Nhl Changes, New Rules
#1
Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:49 AM
The headshot rule is going to pass..No more hitting from side and behind.
Also a new rule is being passed regarding OT :
Real_ESPNLeBrun just spoke with Jackets GM Scott Howson whose tiebreak change went through with a unanimous vote by GMs today. It penalizes shootout wins
Under the tiebreak change, which still needs BOG approval in June, only regulation and overtime wins now count in the tiebreak formula
#2
Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:53 AM
A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline
#3
Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:55 AM
A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline
It sounds to me like a cop-out by the NHL. Instead of putting in a hard and fast 'NO HEAD HITS' rule like the NFL, they put in a rule is completely open for interpretation, and therefore susceptible to non-enforcement. The NHLPA was flat out lobbying for no head hits, while the BOG didn't want to put in any rule at all except for equipment changes to shoulder pads.
#4
Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:01 AM
#5
Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:04 AM
yes totally agree...Under this rule, Stevens/Lindros hit is legal...
Also saying the referee can give out a 2 minute minor is not much of a deterrent..They need to ban ALL head hits like you say.
This seems like a political move, to make it seem like they are doing something.
#6
Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:18 AM
I also love the idea for an 8-minute OT, 4 min 4-on-4, and then 3-on-3.
I doubt either will ever happen though.
#7
Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:42 AM
I also love the idea for an 8-minute OT, 4 min 4-on-4, and then 3-on-3.
I doubt either will ever happen though.
Really, what's the point of that? The whole season is a battle for the playoffs.
#8
Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:47 AM
I don't care for the 8 minute OT, either. I'd take 8 or 10 minutes of 4 on 4, but I don't want to see 3 on 3. That's just as gimicky as the shootout, as far as I'm concerned.
Like I've said before, I love the shootout. It's entertaining.
#9
Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:58 AM
#10
Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:59 AM
It would focus the battle on the 7th position instead of 8th. It's not like a 1/8 chance of getting the 8th seed is enough to settle for for any team, but it would sure make things exciting for a lot more teams come playoff time.
Honestly, it's just 5 years of no playoff hockey speaking more than anything, but I don't think it's a terrible idea.
#11
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:05 AM
Honestly, it's just 5 years of no playoff hockey speaking more than anything, but I don't think it's a terrible idea.
i think it would be great...A little bit of march madness, and you can still "tank" and have a shot at some playoff action. Arp would love it.
#12
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:07 AM
#13
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:07 AM
teams tank to get a better draft choice. This idea is to have teams battle for the final playoff spot so it obviously affects the standings.
This is a dumb idea...I can't believe I'm discussing it.
#14
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:11 AM
What are the other teams doing while this is going in?
#15
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:12 AM
This is a dumb idea...I can't believe I'm discussing it.
Take it up with Garth Snow..He devised the idea.
#16
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:13 AM
How about a singing contest for the final playoff spot? They love American idol too. Or maybe Crosby can be given roses to hand out.
#17
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:16 AM
It would only be 4 nights worth of games. It could be done in one week. a 1-week break before the playoffs start is pretty close to standard anyway.
#18
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:18 AM
is it any different than having a penalty shooting contest decide the winner of a game?
#19
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:18 AM
This is a dumb idea...I can't believe I'm discussing it.
Bill Simmons suggested something like this a few years ago (when his Celtics were openly tanking to try to get a better draft pick to get Greg Oden or Kevin Durant).
"Shorten the regular season by four games, guarantee the top six seeds in each conference, then have a double-elimination tourney for the seventh and eighth seeds between the remaining 15 teams. I suggest this for five reasons. First, it would be entertaining as hell. In fact, that's what we'll call it: the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament. Second, I'm pretty sure we could get it sponsored. Third, the top 12 teams get a reward: two weeks of rest while the tournament plays out.
Fourth, a Cinderella squad could pull off some upsets, grab an eighth seed and win fans along the way. And fifth, with the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament giving everyone a chance, no team could tank down the stretch without insulting paying customers beyond repair. That's the lamest thing about tanking: not that it's morally unsound, but that fans pay full price to see a depleted group of losers with dubious intentions. At a recent Bobcats-Celtics game, my father (a 34-year season ticket-holder) watched Boston toss away a double-digit lead while Pierce and Jefferson watched from the bench. To his right, a fan screamed at Doc Rivers, "You're doing the right thing!" To his left, another fan screamed that the collapse was "an absolute disgrace!" And as my father told me later, the disturbing thing was that both guys were right."
Moe: Yeah?
Homer: See, I got this friend named... Joey Jo Jo... Junior... Shabadoo.
Moe: That's the worst name I ever heard.
#20
Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:19 AM
Meh, this is a weak.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users










