2019-2020 NHL Preseason

1207208210212213228

Comments

  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,264


    Don Cherry coaches corner talking about equipment at the 2:20
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 10,111
    edited May 8
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 15,041
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Being a Blackhawks fan I am supposed to hate the Blues.  I certainly don't like them, but I was a big fan of Brett Hull growing up and I dislike Dallas more.  So, I'm pleased that the Blues have eliminated them but that is the last I root for St. Louis.  I will say their fans deserve the thrill & spoils of seeing their team lift the Cup, though.
    I liked Hull, but God did I love Al Macinnis.  He had that 100 mph slapper from the point, that came off like a ton of bricks.  Dude had to back off of it for fear of hurting people.  How many players have ever done that??
    I remember playing NHL '94 on SNES.  You could never shut out Calgary because he'd ALWAYS end up with a one-timer. Never failed.

    Ha, it's like a glitch in Double Dribble down in the corner with teh Lakers.  You couldn't miss.  
    Here's something I didn't know about Al..

    In 1999, he injured teammate and goalie Rich Parent during warmups, breaking his protective cup and rupturing a testicle.
    Hhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!  OUCH!!!
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 15,041
    edited May 8
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,264
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,990
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.
    I hate this more than any other replay issue in sports. If you over slide a bag by a foot, okay.  But the natural body movement when you hit a bag is stupid.  I don't mind baseball replay for fair pole home runs, out at first, and the like, but this one gets me.   

    What did you guys think of the replay call on the goaltenders interference last night (was that last night?).  To me, that was interference that should have been called, and it was missed.  I don't mind that.  The player elbowed the goalie in the end, and pushed him out of the crease.  It should have been no goal AND a penalty.  
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,745
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.
    I hate this more than any other replay issue in sports. If you over slide a bag by a foot, okay.  But the natural body movement when you hit a bag is stupid.  I don't mind baseball replay for fair pole home runs, out at first, and the like, but this one gets me.   

    What did you guys think of the replay call on the goaltenders interference last night (was that last night?).  To me, that was interference that should have been called, and it was missed.  I don't mind that.  The player elbowed the goalie in the end, and pushed him out of the crease.  It should have been no goal AND a penalty.  
    agree 100% with you and Dyer.  I like to say that type of call is against the spirit of the rule.  It's not why replay was put into the game. Replay was put in to atone for obvious or egregiously missed calls. not a quarter of an inch off the base, etc.  
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,264
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.
    I hate this more than any other replay issue in sports. If you over slide a bag by a foot, okay.  But the natural body movement when you hit a bag is stupid.  I don't mind baseball replay for fair pole home runs, out at first, and the like, but this one gets me.   

    What did you guys think of the replay call on the goaltenders interference last night (was that last night?).  To me, that was interference that should have been called, and it was missed.  I don't mind that.  The player elbowed the goalie in the end, and pushed him out of the crease.  It should have been no goal AND a penalty.  
    It was not last night?  All 3 goals were legit last night.  
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,745
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.
    I hate this more than any other replay issue in sports. If you over slide a bag by a foot, okay.  But the natural body movement when you hit a bag is stupid.  I don't mind baseball replay for fair pole home runs, out at first, and the like, but this one gets me.   

    What did you guys think of the replay call on the goaltenders interference last night (was that last night?).  To me, that was interference that should have been called, and it was missed.  I don't mind that.  The player elbowed the goalie in the end, and pushed him out of the crease.  It should have been no goal AND a penalty.  
    It was not last night?  All 3 goals were legit last night.  
    I believe he means the Boston-CBJ game 6 call.   Boston's over turned goal in the 1st period.
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 10,111
    edited May 8
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    Post edited by MayDay10 on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,990
    mrussel1 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.
    I hate this more than any other replay issue in sports. If you over slide a bag by a foot, okay.  But the natural body movement when you hit a bag is stupid.  I don't mind baseball replay for fair pole home runs, out at first, and the like, but this one gets me.   

    What did you guys think of the replay call on the goaltenders interference last night (was that last night?).  To me, that was interference that should have been called, and it was missed.  I don't mind that.  The player elbowed the goalie in the end, and pushed him out of the crease.  It should have been no goal AND a penalty.  
    It was not last night?  All 3 goals were legit last night.  
    Was it the Bruins game?  Geez, I've watched so much hockey, it's blending together.  Don't you remember, the forward came around and knocked the goalie out of the crease and then pushed him out further with a forearm to the back of the head.  Immediately the puck came out a few feet same side, and the other forward shot it in.  The goalie never had a chance to get back in position.  I think it was Bobrovski now that I'm thinking about.  Actually I'm sure it was because Torts did the challenge.  
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,264
    I am no basketball fan...but in no way can you ever convince me that basketball playoffs compare to the NHL playoffs...what did philly lose by in game 5...30 points or so...lol, how but that great competitive...bucks v Celtics...LMFAO if people think basketball is better than hockey.
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 10,111
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.
    I agree.  it has gotten out of hand.  The baseball one with losing contact with a base by a millimeter, (probably saving a broken ankle some of the time) makes me crazy.  The talk of the NHL implementing 5 minute major reviews pisses me off.  Let the ref make the call.  If they get it wrong, and my team gets screwed, so be it.

    All this reliance on technology is also making referees lax as they have this safety net.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,264
    The more reviews the longer the games will.  Did not know the league was considering reviewing majors, does this include non-calls?  Let the ref make the call every time, get rid of replay period...the game is played by humans, let humans officiate it and make all calls...
  • cutzcutz Posts: 8,338
    edited May 8
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    Post edited by cutz on
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,715
    I am no basketball fan...but in no way can you ever convince me that basketball playoffs compare to the NHL playoffs...what did philly lose by in game 5...30 points or so...lol, how but that great competitive...bucks v Celtics...LMFAO if people think basketball is better than hockey.
    It’s not even close in my opinion hockey rules ..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,715
    cutz said:
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    lol
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,264
    I am no basketball fan...but in no way can you ever convince me that basketball playoffs compare to the NHL playoffs...what did philly lose by in game 5...30 points or so...lol, how but that great competitive...bucks v Celtics...LMFAO if people think basketball is better than hockey.
    It’s not even close in my opinion hockey rules ..
    Jose...if things ever get so bad with Trump you can move to Canada...you'd be a great Canadian...you love weed and hockey...do you like beer?  If so, you might be Canadian already...
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,715
    I am no basketball fan...but in no way can you ever convince me that basketball playoffs compare to the NHL playoffs...what did philly lose by in game 5...30 points or so...lol, how but that great competitive...bucks v Celtics...LMFAO if people think basketball is better than hockey.
    It’s not even close in my opinion hockey rules ..
    Jose...if things ever get so bad with Trump you can move to Canada...you'd be a great Canadian...you love weed and hockey...do you like beer?  If so, you might be Canadian already...
    Lmao yes yes yes thanks I’d love too but my 1st choice would be to move back to Chile that’s where my heart is , you Canadians are the best I’m drinking a beer as I type 🤘
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 21,454
    Go Avalanche!
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,990
    Go Avalanche!
    Im still not over the Claude Lemieux years. 
  • VitalogensiaVitalogensia Posts: 1,227
    I was hoping for a last second goal to go to OT, but the Avs were fun to watch.  Hopefully the conference finals will continue to be as exciting as the rest of these playoffs.
    Virginia Beach 2000; Pittsburgh 2000; Columbus 2003; D.C. 2003; Pittsburgh 2006; Virginia Beach 2008; Cleveland 2010; PJ20 2011; Pittsburgh 2013; Baltimore 2013; Charlottesville 2013; Charlotte 2013; Lincoln 2014; Moline 2014; St. Paul 2014; Greenville 2016; Hampton 2016; Lexington 2016; Wrigley 2016; Prague 2018; Krakow 2018; Berlin 2018; Fenway 2018
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 17,194
    I hate to say it, but Go Blues in the West. 
    In the east --- go Canes!

    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 15,041
    Canes & Sharks!  An all ocean Final!  And it's even more meta since the Canes used to be the Whalers.

    Blues/Bruins sounds a bit like UCLA, no?
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,745
    i'm cheering for ABB - anyone but Boston

    Sharks for Joe Thornton in his 21st year would be cool.
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 17,194
    Canes & Sharks!  An all ocean Final!  And it's even more meta since the Canes used to be the Whalers.

    Blues/Bruins sounds a bit like UCLA, no?
    fUCLA

    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 10,111
    edited May 9
    cutz said:
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    I posted this way upthread, but:

    Patrick Roy circa 1986


    Patrick Roy 2001


    Not to mention you have larger and faster defenders with larger equipment, all trained to collapse in front of the net to reduce any chance of scoring a clean, not ricochet goal to roughly 0%
    Post edited by MayDay10 on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,990
    MayDay10 said:
    cutz said:
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    I posted this way upthread, but:

    Patrick Roy circa 1986


    Patrick Roy 2001


    Not to mention you have larger and faster defenders with larger equipment, all trained to collapse in front of the net to reduce any chance of scoring a clean, not ricochet goal to roughly 0%
    Increase the goal size if there is a safety concern. 
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 9,930

    This weekend we rock Portland
  • cutzcutz Posts: 8,338
    MayDay10 said:
    cutz said:
    MayDay10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

    And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

    Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

    Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  
    You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...
    Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


    look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

    I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.
    A friend of mine said to me, and this was about 15- 20 years ago, that the Goalies have so much equipment that they look like the Michelin Man:




    Image result for michelin man



    I posted this way upthread, but:

    Patrick Roy circa 1986


    Patrick Roy 2001


    Not to mention you have larger and faster defenders with larger equipment, all trained to collapse in front of the net to reduce any chance of scoring a clean, not ricochet goal to roughly 0%
    That's very telling.

     Back then a winger could come flying down the wing and could actually SOME net to take a shot at.  Now? They see NO net. 
Sign In or Register to comment.