Strong rumour- '16-17 brings more equipment change

[bunnyman666 445]

The grumblings of such rocket scientists like Mike "we need bigger goals" Babcock and Corey "baseball glove" Hirsch will probably mean that our stuff is going to change yet again.

I am actually not worried about it if the thigh rise is limited. I am not so certain, however, about shrinking the breezers. Form-fitting sweaters could increase GAA. I am NOT onboard for shrinking pad width, and shrinking the CA could be dangerous. Making the goals bigger would be a disaster IMO. Removing the integrated cheater from the glove would not do much.

What do you lot think? Most beer leagues do not enforce NHL equipment sizing requirements, so it only affects new gear purchased (unless you buy custom in old specs).

[Hills 712]

It probably won't even affect retail much. No pads today are limited in thigh length like the pros are.

Changes can be made obviously to thigh rises and shoulder pads (hello Passau squared shoulders). But nobody should be listening to Corey Hirsch at all, he is one of the best examples of Roger's hiring any ex player to show up on their show.

[bunnyman666 445]

I just don't see making the net bigger, myself.

I am only bringing it up because of the noises from Babs and Baseball Glove and then getting an e mail from Maria Mountain telling us that we had better prepare to become better athletes because of the upcoming changes that could be looming.

My bet is on breezers and sweaters to get the biggest changes, myself. I'm a lard arse, so my breezers fill the net from my excess gluteus and abdominal tissues, not from over-sized breezers.

[psulion22 402]

Goals are at the lowest per game since the mid-90's and are actually decreasing as the season goes on.

If you look at the analytics and systems of what is happening, it's clear that they need to do something to open more net to shoot at. They always mention "scoring", which is the basis of it, but it's also about opening up the game and bringing more creativity back into play. Defensive systems now take away the "guts" of the ice, where most goals are scored from. It's nearly impossible to carry or pass the puck through that area anymore. So most scoring changes originate from the lower scoring areas. According to the analytics of scoring and things like Corsi and Fenwick, that's the problem. Here's an example: draw a line from the center of the net out to the blue line, bisecting the offensive zone. On average, 1 of every 3 plays where the puck crosses that line and gets shot on net ends up being a goal. 1 of 3. Contrast that to plays that don't cross that center line, which result in a goal 1 out of every 37 times (iirc). Modern defensive systems are designed to take the high percentage scoring chances away. They will allow the offense to have possession along the boards and at the point, and take away the high scoring area and keep pucks from crossing that line. Add to that better, more athletic goalies that minimize the damage when mistakes happen (Lundqvist has only allowed 3 of 27 of chances that cross the center line) and it's just not a good mix. Defenses are only getting better and choking most of the offense out of the game.

The only answer is to increase the amount of space defenders need to cover. That will open space in the "guts" and more pucks to get across that center line. To do that, there are two options - either increase the effective scoring area or decrease the number of players on the ice defending the "guts". They are trying option 1. If you think making the nets bigger is getting resistance, imagine what going to 4v4 would get. Shrinking goalie thighs, pants, and C/a's, and also player shin guards, may improve that 1 for 37 number, which would make the defense have to cover more. Don't say that goalie gear can't get smaller because it won't be protective. That's not true. They will just have to change the materials and design of the gear. Current designs won't work if you shrink them, but that doesn't mean they can't redsign them to be form fitting and still protective by using more rigid materials and high impact absorbing foams (like Poron). They haven't done that yet because the emphasis is on taking up as much net as possible, so there's no reason to want to shrink gear.

[IPv6Freely 2093]

I don't have a problem with the reduction of oversized gear. That's specifically pants that are being worn two sizes too because "because why not", and some of the gigantic chest protectors. I also think it's always worth looking at whether modern technology can get us smaller yet equally safe protective equipment, but that goes for both goaltenders and players.

That being said, I don't think the problem is a lack of scoring so much as a lack of scoring opportunities. I don't think anyone in their right mind would complain about a 2-1 game that had a lot of scoring chances. The size of nets and goaltending equipment won't fix that. I don't have the answer, either. I personally think the BEST solution (or one of them) would be to go to Olympic sized ice to give players more room, but that's pretty unlikely to happen considering the number of prime seats they'd lose.

[psulion22 402]

I don't have a problem with the reduction of oversized gear. That's specifically pants that are being worn two sizes too because "because why not", and some of the gigantic chest protectors. I also think it's always worth looking at whether modern technology can get us smaller yet equally safe protective equipment, but that goes for both goaltenders and players.

That being said, I don't think the problem is a lack of scoring so much as a lack of scoring opportunities. I don't think anyone in their right mind would complain about a 2-1 game that had a lot of scoring chances. The size of nets and goaltending equipment won't fix that. I don't have the answer, either. I personally think the BEST solution (or one of them) would be to go to Olympic sized ice to give players more room, but that's pretty unlikely to happen considering the number of prime seats they'd lose.

Olympic ice would actually DECREASE scoring opportunities. The Olympics have shown us that, as well as many leagues in Europe that play on big ice. The size of the surface doesn't change the amount of space between the faceoff circles, which is all that teams focus on defending. Teams that play an aggressive defending style like the Rangers and Blackhawks would have to revert to a passive system on bigger ice because they couldn't get to the boards or point in time to retrieve the puck. That would take away a lot of possible coverage errors that lead to scoring chances. Passive teams may have to get even tighter clogging the "guts" up even more. You would end up with more play that looks like a powerplay, with the puck just moving all around the outside but never getting into the scoring areas. They could play on a football field and it wouldn't change the size of the "effective scoring area" which is all teams defend. At the very most, it might create more room on the edges for players to try and beat a defender wide, but they would adjust to just staying inside and letting the player have the outside.

I agree with you that the actual score of the game isn't nearly as important to the perceived excitement as the scoring chances. I think doing something like going to roller (carry over) offsides might open the game up more because it would take away the defender's ability to hold the blue line and force a dump in, which becomes a 50/50 puck. That means more controlled carry ins, which means the ability to attack the "guts" with less players in it.

[IPv6Freely 2093]

Olympic ice would actually DECREASE scoring opportunities. The Olympics have shown us that, as well as many leagues in Europe that play on big ice. The size of the surface doesn't change the amount of space between the faceoff circles, which is all that teams focus on defending. Teams that play an aggressive defending style like the Rangers and Blackhawks would have to revert to a passive system on bigger ice because they couldn't get to the boards or point in time to retrieve the puck. That would take away a lot of possible coverage errors that lead to scoring chances. Passive teams may have to get even tighter clogging the "guts" up even more. You would end up with more play that looks like a powerplay, with the puck just moving all around the outside but never getting into the scoring areas. They could play on a football field and it wouldn't change the size of the "effective scoring area" which is all teams defend. At the very most, it might create more room on the edges for players to try and beat a defender wide, but they would adjust to just staying inside and letting the player have the outside.

I agree with you that the actual score of the game isn't nearly as important to the perceived excitement as the scoring chances. I think doing something like going to roller (carry over) offsides might open the game up more because it would take away the defender's ability to hold the blue line and force a dump in, which becomes a 50/50 puck. That means more controlled carry ins, which means the ability to attack the "guts" with less players in it.

Excellent point on the actual scoring area. I hadn't considered that. Never mind on that entire idea, then.

Can you explain the roller offsides?

[psulion22 402]

Excellent point on the actual scoring area. I hadn't considered that. Never mind on that entire idea, then.

Can you explain the roller offsides?

Roller offsides, or carry-over, is pretty simple (much more so than what they use now). Essentially the rule is that you can not directly pass the puck over the blue line (or red line in roller) to another player. Another way of looking at it is that a player can be over the line ahead of the puck. As long as the puck carrier carries the puck over the line (instead of passing it to the player already over the line), the play is onside. It doesn't matter how many players are already in the zone as long as you carry the puck over the line. Hopefully that makes sense.

I think it would open things up because it completely changes what defenders would be able to do to slow the play down. As it is now, because the puck carrier has to worry about keeping his teammates onside, he has to dump the puck in when he gets into the gray zone without a lane. He can't stop, or slow down, or change direction. When he dumps it in, the defenders all chip the forwards to slow them down. And the time it takes for the offense to retrieve the puck is enough time for the backcheckers to get back to the "house", and the puck possession is starting from the corner, which is an ultra low percentage scoring area. If you gave the puck carrier the ability to slow down or move across the ice to find a better entry lane, while still letting his teammates skate into the zone, you eliminate a lot of the dump ins. And that means the backcheck wouldn't have time to get into position, meaning there would be a lot more space on the rush. Plus the play would be starting on the entry with possession which is a much higher percentage area. Essentially, it would allow the flow and speed of the 3v3 OT, without that much open space.

[IPv6Freely 2093]

Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense. From an Official's perspective (assuming USA Hockey and not NHL rules, for the purposes of this discussion), it means any off-side play that would result in a face-off at the neutral zone dot would be now permitted, but any off-side play that would result in a face-off at the spot of the passer would still be blown dead.

At the same time, I almost think the entire conversation is unnecessary. Yes, regular season hockey could be more exciting I suppose. But then you watch playoff hockey and I'm sorry... if that's not exciting for you, you'd better check your pulse.

[psulion22 402]

Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense. From an Official's perspective (assuming USA Hockey and not NHL rules, for the purposes of this discussion), it means any off-side play that would result in a face-off at the neutral zone dot would be now permitted, but any off-side play that would result in a face-off at the spot of the passer would still be blown dead.

At the same time, I almost think the entire conversation is unnecessary. Yes, regular season hockey could be more exciting I suppose. But then you watch playoff hockey and I'm sorry... if that's not exciting for you, you'd better check your pulse.

Correct. Any possession based off-side play that would result in a NZ faceoff would be eliminated, But any off-side play that would go back to the spot of the pass (even if that spot is the same NZ dot) would stay. And delayed or touch-up off-sides would be gone too. Once a defender touches the puck, any possibility of off-sides is eliminated (because it's not a direct pass to the player over the line anymore). You eliminate that play where the puck goes 3 inches outside the zone then immediately back in, and just sits there while everyone has to touch up. And as long as the player over the line doesn't touch the puck if it is passed, any other player who was behind the line can still skate in and take it. So off-sides essentially becomes individual instead of team based. The PLAYER is off-sides, but the rest of the TEAM isn't.

I agree. But that excitement is because of the intensity and elmination basis of the games. You could still have that with the roller offsides, and have a more open game to boot.

[bunnyman666 445]

I like the concept of roller hockey offsides.

Being that I grew up watching and being a fan of not one, but TWO low-scoring sports, I don't get the fascination with increasing scoring in Ice Hockey. American Football, whilst growing to like it, was never that exciting to me, but there's lots of scoring. Basketball, for me, is non-stop scoring that does nothing for me. But I am not the typical sports fan, either.

But psulion22's solution makes more sense than tinkering with goal sizes and equipment.