Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
OBXer

GM Meeting

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

 

2 hours ago

NHL GMs will recommend to the Competition Committee to eliminate the option of a timeout on an icing call.

Bettman confirms new bye week configuration: all teams on bye over a two week period, half the league one week, other half other the week

Colin Campbell says the GMs decided today not to tweak the offside rule on Coach's Challenge video review (skate in the air). Status quo

 

and then there is this

Quote

Gary Bettman clarifies that he's not giving up on Greater Phoenix

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen the suggestion of either going to 2 and 0 for over time games, or the alternative would be 3-2-1. I like either, and stop this crummy system of awarding points to the loser unless a clear winner in regulation is awarded 3. Obviously the GMs elected not to change the points system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the best suggestion recently that I had already though of :patself: to have the teams coming off the bye week play each other in their first game back. The idea I heard today was to maybe to have the Western Conference get their bye during one week, then the Eastern the next, and keep all post bye games in conference (I didn't think of making it conference specific, which does make sense).

 

I have been a proponent of 3 point games forever:  3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, 1 point for an OT loss. This would encourage going for the win, but also allow a team to make a run late in the season by winning a bunch of games in regulation, which is near impossible now with the loser points being half of the win points. Also, it makes every game worth the same amount of points.  I doubt it happens though, as the NHL likes the illusion that teams are closer than they really are to making it.

 

I really could care less about the offside challenge except that we have yet to win one, which suggests that either the linesman usually get it right, or we suck at knowing when to challenge, or both. I do think maybe the language should be changed to overturn only the most obvious and egregious, clear and uncontroversial mistakes on the offside calls.

 

I like the coach getting one chance to rest his gassed players. It removes the chance to use the challenge for the rest of the game too. He can only use it once. Compared to other sports, hockey has only one time out for crying out loud. The end of an NBA basketball game is theater of the absurd with time outs called after nearly every play.

 

Patrick O Sullivan today on XM NHL made a really good point. He said if the NHL really wants to improve the game, go back to the post lockout enforcement of interference and hooking (stick penalties). He was challenged and made the point that "scoring is well down while the skill level is supposedly way up. Something isn't right there." I agree with that point. I see now that when a forward chips the puck in, the D man skates right into his path. Post lockout that was interference. Now, not so much.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, remkin said:

 

 

Patrick O Sullivan today on XM NHL made a really good point. He said if the NHL really wants to improve the game, go back to the post lockout enforcement of interference and hooking (stick penalties). He was challenged and made the point that "scoring is well down while the skill level is supposedly way up. Something isn't right there." I agree with that point. I see now that when a forward chips the puck in, the D man skates right into his path. Post lockout that was interference. Now, not so much.

 

My biggest complaint.  D always gets better anyway, call the penalties we have on the books.   The counterargument is that it takes physicality out of the game but that is horsepucky.  Interference and hooking have nothing to do with physicality.  Get there in time if you want to hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hag65 said:

 

My biggest complaint.  D always gets better anyway, call the penalties we have on the books.   The counterargument is that it takes physicality out of the game but that is horsepucky.  Interference and hooking have nothing to do with physicality.  Get there in time if you want to hit.

 

Very true. These are not hits, they are obstruction. The other thing is the slashing. Guys are allowed slash the heck out of other guys until they are seen to hit the hands or break the stick. Really nothing to do with hits either.

 

It could be me, but it seems like big hits are actually down. Sure they still happen and they get a lot of attention when they do, but big, clean hits seem to have gone out in favor of gaining position and playing the puck. This is just me, I could be wrong.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of how little sense allowing challenges for offsides makes to me when compared to other infractions that often have a more direct impact on subsequent goals.  A trip that leads directly to a takeaway and goal can't be challenged, but an offsides where a team scores a minute later, well after the defense has been set, is challengable?

 

I think part of why this bugs me so much is because of how it came about; an overreaction to one missed offsides call at a critical time in a playoff game a couple of years back.  If the offsides leads directly to a goal, then maybe allow it to be challenged imo.  But once the defense gets back and set, play on and chalk the occasional mistake up to however you justify all of the other missed calls that contribute to goals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i think a coach should be able to challenge whatever he wants to challenge.  The penalty for an unsuccessful challenge is the loss of their timeout and the inability to challenge anything else - what would it hurt to allow them to challenge infractions or uncalled infractions?  My personal favorite is still the illegal stick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys know that Peters never expects to win one of those offsides challenges, right?  He is exploiting the rule because it makes his timeout 2 or 3 times longer than it would be otherwise and it never hurts to have a timeout right after an opponent scores just to interrupt their momentum.  If he actually won one of those it would be gravy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hag65 said:

You guys know that Peters never expects to win one of those offsides challenges, right?  He is exploiting the rule because it makes his timeout 2 or 3 times longer than it would be otherwise and it never hurts to have a timeout right after an opponent scores just to interrupt their momentum.  If he actually won one of those it would be gravy.

 

 

Well certainly, because that's all the current rule really allows for.  It would be nice if the rule allowed them to challenge something that could actually make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...