Toggle sidebar

They got rid of the wrong rule (2-line pass instead of offsides)

Nalens Oga

Nalens Oga

Registered User
Jan 5, 2010
16,780
1,055
Canada
Back in 2005 when they removed the 2-line pass, I was happy but in hindsight, the real issue is offsides which lead to more unnecessary whistles and a disruption in play.

The whole point of offsides is to stop cherry-picking (which wouldn't happen anyways in today's "200' " game). If you still had a 2-line pass, you would get rid of those stretch passes/cherry-picking even if there were no offsides. Offsides now create far more whistles than the 2-line pass.

Although, I would make it a 3-line pass rule + no offsides instead of 2-line.
 
Nah, being able to pass the puck from your own blue line to the opposing goal would make the game utter nonsense.
What you want is fewer stoppages, not a removal of structure. The way you do that is by making it more difficult for teams to defend at the blue line the way they do.

The first, obvious option is to put the blue line back where it was before 2005. More space in the neutral zone, as long as you call interference, could make a difference.
A possibly goofy, possibly bad, but possibly effective idea I'd like to see tested is to nullify icing if the attacking team has a player over the center red line when the puck is iced. This would reward speed (could also reward offensive cheating) and open up the option of a long-range dump-in as an attacking play, meaning that teams might often choose to play a defender farther back in their own zone in order to defend against such plays. That could make it more difficult for teams to play with defensive postures that force offside plays.
 
I think they should just make the blue-line like 6" thicker. So many damn whistles when a skate is just a millimeter over the line.
 
MiscBrah said:
I think they should just make the blue-line like 6" thicker. So many damn whistles when a skate is just a millimeter over the line.
Click to expand...

If that's a fix that would work, wouldn't players simply hold up that tiniest bit and time their entries better? That logic suggests it's something to do with attacking players' skill or coaching - and while I doubt that's the issue (I think it's just defensive postures), that's actually possible. I've heard multiple former player analysts comment that the new CBA gives players an extra day off each week when they're not required to practice and they believe that's affecting execution/finishing/chemistry.
 
Elever said:
Back in 2005 when they removed the 2-line pass, I was happy but in hindsight, the real issue is offsides which lead to more unnecessary whistles and a disruption in play.

The whole point of offsides is to stop cherry-picking (which wouldn't happen anyways in today's "200' " game). If you still had a 2-line pass, you would get rid of those stretch passes/cherry-picking even if there were no offsides. Offsides now create far more whistles than the 2-line pass.

Although, I would make it a 3-line pass rule + no offsides instead of 2-line.
Click to expand...

Watch roller hockey, this is an absolutely inane idea
 
Legionnaire11 said:
How about getting rid of the bluelines? Creates nothing but attack time and simplify the game for casual fans. win-win, but can never happen because it's too radical
Click to expand...

That's an awful idea. Why should we simplify the game and make it so much worse? Have you ever watched roller hockey?
 
MiscBrah said:
I think they should just make the blue-line like 6" thicker. So many damn whistles when a skate is just a millimeter over the line.
Click to expand...

They really need to get rid of the coach's challenge. And I say that even though the teams I'm rooting for have benefitted more than been hurt by it.

It slows the game down and encourages linesmen to cover their butt by whistling any close play that might be offside. The thinking being better to stop the play and have a faceoff than not call it, have it reviewed and show they screwed up.
 
canuckster19 said:
I've always thought skating the puck over the blueline should be ok if a player is offside, but passing it would remain offside.
Click to expand...

I thought about this and liked it, but the offside player can impact the play without touching the puck (eg. tying up a defenseman, or simply drawing a defender towards him).

Are the ways that an offside player can impact how amplay unfolds sufficiently negligable that we can let it slide?
 
Ginger Jesus said:
That's an awful idea. Why should we simplify the game and make it so much worse? Have you ever watched roller hockey?
Click to expand...

Actually used to regularly attended Philadelphia Bulldogs back in RHI days! But they're totally different sports. Eliminating bluelines could lead to more sustained periods of attack which leads to defensive mistakes/breakdowns and thus goals.

Similarly, remove the red line all together, again to simplify the viewing experience. But make offsides effective only when the other team gains their offensive zone. So team A gains the offensive zone by crossing the blueline onside, now they are eligible to utilize the entire ice surface without any offsides penalty until Team B gains their offensive zone by crossing the blueline onside.

I know that idea was proposed by expanding the offensive zone back to the redline once the attack zone was gained, but again I'm also considering cleaning up the cluttered ice surface and simplifying things a bit.
 
I think having two different jerseys is too confusing for the average hockey fan. I think both teams should wear the home jersey, so that way when either team scores, the average hockey fan can feel happy that his favorite team is winning.
 
the4thlinegrinder said:
"Offsides"
Click to expand...

grades1.png
 
Terrible idea. Removing the offside rule would make it nearly impossible to relieve pressure or make a line change following an extended shift in the defensive zone. It would completely change dynamic of the game, and not in a good way. I mean, unless you want most of the goals to be scored because one team is too tired to keep playing defense.
 
rumrokh said:
Nah, being able to pass the puck from your own blue line to the opposing goal would make the game utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be able to do that with the 2-line pass though....

Poignant Discussion said:
Watch roller hockey, this is an absolutely inane idea
Click to expand...

Again, with the 2-line pass rule, the furthest a player could be is the red line if the puck is in the defensive zone, or the far blue if the puck is in the neutral zone.

canuckster19 said:
I've always thought skating the puck over the blueline should be ok if a player is offside, but passing it would remain offside.
Click to expand...

That's not too bad of an idea to help keep the flow of the game. I think it'd be best if it was instituted like the line change rule where players can jump on the ice if the player coming off is within ~5 feet of the bench. I do think 5 feet would be a little excessive and, of course, there is the issue where different linesmen have different perceptions of when to call it offsides.

Montag DP said:
Terrible idea. Removing the offside rule would make it nearly impossible to relieve pressure or make a line change following an extended shift in the defensive zone. It would completely change dynamic of the game, and not in a good way. I mean, unless you want most of the goals to be scored because one team is too tired to keep playing defense.
Click to expand...

I disagree. What's wrong with more goals because players are tired? It's better than more goals because the nets are bigger or the equipment is smaller. It would at least cause more creative, exciting plays that would lead to more goals.




I wouldn't be opposed to making the redline the offsides line so that teams with sustained pressure don't have to regroup because the puck barely got out of the zone.
 
Bending and Tending said:
You wouldn't be able to do that with the 2-line pass though....



Again, with the 2-line pass rule, the furthest a player could be is the red line if the puck is in the defensive zone, or the far blue if the puck is in the neutral zone.
Click to expand...

Two-line passes only applied to your own blue line and the center red-line. You could still carry the puck over the center line if a player was over it and you could still pass it over your own goal line and blue line, for example. So you're talking not just about reinstating two-line passes, but also making them apply to any two lines. It would still be terrible. If you're going with no offside rule at all, you could pass from the center redline to the opposing goal. You'd have to play man-to-man all over the ice and there would be a ton of lob passes and impossible-to-stop slap dump-ins on the glass to players waiting in the corner. Traditional rushes would be a lot rarer because regrouping in your own end, making d-to-d passes, and making a controlled exit would be exponentially more dangerous if you could put your attacking players anywhere on the ice.

And if you're just making the center line offside, it would be incredibly easy to beat defensemen up the ice. Fast wingers would just soft-chip the puck off the wall to themselves and defensemen would be forced to turn around and chase the puck much farther from their goal. I think you're imagining that it would look like normal hockey just with really cool rushes instead of offside whistles, but it would completely change the way the game is played. I don't understand why that's cool unless you simply don't like hockey.
 
Last edited:
Bending and Tending said:
I disagree. What's wrong with more goals because players are tired? It's better than more goals because the nets are bigger or the equipment is smaller. It would at least cause more creative, exciting plays that would lead to more goals.




I wouldn't be opposed to making the redline the offsides line so that teams with sustained pressure don't have to regroup because the puck barely got out of the zone.
Click to expand...
I'm not one who thinks more goals = better. I don't agree that the nets should be made bigger or pads smaller for the sake of increasing goals. But at least those ideas don't take away a team's ability to play defense. I prefer to increase scoring by calling obstruction and interference like they should be, because that opens up the game and increases scoring in a natural way.

Without the offside rule, there would be no more standing up a team at the blue line or efficient zone exits through quick, accurate passes, both of which good defensive teams do effectively. There would be no more need to hold the puck in at the point, because there's no more offside rule. Just back up and make sure you keep possession until the other team is dog-tired and you can score easily. And if they try to make a change while you have the puck on your own half of the ice, just pass it to the cherry picker in front of their net. You'd also increase icing, because the only way to clear the puck and get a change after an extended shift in your own zone is to dump it down and hope it doesn't make it far enough for icing. It would ruin the game, not just increase offense. It would increase scoring, but as someone above said, it would completely change the game, and I'm not sure why you'd want that.
 
Last edited:
CanadienShark said:
I really like that idea.
Click to expand...

It's completely unworkable. On the rush the forwards without the puck just bull-rush the net. The defence has no choice but to follow them. This leaves a monstrous hole for the puck carrier to either skate into or hit a late defenceman joining the rush. It would be completely impossible to play defence against the rush at all. Increasing scoring is one thing, but this would probably lead to more goals than we saw in the 80s, and that's way too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom