your thoughts via Twitter or the comments, but here are mine.
Bye bye, puck over glass rule
It has run its course.
This was a well-intentioned if unfortunate change coming out of the 2004-05 lockout. Basically, officials refused to call penalties when the puck was clearly sent out of play on purpose. So the NHL took away the discretion.
But enough is enough. Players are NOT doing it on purpose anymore. And when officials aren't calling the most blatantly obvious fouls late in regulation or in overtime, but won't hesitate to call a penalty for the puck going out of play, it just looks silly.
"Want to slash a guy in the chops? GREAT! Just be careful to keep the puck in play!"
It's no secret I want this rule to die. It's not because I want players to feel free to throw the puck out of play with no repercussions. Instead, it's because I see this play as no different than icing. Yeah, sometimes a player takes an icing to get a whistle. When that happens, you don't see an uproar for said player to be penalized for delay of game, do you? It's the same thing. You're doing something to stop the game. Quite often, it's done on purpose. Why is it handled differently?
In college hockey, icing and pucks out of play from the defensive zone are handled identically. Faceoff in the defensive zone, and that team can't change personnel.
Do that in the NHL, and see what happens. No one is marrying the league to this rule, and it isn't going to hurt to try.
Hybrid icing/mandatory visors
There isn't much reason to list this, now that the rules are coming. But I talked about the visor bit in 2006, and it took this long to make the change. Yikes.
The hybrid icing change should have come before Kurtis Foster got hurt, but it's insulting that it took this long after Foster's catastrophic injury. College hockey has used this rule for a while, and it works much better than I ever thought it would going in.
(In fact, when it was first talked about, I was on record as practically hating the idea. I was totally wrong, and NCAA referees and linesmen should be saluted for the job they've done enforcing it.)
I wish visors were the law for all players, but the compromise is understandable. Many veteran players are already smart enough to use them, and hopefully more follow suit.
Stop suspending to the injury
Part of the maddening inconsistency with the NHL's Department of Player Safety comes from its insistence on over-evaluating injuries before suspending players for illegal hits.
If a hit is 1) clearly illegal, 2) particularly dangerous, or 3) it's either clearly intentional or exceptionally reckless, it shouldn't matter if the "victim" is injured.
An illegal hit is an illegal hit, whether the offending player gets lucky and doesn't injure someone or not. And illegal/dangerous/reckless hits need to be consistently punished if there is to ever be any hope of eliminating them from the game.
Consistent enforcement of the guidelines set forth by DPS should lead to an increased respect for the sport among its participants. Then we can hope that trickles down to the lower levels where checking is still permitted.
And if it doesn't work, well, hell, at least we tried.
No more three-point games, at least not this way
A win is two points, whether in regulation, overtime, or a shootout. A loss that happens after regulation is a point. So if a game goes overtime, it's worth three points. Otherwise, it's worth two.
I don't have to tell you how dumb that is.
The answer is right under the NHL's nose, and if it wasn't the NHL we were talking about, it'd be shocking that the NHL hadn't changed this system.
Here is how you do it:
Regulation win: Three points
Overtime/shootout win: Two points
Overtime/shootout loss: One point
Every game is worth the same number of points. Regulation wins can still be a primary playoff tiebreaker, but using that doesn't excuse having games worth two different point totals depending on where they finish.
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Commissioner For A Day: College Hockey
I did this a few years ago, back before I had labels on posts, but you can find the 2006 series by searching the site for "Commissioner For A Day."
I'm bringing it back, largely because I'm tired of not writing on the site, and also because I think there are ideas to improve many of the pro sports I enjoy watching.
Oh, and because UMD's offseason is entirely too long because the season ended prematurely.
I figured it was natural to start the series with college hockey, because it's the sport I dedicate a lot of my winter life to covering. It should be noted that the majority of these ideas are mine and none are being blatantly stolen from anyone.
Your input is welcome, as always.
No more regionals at random sites.
The NCAA regional system is completely broken. Not partially. Completely. Inadequate facilities -- bad ice, small locker room areas, poor press accommodations, problems with internet access -- are hosting events in front of small crowds, while fans who can't afford the expensive short-notice flights are stuck struggling to find someone they know who has ESPNU or ESPN3 so they can watch games on television.
The TV ship has sailed. It isn't going to get any better. I've said for years that you need access to ESPNU if you want to watch the NCAA regionals. More than that, a die-hard college hockey fan should prepare themselves to do what is necessary to get BTN, NBC Sports Network, and CBS Sports Network if they want to follow the sport during the regular season. If you get those three channels, you have ESPNU, too. They're usually on the same tier.
So let's work to fix the regional site issue.
A few years ago (not sure the exact moment, but it was between when the funding for Amsoil Arena was approved and when it opened), the decision was made to move regionals to truly neutral sites. Before, places like Mariucci Arena and Ralph Engelstad Arena could host regionals. But the NCAA pushed away from that, deciding that arenas that served as a team's designated home facility wouldn't be allowed to host, and neither would facilities with Olympic-sized ice surfaces.
That rule should go away. Yeah, it's somewhat irritating to watch host schools gain spots in the Frozen Four while playing on home ice (Michigan, Minnesota, and North Dakota have all had this luxury in the past). But it's even more irritating to watch a team earn that spot with practically no one in the stands.
Ticket prices are a problem, yes, but if a St. Cloud State fan could afford to fly from wherever to Toledo for that team's regional this year (during Easter weekend on short notice), the $80 pricetag for a three-game pass wasn't going to stop them. That's pretty simple math.
Lowering ticket prices might draw more local fans to the games, which wouldn't be a bad idea if the NCAA insists on keeping the system as is. But I think a better way about gaining a championship atmosphere is allowing home rinks of 5,000 or more seats to host regionals. Let places like Amsoil Arena, The Ralph, Mariucci, Yost, Compton Family Ice Arena (Notre Dame), Conte Forum (BC), and so many others host these tournaments. Put the games in places where college hockey already has a following, lower ticket prices a hair, and see what happens, even if the host doesn't qualify.
(There is a push for best of three first round series on the campus sites of the high seeds. I like the idea, but it adds an extra weekend to the tournament, and I'm not sure it's feasible. I still think the best way is to give the top four seeds the options of hosting regionals on their home ice, provided some easily-met standards are reached. But there doesn't seem to be a ton of support for this, so I'll compromise and propose what is said above.)
Goodbye, dumb rule where a team that scores on a delayed penalty still gets the power play.
I started calling it the "Double jeopardy rule," after the law that prevents a person from being charged twice for the same crime. I have always thought it ridiculous that the powers-that-be in the sport thought this was a good idea.
Basically, the rule says that if a team scores a goal while on a delayed penalty, the penalty is still called and the power play still happens.
You'll notice that no other level of hockey has thought this was a good idea.
So how did it happen? I was told at the time that the rule basically slipped through because so much attention was paid to an even dumber proposed rule, one that would have kept teams from icing the puck while short-handed.
It's all about increasing offense, which is a fine endeavor, but it goes about it the wrong way. It really has no effect outside of being a dumb rule, because it's so rare that a team would score on a delayed penalty. It's even more rare that said team would then turn around and score on the ensuing power play.
If offense is the goal, let's try actually calling the penalties that are in the rulebook, especially those relating to obstruction. What a concept!
Any body contact foul that drives a player into the boards is an automatic ten-minute misconduct, optional ejection.
It's been a few years now since college hockey instituted a rule that called for mandatory major penalties and ejections for checks from behind that took place along the boards.
Have you noticed yet how the officials handle those?
If they don't want to call it a check from behind, it becomes a boarding penalty, or elbowing, or whatever.
Time for that to go. In order to truly promote safety, that discretion has to be taken away from the officials. But not completely.
There are times where an illegal hit simply doesn't rise to the level of an ejection because of mitigating circumstances. Players are deliberately turning their backs to draw illegal contact, which is beyond stupid because of the risk involved, but whatever. Players will also throw themselves into the boards to "sell" these hits. Yes, really. I've seen it happen.
To give the officials some discretion, any illegal hit along the boards should carry with it an automatic ten-minute misconduct, with the officials having the ability to eject the offending player if the hit is deemed to be severe enough.
Find a way to curtail embellishment.
Calling a coincidental minor for unsportsmanlike conduct on a dive isn't working, stripes. It just isn't.
How about putting a team short-handed because one of its players took a blatant dive to sell a penalty? Do that a few times, and see how that works.
Yeah, coaches hate it when players do something to negate a power play. They hate going short-handed even more, though.
I'm bringing it back, largely because I'm tired of not writing on the site, and also because I think there are ideas to improve many of the pro sports I enjoy watching.
Oh, and because UMD's offseason is entirely too long because the season ended prematurely.
I figured it was natural to start the series with college hockey, because it's the sport I dedicate a lot of my winter life to covering. It should be noted that the majority of these ideas are mine and none are being blatantly stolen from anyone.
Your input is welcome, as always.
No more regionals at random sites.
The NCAA regional system is completely broken. Not partially. Completely. Inadequate facilities -- bad ice, small locker room areas, poor press accommodations, problems with internet access -- are hosting events in front of small crowds, while fans who can't afford the expensive short-notice flights are stuck struggling to find someone they know who has ESPNU or ESPN3 so they can watch games on television.
The TV ship has sailed. It isn't going to get any better. I've said for years that you need access to ESPNU if you want to watch the NCAA regionals. More than that, a die-hard college hockey fan should prepare themselves to do what is necessary to get BTN, NBC Sports Network, and CBS Sports Network if they want to follow the sport during the regular season. If you get those three channels, you have ESPNU, too. They're usually on the same tier.
So let's work to fix the regional site issue.
A few years ago (not sure the exact moment, but it was between when the funding for Amsoil Arena was approved and when it opened), the decision was made to move regionals to truly neutral sites. Before, places like Mariucci Arena and Ralph Engelstad Arena could host regionals. But the NCAA pushed away from that, deciding that arenas that served as a team's designated home facility wouldn't be allowed to host, and neither would facilities with Olympic-sized ice surfaces.
That rule should go away. Yeah, it's somewhat irritating to watch host schools gain spots in the Frozen Four while playing on home ice (Michigan, Minnesota, and North Dakota have all had this luxury in the past). But it's even more irritating to watch a team earn that spot with practically no one in the stands.
Ticket prices are a problem, yes, but if a St. Cloud State fan could afford to fly from wherever to Toledo for that team's regional this year (during Easter weekend on short notice), the $80 pricetag for a three-game pass wasn't going to stop them. That's pretty simple math.
Lowering ticket prices might draw more local fans to the games, which wouldn't be a bad idea if the NCAA insists on keeping the system as is. But I think a better way about gaining a championship atmosphere is allowing home rinks of 5,000 or more seats to host regionals. Let places like Amsoil Arena, The Ralph, Mariucci, Yost, Compton Family Ice Arena (Notre Dame), Conte Forum (BC), and so many others host these tournaments. Put the games in places where college hockey already has a following, lower ticket prices a hair, and see what happens, even if the host doesn't qualify.
(There is a push for best of three first round series on the campus sites of the high seeds. I like the idea, but it adds an extra weekend to the tournament, and I'm not sure it's feasible. I still think the best way is to give the top four seeds the options of hosting regionals on their home ice, provided some easily-met standards are reached. But there doesn't seem to be a ton of support for this, so I'll compromise and propose what is said above.)
Goodbye, dumb rule where a team that scores on a delayed penalty still gets the power play.
I started calling it the "Double jeopardy rule," after the law that prevents a person from being charged twice for the same crime. I have always thought it ridiculous that the powers-that-be in the sport thought this was a good idea.
Basically, the rule says that if a team scores a goal while on a delayed penalty, the penalty is still called and the power play still happens.
You'll notice that no other level of hockey has thought this was a good idea.
So how did it happen? I was told at the time that the rule basically slipped through because so much attention was paid to an even dumber proposed rule, one that would have kept teams from icing the puck while short-handed.
It's all about increasing offense, which is a fine endeavor, but it goes about it the wrong way. It really has no effect outside of being a dumb rule, because it's so rare that a team would score on a delayed penalty. It's even more rare that said team would then turn around and score on the ensuing power play.
If offense is the goal, let's try actually calling the penalties that are in the rulebook, especially those relating to obstruction. What a concept!
Any body contact foul that drives a player into the boards is an automatic ten-minute misconduct, optional ejection.
It's been a few years now since college hockey instituted a rule that called for mandatory major penalties and ejections for checks from behind that took place along the boards.
Have you noticed yet how the officials handle those?
If they don't want to call it a check from behind, it becomes a boarding penalty, or elbowing, or whatever.
Time for that to go. In order to truly promote safety, that discretion has to be taken away from the officials. But not completely.
There are times where an illegal hit simply doesn't rise to the level of an ejection because of mitigating circumstances. Players are deliberately turning their backs to draw illegal contact, which is beyond stupid because of the risk involved, but whatever. Players will also throw themselves into the boards to "sell" these hits. Yes, really. I've seen it happen.
To give the officials some discretion, any illegal hit along the boards should carry with it an automatic ten-minute misconduct, with the officials having the ability to eject the offending player if the hit is deemed to be severe enough.
Find a way to curtail embellishment.
Calling a coincidental minor for unsportsmanlike conduct on a dive isn't working, stripes. It just isn't.
How about putting a team short-handed because one of its players took a blatant dive to sell a penalty? Do that a few times, and see how that works.
Yeah, coaches hate it when players do something to negate a power play. They hate going short-handed even more, though.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Random Rabble: July 16
Former Rutgers football player Eric LeGrand penned this week's Monday Morning Quarterback at SI.com, filling in for the incomparable Peter King. LeGrand, who suffered a serious spinal cord injury on a kickoff play in 2010, was signed as a free agent by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers this spring. The Bucs are now coached by LeGrand's college coach, Greg Schiano. LeGrand insists he will walk again, and also addresses the issue of player safety on kickoffs. NFL people have at least discussed the idea of removing kickoffs from the sport.
Couldn't agree with LeGrand more. Generally, you'd expect someone like LeGrand -- whose life was forever altered by a chance happening on an admittedly dangerous football play -- to at least be on the fence. Instead, LeGrand acknowledges that what happened to him is not something that happens with any kind of regularity.
He's right. A lot of players can make a career out of special teams, and removing kickoff plays from the game would certainly take some excitement away.
Former UMD star Tim Stapleton signed a deal with Dinamo Minsk of the Kontinental Hockey League last week. Stapleton talked to the Winnipeg Free Press about his decision.
Stapleton did indeed have a good season for Winnipeg, but the lack of interest in an undersized forward pushing 30 is not awfully surprising. I figured a lot of guys would be in the same boat, faced with deciding between an offer to play overseas and the prospect of waiting for the CBA negotiations to play out before getting any serious NHL offers.
I don't know what he's making with Minsk, but it's probably more than he'd make on an NHL deal. With Minsk, Stapleton also has the security of knowing there will be a season, something we can't say in the NHL right now.
Speaking of the ongoing NHL CBA negotiations, if the reports from Friday are at all accurate, we'll be here for a while.
Um.
I tweeted Saturday that the owners should be ashamed of this offer. It's ridiculous. It sends an awfully poor message about where things stand, as well as the chances of the league starting its next season on time.
It's also another sign that ownership wants the players to help save them from themselves. Of course, as we learned in the NBA -- where nearly a third of the season was lost so teams could throw eight-figure salaries at guys like Jeremy Lin -- nothing can save the owners from themselves. They will always find a way to overspend and stretch their resources way too thin.
The only benefit to the players taking this one-sided deal would be getting to watch the owners find a way to keep overspending.
You'll also note in the report that owners want entry-level deals stretched to five years instead of three. Call me crazy, but does anyone else think this would only add to the number of players looking to get away from the teams that drafted them, like Justin Schultz did? You can swallow a three-year commitment to a team you might not want to play for, but five is a ton.
I can see the owners' side on this, because there is a lot of money and time and effort put into the draft, and allowing only three years on the maximum entry-level deal means teams have to spend even more money.
It's totally just a thought, but I'm curious if it is something that could play out. Of course, the CBA negotiation also presents a chance to get rid of the rule that allows drafted players to become free agents, even if the team that drafted the player wants to sign him. If that happens, it doesn't matter what happens to entry-level deals.
Take it from someone who has gotten injured on a kickoff: I think kickoffs in the NFL should return to the way they used to be, because lots of football players can make a career out of playing on special teams, and the new system takes some of the thrill and excitement of the game out.
Couldn't agree with LeGrand more. Generally, you'd expect someone like LeGrand -- whose life was forever altered by a chance happening on an admittedly dangerous football play -- to at least be on the fence. Instead, LeGrand acknowledges that what happened to him is not something that happens with any kind of regularity.
He's right. A lot of players can make a career out of special teams, and removing kickoff plays from the game would certainly take some excitement away.
Former UMD star Tim Stapleton signed a deal with Dinamo Minsk of the Kontinental Hockey League last week. Stapleton talked to the Winnipeg Free Press about his decision.
"It wasn't an easy decision. I even woke up today thinking, 'Man, what did I do?' But it's just something that made sense, especially turning 30 (next week). I've got to look out for life after hockey."
Stapleton posted career highs in goals (11) and points (27) and managed to score three game-winners while working predominantly on the Jets' fourth line.
But with a handful of players/prospects in the system ready to grab his spot, this popular and respected teammate was not atop the priority list of an organization that stressed size as one of its key off-season needs.
"It's too bad. I did everything I possibly could because I wanted to come back but I think their main focus was they wanted to get bigger," said Stapleton.
"I've been dealing with this situation (all) my career as far as getting into the NHL. And then when I get in I'm still dealing with it. I sat down with a lot of people, including my family, and we weighed the pros and cons. I had to look at what is in front of me and all I had was Russia.
"I guess now I get to become a fan now and I'll definitely be following the team and all the guys."
Stapleton did indeed have a good season for Winnipeg, but the lack of interest in an undersized forward pushing 30 is not awfully surprising. I figured a lot of guys would be in the same boat, faced with deciding between an offer to play overseas and the prospect of waiting for the CBA negotiations to play out before getting any serious NHL offers.
I don't know what he's making with Minsk, but it's probably more than he'd make on an NHL deal. With Minsk, Stapleton also has the security of knowing there will be a season, something we can't say in the NHL right now.
Speaking of the ongoing NHL CBA negotiations, if the reports from Friday are at all accurate, we'll be here for a while.
According to RDS Insider Renaud Lavoie's Twitter account, the NHL made its initial proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement to the NHLPA in Toronto today:
NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.
3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.
To Clarify the initial proposal:
1. Right now it's 57-43 in favor of the players. Owners want it to be 54-46 in favor of the owners
2. In the last CBA negotiations during the 2004-05 season elimination, the NHL agreed to accelerating unrestricted free agency from 10 years to age 27 (or 7 years).
3. There are currently no contract limits, which Wild fans learned last week when Zach Parise and Ryan Suter were given 13-year deals by Minnesota.
4. There's currently player elected and club elected arbitration
5. Is self-explanatory above.
Um.
I tweeted Saturday that the owners should be ashamed of this offer. It's ridiculous. It sends an awfully poor message about where things stand, as well as the chances of the league starting its next season on time.
It's also another sign that ownership wants the players to help save them from themselves. Of course, as we learned in the NBA -- where nearly a third of the season was lost so teams could throw eight-figure salaries at guys like Jeremy Lin -- nothing can save the owners from themselves. They will always find a way to overspend and stretch their resources way too thin.
The only benefit to the players taking this one-sided deal would be getting to watch the owners find a way to keep overspending.
You'll also note in the report that owners want entry-level deals stretched to five years instead of three. Call me crazy, but does anyone else think this would only add to the number of players looking to get away from the teams that drafted them, like Justin Schultz did? You can swallow a three-year commitment to a team you might not want to play for, but five is a ton.
I can see the owners' side on this, because there is a lot of money and time and effort put into the draft, and allowing only three years on the maximum entry-level deal means teams have to spend even more money.
It's totally just a thought, but I'm curious if it is something that could play out. Of course, the CBA negotiation also presents a chance to get rid of the rule that allows drafted players to become free agents, even if the team that drafted the player wants to sign him. If that happens, it doesn't matter what happens to entry-level deals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)