Official Hockey discussion thread

Hartford will never have a team again, and I'm OK with that. No rink, no populace.

LC, do you know why they lost the Whalers to begin with? Hartford is VERY heart broken over it to the point they did not allow EA to add the Whaler's Jersey to Carolina's "retro" jersey in the NHL games. All other teams that had moved cities had the older ones available, so they are still butt hurt about it. You think even today it wouldn't be a good spot?

I would like to see a team (any sport) get in Vegas ... if they get past the "gambling problem", it really seems like an ideal spot.

But for Hockey, adding teams back into Canada seems like the wiser move, I can maybe see Seattle if they build a new arena for a basketball team as well, and I am sure it would make Vancouver happy at least from a travel perspective/getting a geographic rival.

I don't know about Vegas, but I agree more Canadian teams and one in Seattle would be cool. Relocating teams to Canada might work too. Hell, Atlanta has the sad distinction of losing not one, but two franchises to Canadian cities. I was hoping for PHX (Now AZ Coyotes, fucking retarded), would go back to Canada (Quebec would be nice) but the league is adament about keeping them here. So I'll grin and bear it and go the Bruins game on Dec 6th and the Penguins game in late March :D.
 
Vegas would probably be better for basketball than hockey, but I do think it could support a franchise. If you could the immediate area, it is a huge market with a lot of transplants from the north and east. Not to mention every visiting team will have no problem selling packages to go to Vegas and see a game.
 
LC, do you know why they lost the Whalers to begin with? Hartford is VERY heart broken over it to the point they did not allow EA to add the Whaler's Jersey to Carolina's "retro" jersey in the NHL games. All other teams that had moved cities had the older ones available, so they are still butt hurt about it. You think even today it wouldn't be a good spot?

Yes, I understand that there is a loyal populace of Whalers fans in Hartford. But Hartford is a shrinking city and one of the poorest in the USA. They still don't have an arena - the XL Center is not capable of running an NHL-quality game.
 
Ah yes... that makes more sense. I was not aware of the fiancial/demographic troubles of the city nor the fact they do not have a suitable venue.

Speaking of which... How 'bout dem Brooklyn Islanders?
 
Speaking of which... How 'bout dem Brooklyn Islanders?

Part of me hopes the new rink and new ownership will reignite was used to be a proud franchise.
But not before they bottom out this year and hand the Sabres a top three ticket in the next draft lottery.

@bearfan - I see the Hockey News is picking the Hawks to win it all again.
Can't say I disagree.
 
Yup, to Former Capitals owner Jonathan Ledecky and an investor Scott Malkin. I too hope that the 25 year lease in Brooklyn and the new ownership get the team back in shape.
 
Not at all. He was the worst thing that could have happened to any franchise. I blame him for pioneering those ridiculous 10+ year contracts starting with Yashin and later Dipietro prompting other clubs (Washington with Ovi and NJ with Kovulchuk) to try and outdo them... just moronic. I heard somewhere (maybe here) that the league has ruled that contracts can no longer be more than 8 years? Don't know if there is any truth to that, but I hope they did.
 
The new CBA allows for contracts of 7 years signing, 8 years to resign your own player. Previous longer contracts are still valid.
 
Part of me hopes the new rink and new ownership will reignite was used to be a proud franchise.
But not before they bottom out this year and hand the Sabres a top three ticket in the next draft lottery.

@bearfan - I see the Hockey News is picking the Hawks to win it all again.
Can't say I disagree.


Me neither, I am ready for the season to start.
 
Some rules changes this year

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...-shootout-diving-overtime-trapezoid/15461831/


I'm fine with this
The shootout spin-o-rama is dead, overtime will change, goalies will have more room to maneuver behind the net and divers will have to pay the price.

Those are among the rules that will go in effect for the 2014-15 NHL season, according to the league.

The spin-o-rama whirling penalty shot move had been a topic of controversy because the rules state that a shootout attempt was over if a player stopped his forward movement. Eliminating the move gets rid of the ambiguity, though it will cut out a staple of highlight-reel films.

The move is also now forbidden during in-game penalty shots.

================

Makes sense

The league also took a step to try to limit the number of shootouts by tweaking overtime rules:

• Teams will switch ends before the start of overtime in the regular season, creating a longer trip to the bench on line changes, and potentially more odd-man rushes.

• The entire ice surface will undergo a "dry scrape" before overtime to create a less-choppy surface.

• If the game does get to a shootout, a coach will no longer have to submit his list of the first three shooters in the shootout.


=========
Not sure about this one

Also, the league announced that the trapezoid will be expanded by two feet from the goal post on both sides of the net.

The trapezoid had been put in because many mobile goalies, particularly Martin Brodeur, had been able to roam to the corners and play the puck to their defensemen, eliminating offensive pressure.

But doing so allowed forechecking forwards to hit defensemen with greater force. The wider trapezoid is a compromise.


=============
Good, cannot stand diving

The diving rule is to designed to punish players and teams who regularly embellish to try to draw penalties.

Players will receive a warning for a first offense, then be fined $2,000 for a second, $3,000 for a third, $4,000 for a fourth and $5,000 for anything above.

A coach will be fined $2,000 for a fourth offense, $3,000 for a fifth, $4,000 for a sixth and $5,000 for anything above.


==========
No strong opinions on these, except I like the faceoff one

Rule 23 – Game Misconduct Penalties

A new Game Misconduct category will be created. Clipping, charging, elbowing, interference, kneeing, head-butting and butt-ending move from the general category into the same category as boarding and checking from behind ("Physical Fouls"), whereby a player who incurs two such game misconducts in this category would now be automatically suspended for one game.

Rule 38 – Video Goal Judge

Video review will be expanded in the following areas:

• Rule 38.4 (viii) has been modified to allow broader discretion to Hockey Operations to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g., to ensure they are "good hockey goals"). The revised Rule will allow Hockey Operations to correct a broader array of situations where video review clearly establishes that a "goal" or "no goal" call on the ice has been made in error. The new expanded rule will also allow Hockey Operations to provide guidance to referees on goal and potential goal plays where the referee has blown his whistle (or intended to blow his whistle) after having lost sight of the puck.

• In reviewing "Kicked in Goals," Hockey Operations will require more demonstrable video evidence of a "distinct kicking motion" in order to overrule a "goal" call on the ice, or to uphold a "no goal" call on the ice.

Rule 57 – Tripping

The rule relating to "Tripping" will be revised to specifically provide that a two minute minor penalty will be assessed when a defending player "dives" and trips an attacking player with his body/arm/shoulder, regardless of whether the defending player is able to make initial contact with the puck.

But, in situations where a penalty shot might otherwise be appropriate, if the defending player "dives" and touches the puck first (before the trip), no penalty shot will be awarded. (In such cases, the resulting penalty will be limited to a two-minute minor penalty for tripping.)

Rule 76 – Face-offs

To curb delay tactics on face-offs after icing infractions, in situations where the defending team is guilty of a face-off violation, following an icing, the defending player who is initially lined up for the face-off will be given a warning, but will be required to remain in the circle to take the face-off. A second face-off violation by the defending team in such situation will result in a two minute minor bench penalty.

Rule 85 – Puck Out of Bounds

There have been further rule changes made relating to face-off location to avoid penalizing teams for plays intended to create bona fide scoring opportunities. Specifically, the following are "categories of plays" where face-offs will remain in the attacking zone despite the fact that the attacking team was technically responsible for the stoppage in play: Shots at the net by a player on the attacking team where: (i) the shot breaks the glass; (ii) the shot goes off the side of the net and deflects out of play; (iii) the shot goes off the dasher boards or glass and deflects out of play; (iv) the shot is tipped or deflected out of play by a teammate; and (v) the shot becomes wedged in or on the exterior of the goal net.
 
I've always hated the trapezoid.
As far as I'm concerned if the goalie wants to act like a defenceman, let him just so long as the fore checker can treat him like a defenceman too.
 
Nope, no trapezoid at all.
Crease only safe zone. If goalies doesn't want to get bumped, stay there.
 
I don't know about treating them just like defensemen... I remember there was a lot of controversy when Lucic "bumped" Ryan Miller and that was open ice. Can you imagine the hoop-la when goalies start getting crunched against the boards? What I don't like about the trapezoid was you are punishing 99.9% of goalies because a very select few, in fact I can't think of one outside of Brodeur, can shoot a puck as well or better than a forward. It just isn't a skill encouraged for goalies. Their job is to stop pucks, if they can act like a third d-man on top of that by getting the puck to the blue line or beyond, more power too them, but not many can do that. Brodeur himself said that by removing the red line that now allowed him to simply do the same thing, but from his crease... sooo... way to go pointless trapezoid.

Overall i'm ok with this set of rule changes. I miss the days of Win, Lose, Tie. I HATE the shootout all together, but oh well. I also hate that just making it to OT awards the losing team a point because they technically tied in regulation... bullshit, the end result was a loss so no point should be given. I think I have raged enough for one day.
 
The first 80 years of hockey the trapezoid wasn't needed because goalies stayed in their nets.
Ron Hextall is the first guy I remember to really push that boundary.
As far as I'm concerned, the league reacted the wrong way by legislating to protect his behaviour.
 
I don't know that the trapezoid made as much a difference in opening up the game as pulling the two-line pass, anyway.
 
Back
Top