Comments on: Thoughts on the New NHL

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:40:53 +0000

Just to clarify: that is another Ian. I did not comment “great article” about my own article. But yes, I completely agree with your addition.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:55:39 +0000

Great article. I’d like to add one rule change. Actually, it’s not so much a rule change, but actually enforcing an existing set of rules: boarding and hitting from behind. Both exist in the NHL, but without a severe injury, neither is actually called.

If you watch the Coach’s Corner clip above you will see that Ponikarovsky gets hit from behind. What was the call? Two minutes for boarding. Personally, I think hits that are that bad deserve much more than two minutes in the box. Now, I’m not suggesting you suspend the player or anything, but make the punishment more severe. Either a double-minor (4 min) or a five minute major and a game misconduct (those two have to go hand-in-hand).

There are numerous hits like that every year that lead to injury and frankly, I think they are unacceptable. These players are only going to get injured, and injured badly. It’s only a matter of time until the NHL has its own Brad Hornung (who broke his neck playing junior in the late 80s) at which point the rules will have to change. However, I ask, why does it have to take a serious injury to prompt this rule change. All of these players have grown up in hockey that has had hitting from behind rules where (generally) you receive a 2 or 5 min penalty, a game misconduct, and up to a 3 game suspension. I see no reason why this has to change when they reach the NHL.

Many people will argue that a crack down on hitting will make hockey less exciting, but I disagree. A good clean hit is far better, far more exciting than a dangerous check – especially from behind – into the boards. Furthermore, I don’t think anybody thinks its exciting to see a dangerous hit that results in any kind of serious injury, which will inevitably happen as these hits are allowed to continue.

By: stu

stu — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:24:25 +0000

I agree with all of these except for divisional play – I agree it should be toned down a little, but I’d still like a lot of games between division rivals, just for more Pens/Flyers games.

Ruutu kicked Tucker’s ass this year, and recently had his ass kicked by that Lucic/Fake Cam Neely guy on the Bruins. He answers the bell, although not against true heavyweights.

That is all.

By: paul

paul — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:39:56 +0000

Great article, I agree with a lot of what you said. I absolutely hate all the divisional play. Eight games against the same teams over and over is too repititive. I like watching the Leafs playing teams from other conferences to see how they match up (usually they don’t match up).

Also, we have to get rid of the instigator rule. All these high sticks and indescretion with respect to hurting other players wouldn’t be as high if George Parros could come over and kick your ass without getting a penalty for starting the fight. I’m sick of the agitators like the Ruutu’s who hide behind the instigator rule and don’t have to fess up for their crimes on the skilled players of the game.

By: Blake Murphy

Blake Murphy — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:16:25 +0000

Couldn’t agree more Ian, clearly, from the by-line there. Divisional play is the stupidest idea ever – you need to play every team once at home, once away. This isn’t baseball. Home-and-home against each team in the opposite conference (30 games), 5 against division opponents (20 games), 3 against other conference opponents (30 games) rotating who gets the extra home game, and then a final 2 games the NHL can use for ‘rivalry creation’ or whatever.

Touch icing is just silly.

I have been the largest anti-shootout, anti-extra point person around. It’s stupid. You lost, 0 points. Suck it up.