The Martin Brodeur Rule may be repealed (finally)

Apparently, talks of removing the Martin Brodeurozoid have heated up again. Lets hope it's true. This is IMO the dumbest rule change in my lifetime.


PUCKDADDY
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Death-to-the-trapezoid-NHLPA-talks-about-dumpin?urn=nhl,123227

TSN
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/darren_dreger/?id=256415&lid=sublink01&lpos=headlines_columnists-darren_dreger

In compensation to Brodeur, Turco and Di Pietro. Every teams GM that voted FOR the trapzoid, their teams goalie has to abide by the trapazoid rule for the same duration that the trapazoid rule was in effect.

Three seasons. While Brodeur, Turco and Di Pietro can wander to the corners and stickhandle the puck, while the other teams goalie can't.

Seems fair to me.

That rule is a f***ing disgrace. There is no point to that rule. It was a direct shot at Broduer,. Dipi and turk, Its time to let it go. it does nothing to speed up the game and if anything leads to some devestating hits in the corners, which is a huge concern now in the league (van ryn injury and so forth)


Get rid of the Anti-broduer rule

In compensation to Brodeur, Turco and Di Pietro. Every teams GM that voted FOR the trapzoid, their teams goalie has to abide by the trapazoid rule for the same duration that the trapazoid rule was in effect.

Three seasons. While Brodeur, Turco and Di Pietro can wander to the corners and stickhandle the puck, while the other teams goalie can't.

Seems fair to me.

How would that be different than just getting rid of it altogether?! :sarcasm:

No matter how they justify it, getting rid of that retarded idea is the only way to make up for coming up with it in the first place. Hey! How about "2pt. scoring zones" next? OOO! Or they could be forced to wear little bungee cords and trampoline their way to the net.

Players so good that they basically forced the league to change the rules.
Bob Gibson
Martin Brodeur

No matter how they justify it, getting rid of that retarded idea is the only way to make up for coming up with it in the first place. Hey! How about "2pt. scoring zones" next? OOO! Or they could be forced to wear little bungee cords and trampoline their way to the net.

BRILLIANT!
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/guinness_commercial.jpg

Say what you will, but goalies handling the puck back there kills scoring chances and makes it much easier for teams to clog up the zone. Even the average goaltender who plays the puck can kill a forecheck. I don't see how it's such a travesty that they can't play the puck in the corner, if anything it should be extended to anywhere behind the goal line. It's alot better to do that than call a million little hooking and holding penalties.

If they really wanted to stop injuries they'd also put in no touch icing.

Say what you will, but goalies handling the puck back there kills scoring chances and makes it much easier for teams to clog up the zone. Even the average goaltender who plays the puck can kill a forecheck. I don't see how it's such a travesty that they can't play the puck in the corner, if anything it should be extended to anywhere behind the goal line. It's alot better to do that than call a million little hooking and holding penalties.

There are just as many instances that a goalie handiling the puck can add to offense as well. It is an unneccessary rule.
If they want more goals, dont let goalies like Giguere and Lundqvist wear mattresses under their sweaters and on their legs.
I do agree about the no touch icing though.

But what about the times where teams are not forechecking... and simply dumping it into get a line change? That was Brodeur's move, to catch the team off-guard, grab the puck and flip it up to a forward. It creates a scoring chance in that way.

This, combined with the lack of a "2-line pass" should create some interesting chances.

As for as killing a forecheck... many goalies leave the puck back there when 2-3 opposing forwards are crashing into your zone. If you don't, then you're stupid!

And you still need some skill to actually play the puck correctly.

But what about the times where teams are not forechecking... and simply dumping it into get a line change? That was Brodeur's move, to catch the team off-guard, grab the puck and flip it up to a forward. It creates a scoring chance in that way.

This, combined with the lack of a "2-line pass" should create some interesting chances.

As for as killing a forecheck... many goalies leave the puck back there when 2-3 opposing forwards are crashing into your zone. If you don't, then you're stupid!

And you still need some skill to actually play the puck correctly.

Its was a little counterproductive in that respect for generating scoring chances from the back end. When I heard that the 2 line pass was going to be abolished, I was excited about how many scoring chances would be started by goaltenders, but when I found out about the trapezoid, it killed the idea. It was stupid at its inception, and proves that it can in fact slow down the play and cause injuries.

Say what you will, but goalies handling the puck back there kills scoring chances and makes it much easier for teams to clog up the zone.

Wrong.

Goalies leaving the net increase the likelihood of mistakes, thus increasing the amount of scoring chances which lead to goals.

Why do you think Detroit basically told Hasek to never leave the net to play the puck even just behind the net?

It also serves the new NHL paradigm of keeping play going as they will not have as many icing calls while the team changes lines and the goalies play the puck up to the forwards trying to catch them in transition.

It also decreases the amount of checks occurring on icing touch ups and corner plays on dumps where many checks from behind and hits to the head happen - both at the forefront of NHL concerns this season.

The trapezoid was the lamest rule change since no-tag up offsides and the no-fly zone crease rule which also only lasted a few years each thankfully.

Next up; get rid of the point for a shootout loss. Shootout loss worth ZERO POINTS. You shouldn't get anything for losing! :rant: I'm ok with keeping a single point for OT loss, but make them really fight to win there in that 5 minutes with the incentive that if it goes beyond that, that point is no longer guaranteed.

Wrong.

Goalies leaving the net increase the likelihood of mistakes, thus increasing the amount of scoring chances which lead to goals.

Why do you think Detroit basically told Hasek to never leave the net to play the puck even just behind the net?

It also serves the new NHL paradigm of keeping play going as they will not have as many icing calls while the team changes lines and the goalies play the puck up to the forwards trying to catch them in transition.

It also decreases the amount of checks occurring on icing touch ups and corner plays on dumps where many checks from behind and hits to the head happen - both at the forefront of NHL concerns this season.

The trapezoid was the lamest rule change since no-tag up offsides and the no-fly zone crease rule which also only lasted a few years each thankfully.

Next up; get rid of the point for a shootout loss. Shootout loss worth ZERO POINTS. You shouldn't get anything for losing! :rant: I'm ok with keeping a single point for OT loss, but make them really fight to win there in that 5 minutes with the incentive that if it goes beyond that, that point is no longer guaranteed.

Definitely agree. The shootout has basically rendered overtime useless. I feel like the players try for the first minute or so, then basically give up and just waste time to get to the shootout.

Next up; get rid of the point for a shootout loss. Shootout loss worth ZERO POINTS. You shouldn't get anything for losing! :rant: I'm ok with keeping a single point for OT loss, but make them really fight to win there in that 5 minutes with the incentive that if it goes beyond that, that point is no longer guaranteed.

That makes no sense. You reward a team that loses earlier in the game, with less effort exerted, than later in the game? Yeah, teams will be more open in the OT, however the amount of games going to a shootout will not decline precipitously. Then you are letting the entirety of the game be decided by a skills contest that can be very random and is not at all indicative of team play. Talk about unfairly skewing the standings for the sake of an exciting 5 minutes of OT play.

Wrong.

Goalies leaving the net increase the likelihood of mistakes, thus increasing the amount of scoring chances which lead to goals.

Why do you think Detroit basically told Hasek to never leave the net to play the puck even just behind the net?


that was something else I was gonna touch on. We haven't seen as many fluky goals scored because the goalie was trying to be another defender

No matter how they justify it, getting rid of that retarded idea is the only way to make up for coming up with it in the first place. Hey! How about "2pt. scoring zones" next? OOO! Or they could be forced to wear little bungee cords and trampoline their way to the net.

Oh god, just imagine Hasek tied to the net with one of those bungie things :laugh:

Definitely agree. The shootout has basically rendered overtime useless. I feel like the players try for the first minute or so, then basically give up and just waste time to get to the shootout.

I think it depends on the team. THe Devils are very good at the shootout, but aren't really built for 4 on 4. For them, biding their time until the shootout is a good option. For teams that excel at 4 on 4 and suck eggs in the shootout, it's not a better option.

Next up; get rid of the point for a shootout loss. Shootout loss worth ZERO POINTS. You shouldn't get anything for losing! :rant: I'm ok with keeping a single point for OT loss, but make them really fight to win there in that 5 minutes with the incentive that if it goes beyond that, that point is no longer guaranteed.

AMEN RG. I knew I liked you.

Or have a standard win be 3 points. I don't like the idea of 3 point games when you can win in regulation and only get 2.

So...no one sees a problem with letting the totality of the game be decided by a skills competition that displaces emphasis on the team and puts it on the individual? Ok then.

Best answer: eliminate shootout, keep single point for OT.

Best answer: eliminate shootout, keep single point for OT.

Winning team gets 2, loosing team gets 1?

I think it depends on the team. THe Devils are very good at the shootout, but aren't really built for 4 on 4. For them, biding their time until the shootout is a good option. For teams that excel at 4 on 4 and suck eggs in the shootout, it's not a better option.

Thats basically a waste of time then. I feel that we should save everyone's time and for those teams that are better at shootouts, just agree to skip OT and go straight to the shootout. Basically, no matter how you look at it, there will be some kind of inherent flaw in whatever decision is made.

Winning team gets 2, loosing team gets 1?

"you'll get nothing and like it!"

http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Judge%20Elihu%20Smails%20caddyshack.jpg

"you'll get nothing and like it!"

http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Judge%20Elihu%20Smails%20caddyshack.jpg

How would you like to come over and mow my lawn? Ah? Oh-hoh? Hah Hah

Call him crazy, but I've always liked Chico's idea of keeping the 5 minute 4 on 4 and then replacing the shootout with 5 minutes 3 on 3. It would open up the ice a lot more and I think scoring would be inevitable. What happens if neither team scores on the 3 on 3 though? 2 on 2? Haha.

If they want more goals, dont let goalies like Giguere and Lundqvist wear mattresses under their sweaters and on their legs.

It comes down to the best kept dirty secret of the NHL, which is that some rules ARENT enacted for the good of the game, but for GM advantage. More GM's have goalies that cant handle the puck, thus you can get a vote passed to cripple Brodeur, Turco, DP, and a few others. Now that there are a decent # of teams that have goalies that all max out on the ridiculous equipment size (Rule 21), it becomes difficult to change that rule even though it's SO painfully obvious that this would be the NUMBER ONE WAY to increase scoring. Because the GM's of teams like Canucks, Ducks, Rangers etc... wont want to vote for a rule that is for the good of the game if it hurts their team.


You reward a team that loses earlier in the game, with less effort exerted, than later in the game? Yeah, teams will be more open in the OT, however the amount of games going to a shootout will not decline precipitously. Then you are letting the entirety of the game be decided by a skills contest that can be very random and is not at all indicative of team play (and NO to 3x3 hockey, that's like turning the NHL into a 10am local rink pickup game)

Exactly, which is why you cant take away the SO losers point. And those Shootouts are taking FOREVER these days. Cleaning the ice, getting the coaches picks into the refs, the entire process takes a while. I'd rather they just double OT play to 10 minutes and reinstate the tie. The "extra" 5 minutes of OT wouldnt take much longer then the cumulative gimmick process and would resolve many games with a winner. I'd be fine with the loser getting 1 point in such a scenario, but you want that extra point? Fine, you have to EARN it in the 10 minute OT.

It comes down to the best kept dirty secret of the NHL, which is that some rules ARENT enacted for the good of the game, but for GM advantage. More GM's have goalies that cant handle the puck, thus you can get a vote passed to cripple Brodeur, Turco, DP, and a few others. Now that there are a decent # of teams that have goalies that all max out on the ridiculous equipment size (Rule 21), it becomes difficult to change that rule even though it's SO painfully obvious that this would be the NUMBER ONE WAY to increase scoring. Because the GM's of teams like Canucks, Ducks, Rangers etc... wont want to vote for a rule that is for the good of the game if it hurts their team.

Wow, that basically summed up how I've felt for some time now.


Exactly, which is why you cant take away the SO losers point. And those Shootouts are taking FOREVER these days. Cleaning the ice, getting the coaches picks into the refs, the entire process takes a while. I'd rather they just double OT play to 10 minutes and reinstate the tie. The "extra" 5 minutes of OT wouldnt take much longer then the cumulative gimmick process and would resolve many games with a winner. I'd be fine with the loser getting 1 point in such a scenario, but you want that extra point? Fine, you have to EARN it in the 10 minute OT.

I actually agree to an extent. It feels like 2 hours go by to get to the shootout. I honestly didn't mind ties, and as I said, I don't think its right for certain teams to just waste away that 5 minutes knowing they have a point. Going back to the old system, or even your 10 minute OT will definitely deter teams from sitting back. A heavy forecheck/run and gun type team like buffalo would benefit tremendously.

like robb said, I think that Chico's idea is the best and could appease all parties involved.

3 on 3 would definitely open up the ice and would allow for a fun 5 minutes of hockey. If that fails to produce a winner, then leave it at a tie.

THAT is how hockey should be played.

They don't need to play 3 on 3 after five minutes. They just need to extend the OT period to 10 minutes. Think about there is on average about 6 goal per game (I think the actual number is 5.9 this year). That averages out to about 1 goal every 10 minutes of the game. You extend the OT and keep 4 on 4 most games should end in that time.

The fact is 5 minutes for overtime is too short. You have about 2 or 3 minutes of team actually trying to score if nothing happens in that thime they start to play it safe for the shootout. If ou extend OT you get more of that going for it time.

I like watching the shootout. But I like the 10 min overtime idea. However I still like to see the shootout after 10 mins.

your 10 minute OT will definitely deter teams from sitting back. A heavy forecheck/run and gun type team like buffalo would benefit tremendously.

And isnt that what they want in the first place? To increase and reward offense!! It just makes sense.

They don't need to play 3 on 3 after five minutes. They just need to extend the OT period to 10 minutes.

I am firmly against 3x3. What an embarrassment to the game. :facepalm: Total pond hockey. Lets play NFL overtime 5x5, wont that be exciting. Just like flag football. Not.

I like the 10 min overtime idea. However I still like to see the shootout after 10 mins.

The problem there is it's television unfriendly. I think you run the risk of games being longer than 3 hours if you do 10 minute OT plus a Shootoub.

I think 5 additional minutes of OT would take about as long as the entire current shootout process (wait time, ice cleaning shootout), which is why the replacement would be easy from a TV time management standpoint.

But I don't like ties. Ties makes it somehow unfinished. I want to know as a fan that one side was just slightly better than the other. Plus I enjoy seeing individual skill from the players to showcase their abilities. Something you don't always see during the game.

Ties are awful. Just say no to ties. Besides, shootouts are exciting. Who doesn't like seeing Zach pull his ridiculous backhand move, or watching Clemmer stone Ovechkin?

They need to make all games three points. For a win in regulation or overtime the winner gets all 3 and the loser gets none. Once it goes to a shootout the winner gets 2 and the loser gets 1.

That way there is a definite incentive to try and win in overtime, but if it goes to the skills competition the loser doesn't get screwed.

I know they're a little gimicky, but I kind of like watching shootouts. Especially if I'm with a friend that doesn't normally watch hockey. it's exciting for them

Ties are awful. Just say no to ties.

I guess I'm in the minority (or so the hockey-loving public was led to believe), but I never had a problem with ties. Sometimes I feel it's the appropriate result for an evenly played hard fought game. I am in the old school camp that feels a SO is a complete bastardization of the game.

I think it works by age. I think if you're say <29 or 30 years old you likely think the SO is great, and if you're say >29 or 30 years old, you probably are in the camp that thinks the SO is gimmicky.

I guess I'm in the minority (or so the hockey-loving public was led to believe), but I never had a problem with ties. Sometimes I feel it's the appropriate result for an evenly played hard fought game. I am in the old school camp that feels a SO is a complete bastardization of the game.

I think it works by age. I think if you're say <29 or 30 years old you likely think the SO is great, and if you're say >29 or 30 years old, you probably are in the camp that thinks the SO is gimmicky.

I'm ok with either, really. I think shootouts are exciting. But at the same time, I understand how a tie is sometimes just appropriate.

I don't feel its a bastardization, because I feel hockey and soccer are similar sports... and they have shootouts in soccer

I don't mind the shootouts. What really gripes me is that teams play for the shootout by basically shutting things down during the last 5 minutes of regulation and the 5 minute overtime.

I've been a proponent of making OT for 10 minutes 4 on 4 and then going to a 5 round shootout. Get rid of the OT loss and just make things W-L. I hate it how a team like Tampa is 5-13 but yet has the same amount of points as a 7-10 Atlanta team.

Next up; get rid of the point for a shootout loss. Shootout loss worth ZERO POINTS. You shouldn't get anything for losing! :rant: I'm ok with keeping a single point for OT loss, but make them really fight to win there in that 5 minutes with the incentive that if it goes beyond that, that point is no longer guaranteed.

I agree with most of that, but let's just get rid of the 1 point completely. You either win (be it in regulation, OT or the shootout) or you don't. The whole idea that some games are worth 3 points in the standings while others are worth 2 is ridiculous.

Hey look at this...BG and I agree on something!

I don't mind ties either!

I agree with most of that, but let's just get rid of the 1 point completely.

Now that I think about it - yes you're right.

I think everyone would agree teams should try to win in regulation and not sit back and take the 'safe' route to a guaranteed 1 point. That is no fun for the fans, not good for promoting the game on TV, and only takes value away from teams that win in regulation with regards to the standings.

I think a decreasing scale of value for the points would address the needs of the league, fans, and television broadcasters by motivating the teams to win in the least amount of time - period.

To successfully do this however, you have to create a 3 pt win system, and as much as I hate that idea as it totally screws up the historical records, the NHL has already done that with the OT loss point so why not fix it once and for all;

Regulation win - 3 pts
4 on 4 OT win (extend to 10 min) - 2 pt
Shootout win - 1 pt

Most importantly - no points for any form of a loss.

For the record I love the excitement of the shootout, it's almost as fun to watch as it is to do as a player - but it really deflates the quality and meaning of a win in my opinion as a team sport should not boil down to a 1 on 1 skills competition as many have stated before me. It also should NEVER EVER be considered in a playoff format which seems to crop up every year now when there is a triple OT game or longer.

I agree with most of that, but let's just get rid of the 1 point completely. You either win (be it in regulation, OT or the shootout) or you don't. The whole idea that some games are worth 3 points in the standings while others are worth 2 is ridiculous.

Yeah what really pisses me off about that is that a team can miss the playoffs just because a team has a lot of shootout/OT losses and they just have a lot of reg. ones.

Nothing was worse than last year then when Carolina missed out on the playoffs, yet they had 2 more wins than Boston.

i dont really mind the shootouts either to be honest, but i would extend the OT to 10 minutes of 4-4

How did this go from a trapezoid discussion to a shootout. Back on topic dammit

Regulation win - 3 pts
4 on 4 OT win (extend to 10 min) - 2 pt
Shootout win - 1 pt

Most importantly - no points for any form of a loss.

This is a terrible idea. Giving a team THREE times the points for one type of win rather than another is nonsensical. Wins should count equally.

Regardless, I do not think you can have 10 minutes of overtime AND a Shootout from a practical standpoint as I believe it will make the broadcasts too long.

How did this go from a trapezoid discussion to a shootout. Back on topic dammit

You're new here aren't you... :laugh:

http://www.mrtandme.com/images/gallery/large/cerealone1.jpg

I pity you...

How did this go from a trapezoid discussion to a shootout. Back on topic dammit

Good point. I can talk about banning the Martin Brodeurozoid all day long I hate it so much.

Ties a too much like damn soccer. "and the game ends in a brilliant!!!! . . . . . 0-0 draw" **** off!!
I love how hockey "has" to have a winner.

Now that I think about it - yes you're right.

I think everyone would agree teams should try to win in regulation and not sit back and take the 'safe' route to a guaranteed 1 point. That is no fun for the fans, not good for promoting the game on TV, and only takes value away from teams that win in regulation with regards to the standings.

I think a decreasing scale of value for the points would address the needs of the league, fans, and television broadcasters by motivating the teams to win in the least amount of time - period.

To successfully do this however, you have to create a 3 pt win system, and as much as I hate that idea as it totally screws up the historical records, the NHL has already done that with the OT loss point so why not fix it once and for all;

Regulation win - 3 pts
4 on 4 OT win (extend to 10 min) - 2 pt
Shootout win - 1 pt

Most importantly - no points for any form of a loss.

For the record I love the excitement of the shootout, it's almost as fun to watch as it is to do as a player - but it really deflates the quality and meaning of a win in my opinion as a team sport should not boil down to a 1 on 1 skills competition as many have stated before me. It also should NEVER EVER be considered in a playoff format which seems to crop up every year now when there is a triple OT game or longer.

I understand the logic of trying to force teams to win it in regulation but casual or new fans would be confused and likely turned off by the thought that a win could mean anyone of 3 different point totals based on when it happened.

Considering how much the NHL does for its "new" fans (as opposed to it's diehards) I don't see them going for that kind of system.


Yeah what really pisses me off about that is that a team can miss the playoffs just because a team has a lot of shootout/OT losses and they just have a lot of reg. ones.

Nothing was worse than last year then when Carolina missed out on the playoffs, yet they had 2 more wins than Boston.

Making all games worth 2 points to the winner and 0 for the loser would likely make teams that are strong in the shootout try to extend the game and not win it in regulation, but conversely, the team that isn't strong after 60 would try very hard to win it before OT.

As you said, I have a big problem with teams making the playoffs because they lost in OT or the shootout more times than a team with the same amount of wins.

The league isn't going to get rid of the loser point in the OT/SO. It creates false parity in the league which keeps teams in the playoff hunt for longer, which in turn creates more interest for the local team and thus more revenue.

The league isn't going to get rid of the loser point in the OT/SO. It creates false parity in the league which keeps teams in the playoff hunt for longer, which in turn creates more interest for the local team and thus more revenue.

Though the avatar implies some sort of mental disfunction, there is wisdom in those words.

It comes down to the best kept dirty secret of the NHL, which is that some rules ARENT enacted for the good of the game, but for GM advantage. More GM's have goalies that cant handle the puck, thus you can get a vote passed to cripple Brodeur, Turco, DP, and a few others. Now that there are a decent # of teams that have goalies that all max out on the ridiculous equipment size (Rule 21), it becomes difficult to change that rule even though it's SO painfully obvious that this would be the NUMBER ONE WAY to increase scoring. Because the GM's of teams like Canucks, Ducks, Rangers etc... wont want to vote for a rule that is for the good of the game if it hurts their team.




Exactly, which is why you cant take away the SO losers point. And those Shootouts are taking FOREVER these days. Cleaning the ice, getting the coaches picks into the refs, the entire process takes a while. I'd rather they just double OT play to 10 minutes and reinstate the tie. The "extra" 5 minutes of OT wouldnt take much longer then the cumulative gimmick process and would resolve many games with a winner. I'd be fine with the loser getting 1 point in such a scenario, but you want that extra point? Fine, you have to EARN it in the 10 minute OT.

Just go to the Baseball/Basketball format, continuous OT until there is a winner...

The league isn't going to get rid of the loser point in the OT/SO. It creates false parity in the league which keeps teams in the playoff hunt for longer, which in turn creates more interest for the local team and thus more revenue.

to paraphrase;

OT/SO loser points don't make sense.
False parity = revenue.
Bettman* wins.

*in this example Bettman is being used as a label for the entire league, GM's, and board of governors.

Just go to the Baseball/Basketball format, continuous OT until there is a winner...

Unfortunately for Hockey fans, Baseball has the TV ratings to actually convince broadcasters to keep airing it. Prolonged OT's in hockey cut into valuable pre-race interviews with the horses at the Preakness.

Though the avatar implies some sort of mental disfunction, there is wisdom in those words.
I'm a Canuck fan who happens to be a Naslund fanboy so don't worry. Although I'm not a big Devils fan anyway so...

to paraphrase;

OT/SO loser points don't make sense.
False parity = revenue.
Bettman* wins.

*in this example Bettman is being used as a label for the entire league, GM's, and board of governors.
Essentially yes. It took me a while to understand why this flawed system continued to be in place but then when you look at it, it makes perfect sense from the league's POV. As a fan, it annoys me to no end but good luck getting the league to change this.

Please let this happen. I hate the ****ing trapezoid.

About the point breakdown:
3 points for regulation win
2 points for OT/shootut win
1 point for OT/shootout loss
0 points for regulation loss

I don't like the idea of penalizing a team that wins in OT.

How about, simply:
Win in regulation - 2
Win in overtime - 2
Win in shootout - 1


No points recorded for a loss. You would keep team point levels from getting to ridiculous numbers like 150, but you solve the inequity seen with the current post-regulation points distribution.

Apparently, talks of removing the Martin Brodeurozoid have heated up again. Lets hope it's true. This is IMO the dumbest rule change in my lifetime.


PUCKDADDY
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Death-to-the-trapezoid-NHLPA-talks-about-dumpin?urn=nhl,123227

TSN
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/darren_dreger/?id=256415&lid=sublink01&lpos=headlines_columnists-darren_dreger

I hope so..stupid Milbury drafts DP and then votes for this rule. What an idiot.

Players so good that they basically forced the league to change the rules.
Bob Gibson
Martin Brodeur

Sean Avery :sarcasm:

Thank god! One of the dumbest rule-changes in hockey can't go away quick enough. Anyone ever try explaining the trapezoid rule to a kid?

I am not sure if this is correct, but I thought Bobby Clarke spearheaded this rule totally against Marty, in response to him killing the flyers forecheck game after game, playoff series after playoff series.

I am not sure if this is correct, but I thought Bobby Clarke spearheaded this rule totally against Marty, in response to him killing the flyers forecheck game after game, playoff series after playoff series.

That's how I remember it. Clarke's last FU to the NHL before he left.

That rule is a f***ing disgrace. There is no point to that rule. It was a direct shot at Broduer,. Dipi and turk, Its time to let it go. it does nothing to speed up the game and if anything leads to some devestating hits in the corners, which is a huge concern now in the league (van ryn injury and so forth)


Get rid of the Anti-broduer rule

this is a good rule, it just happens to negatively effect the devils. prior to this rule forechecking was near impossible (obstruction the other cause). with goalies allowed to play the puck it basically negates a quality forecheck. the devils did benefit from this not being a rule due to brodeurs ability to handle puck.

where the nhl got it wrong in my opinion is that they should let the goalie play the everywhere but the trapazoid. they also need to let defensman physically punish opposition players when standing in front of net.

try and look at this rule for the good of the nhl. i think limiting goaltender stickhandling is a good thing. it is very boring when forecheck is limited...imo

this is a good rule, it just happens to negatively effect the devils. prior to this rule forechecking was near impossible (obstruction the other cause). with goalies allowed to play the puck it basically negates a quality forecheck. the devils did benefit from this not being a rule due to brodeurs ability to handle puck.

where the nhl got it wrong in my opinion is that they should let the goalie play the everywhere but the trapazoid. they also need to let defensman physically punish opposition players when standing in front of net.

try and look at this rule for the good of the nhl. i think limiting goaltender stickhandling is a good thing. it is very boring when forecheck is limited...imo

Boo this man!

Boo this man!

:nod:

this is a good rule, it just happens to negatively effect the devils. prior to this rule forechecking was near impossible (obstruction the other cause). with goalies allowed to play the puck it basically negates a quality forecheck. the devils did benefit from this not being a rule due to brodeurs ability to handle puck.

where the nhl got it wrong in my opinion is that they should let the goalie play the everywhere but the trapazoid. they also need to let defensman physically punish opposition players when standing in front of net.

try and look at this rule for the good of the nhl. i think limiting goaltender stickhandling is a good thing. it is very boring when forecheck is limited...imo

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/4/3/23/f_jm_e86ef81.jpg

The rule is dumb and should be removed. But if you look at the Van Ryn hit, there is no way Toskala would have played that puck. The Habs were applying heavy pressure and the puck was in the corner. No way.

this is a good rule, it just happens to negatively effect the devils. prior to this rule forechecking was near impossible (obstruction the other cause). with goalies allowed to play the puck it basically negates a quality forecheck. the devils did benefit from this not being a rule due to brodeurs ability to handle puck.

where the nhl got it wrong in my opinion is that they should let the goalie play the everywhere but the trapazoid. they also need to let defensman physically punish opposition players when standing in front of net.

try and look at this rule for the good of the nhl. i think limiting goaltender stickhandling is a good thing. it is very boring when forecheck is limited...imo

Wait, I thought dump and chase hockey was boring? Wouldn't puck handling goalies encourage more teams to pass/carry through the neutral zone creating more turnovers and Johnny Oduya solo goodness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWHwJjbSjUE)?

Its was a little counterproductive in that respect for generating scoring chances from the back end. When I heard that the 2 line pass was going to be abolished, I was excited about how many scoring chances would be started by goaltenders, but when I found out about the trapezoid, it killed the idea. It was stupid at its inception, and proves that it can in fact slow down the play and cause injuries.

You nailed it - they came up with a few good rules (allowing touch up offsides, abolishing 2-line pass rule) and then totally overdid it without thinking about how they were shooting their own ideas about creating "excitement" (trapezoid, call penalties every 30 seconds to kill gameplay) down. Now's the time to just admit it went too far, scale that **** back a bit, and move the **** on. Too much of anything is bad. Let it see-saw out a bit; getting rid of that bush-league looking shape behind the net is a great step at making the league look like a major sport. For christ's sake, the average sports fan can't even digest offsides.

this is a good rule...


...where the nhl got it wrong in my opinion is that they should let the goalie play the everywhere but the trapazoid. they also need to let defensman physically punish opposition players when standing in front of net.

try and look at this rule for the good of the nhl. i think limiting goaltender stickhandling is a good thing. it is very boring when forecheck is limited...imo

Dude, 2 very important reasons I disagree with you (and the fact that I am a Devils fan is #3)...

1) you just said it's a good rule, but it should have been made the opposite of itself

2) dump and chase hockey is easily watched FOR FREE at your local Youth/Adult hockey rink.

No need to watch people get $5-6M a year to play it. Besides, it only gets defensed by teams dropping 4-5 GUYS below the ****ing FACEOFF DOTS! All this "rapid fire" scoring nonsense is on 5 on 4 or 5 on 3 play. The goal totals aren't adding up, and that is for ONE reason: teams will adapt, and they will find a way to play solid defense. Because that is what wins. So change the rules and watch another team do it better for a while, then do it again and again. Defense isn't going away.

For crying out loud, do you hear what people are saying now?! People honestly think it's a good idea to penalize players for BLOCKING SHOTS. Is this the road anyone who gives a **** about hockey wants to go down?