It's a good rule, this part of it sucks but it's unlikely to matter very much one way or another - that instance is quite rare.
Devils 2020-21 team discussion (news, notes and speculation) - part XVI
- Thread starter Emperoreddy
- Start date
- Status
Devil X
Call me Nostradamus
So the only thing that gets me here is the locker room. This should have been part of the protocols from the start. Baseball took over storage rooms and some moved their training rooms and work out rooms to the concourse levels so they could create better air flow and also those rooms where closest to the locker rooms so it slowed them to expand and put distance between the players. The fact that the NHL didn’t see a need to figure out a way or make every team expand the distance in the locker room is a huge error on their part.
with no fans the best thing to do would be figure out a way to out each teams bench on one entire side of the ice. Meaning the home team takes up both normal benches and the away team is on the other side by the penalty box’s taking up that entire side. But I don’t think it’s possible to build entire new bench areas at this point.
I remember - he could score goals, and they put him with Zajac and Palmieri. The problem is he was a total disaster in transition defense or offense and didn't score enough to make up for it. You'd think a Devils fan who talks about the glory days endlessly would understand why a 1-dimensional scorer has no place in the NHL, but loyalties make for strange bedfellows I guess.
With Reid Boucher and Travis Zajac together, the Devils got 39% of the shots on goal taken while he was on the ice.
Guess they could tie a string up there at least so they can determine the height but I've just never been a fan of the rule.
It should at the very least only be on intentional plays, which is what I believe college does. I'm just not a fan of seeing more penalties called and would rather see the tired players have to stay out there instead.
None Shall Pass
Dano moisturizes
- Dec 20, 2018
- 21,415
- 54,339
I told them to forget Merrill, that the fire in your heart really burns for Boucher.
My favorite almost-ran forward from that period was Blandisi if only because of his nickname, “Blender”, and that my brother was a fan.
We tend to latch on random fringier players and even get their jerseys, but his Blender jersey and enthusiasm led to a young guy actually asking him if he was Blandisi’s dad.
Last edited:
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,306
- 47,214
It's a terrible rule that was put in place to address a problem that barely existed.
- Jan 24, 2007
- 7,289
- 8,766
I'd consider changing it to a minute long PP, but you try to clear the puck off the glass you are playing with fire, and it incentivizes forechecking as a result.
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,306
- 47,214
They put the rule in because some players intentionally flipped the puck over the glass instead of icing the puck. It wasn't that common, and accidental clearances were far more common. All they do now is punish players who accidentally clear it over the glass, it's dumb.
JimEIV
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2003
- 66,128
- 33,891
Oh there have been tons of "not good" players that I have liked and rooted for over years...No rhyme or reason to it...there might have been something I was intrigued by...I might know that they like to hunt and fish...tons of silly reasons...Sometimes even not so silly, might be one simple aspect of their game...I am a sucker for forwards that can shoot the puck, defensmen that can hit, tougher players but smaller tougher players always intrigue me too...I was a big fan of Tyler Eckford too. I tend to like longshot players as well.
It is pointless to analysis it...when you threw up a shot stat above I went blank....It is like saying the flavor is of chocolate is 39% less effective in peanut butter and I am telling you don't care I like Peanut butter cups....Especially in a DQ Blizzard.
Last edited:
- Jan 24, 2007
- 7,289
- 8,766
I think it has benefits whether the clearances were intentional or not, in particular I think for the end of game if one team has pulled the goalie. Leads to more exciting play imo. I don't know how much of a role it's played in the requirement that all modern day NHL dmen need to be able to play the puck in their own zone but it's probably helped.
the rule was out in place in a rare bit of foresight by the NHL. With them implementing no changing for icing they saw the players were likely to just flip the puck in the crowd. So the needed a detriment. My guess because fans could I’m get injured (and even killed in one instance) by pucks going into the crowd they wanted a stronger penalty for putting it out of play than for the icing. Plus it was already a penalty if a goalie did it. Thus the rule.
Auto Pilot
Registered User
- Sep 7, 2019
- 3,909
- 3,794
What jkrdevil said is correct, and I will add to it that icing has to go through the other team - it's a fundamentally more dangerous play. Just using high clears to get the puck out, and having some of them go out of the rink, is not only not going through the other team, every single result of it is boring and unentertaining. An off-the-glass clear is boring, a faceoff is boring. It's one of the few things the NHL has ever gotten right - disincentivize players from lifting the puck in their own zone.
- Dec 20, 2018
- 21,415
- 54,339
What!?! I’ve taken every single thing you have said about Lovejoy to heart and it’s made me a better person.
Shhh....we're dealing with a new participant we don't want to scare anyone away. Hide the crazy for now if you can. Lord knows I'm trying. Now, I have to get back to grafting Venus fly traps to seedless orange trees to try to re-create the plant from Little Shop of Horrors. Then I'll continue striking the W from all of my correspondence.
You know that this virus won't go away, right? So then just stop the league for the next 100 years.
SteveCangialosi123
Registered User
I would prefer if our entire team didn’t get a disease that we really don’t know the long term effects of.
Last edited by a moderator:
SteveCangialosi123
Registered User
Really? Because cases have fallen in the US 44% and globally 30% in the past 3 weeks. And that isn’t all due to the vaccine. It won’t go away entirely but it will be driven down to a point where outbreaks are rare. Countries have already managed to get there, if you aren’t aware.
- Status
