Leave It Alone
One of the new rule changes implemented this year was to start every power play in the offensive end. Apparently the NHL General Manager’s discussed whether to extend the rule. Here’s the way Pierre Lebrun explained it:
The first is the Larry Pleau idea that I first detailed this past weekend, which essentially would change the delayed-penalty rule so that the penalized team would have to fully clear the puck from its defensive zone to get a stoppage in play rather than simply needing to possess the puck. The St. Louis Blues GM believes it would create more offensive chances with the sixth attacker on the ice for a bit longer before a whistle blows. He’s probably right. I like this one.
No real surprise here – Puck Daddy asked readers for their opinion on the idea several days ago. I’ve been chewing on it ever since. I’m now convinced that both the original change and the proposed amendment are bad ideas. The new rule seems innocuous, but…
1. As we can see, it’s a slippery slope. Why stop with clearing the defensive zone? Why not make the defending team get the puck to centre? Why not make the about to be penalized team put the puck in the empty net to get the stoppage?
2. It increases the cost of a penalty when a substantial portion of penalties are so bogus we have damaged the credibility of the officiating. These stupid hooks aren’t worth a two minute penalty. Why make them worth more?
3. It won’t work. It will marginally increase scoring, but it won’t increase it enough to make any real difference. The number of lead changes and the number of come from behind victories won’t change by enough to matter.
4. All the tinkering has the effect of demarketing the game. The apparently desperate efforts to increase scoring declares, “Hockey isn’t exciting enough. We are trying to fix it.” If I wasn’t a fan, I’d wait until it was fixed before I bothered watching. If I was a fan who listened to the league, it would turn me off.
Adding a few goals won’t deliver up any more fans. Constant tinkering may drive them away. Its an exciting game whether there are an average of five goals or an average of six. Leave it alone.
2. It increases the cost of a penalty when a substantial portion of penalties are so bogus we have damaged the credibility of the officiating. These stupid hooks aren’t worth a two minute penalty. Why make them worth more?
If your problem is with penalties being called too often, won’t increasing the cost of commiting a penalty discourage players from doing things that warrant one, and, if anything, result in less penalties?
The best resolution to the too many penalties being called issue isn’t having the refs lay off the whistle and going back to the clutching and grabbing. If they did that, a year from now you’d be back here complaining about how there’s too much clutching and grabbing. The best resolution to the issue is getting it through the players heads that they should actually stop clutching and grabbing, so the refs dont HAVE to call so many penalties. By making penalties more costly, I think this rule is actually a move in the right direction in this regard.
This isn’t about too many penalties being called. This is about bogus interpretations of the rules to artificially create power plays and “excitement”. Holding your stick parallel to the ice is not a penalty. Resting your hand on another player is not a penalty. They are not doing this to create space and a more exciting game.
They are deliberately inventing penalties to create more power play goals. They can call any actual hook or grab they see and I won’t complain. The calls have become so arbitrary a considerable number of fans – and even some media types – have accused the officials of bias.