Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Potential rule changes

So I was linked to an article on TSN.ca (Canada's ESPN...with competent hockey coverage) where they discuss some potential new rules and tweaks to the older ones. This was given to me by someone who read the first post. I'm not sure whether to be "proud" that people actually read this and give half a shit enough to contribute/suggest new topics, or if i'm already so bad at this shit people are trying to take over. what the fuck ever. Anyway, I don't know any fancy schmancy html codes so you'll have to copy and paste this shit yourself to read the actual article.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=330922

As I read some of these suggestive rule changes i can't help but think that the people in charge are riding the short bus to whatever arena or wherever they are dreaming up these proposed alterations.

for starters, why do we need even more face off locations? if i am not mistaken the league has already eliminated certain face off locations just inside the blue line. So why on earth do we need three more face off dots in the middle of each zone; although technically the neutral zone already has one. are they going to add one between each blue line in relationship to the red line? this one is just baffling to me. Also, if the goalie freezes the puck, it's already put into one of the face off circles in the defensive zone. would this new center dot be for frozen pucks in the dead center of the ice? On a scale of 1-10, where one is it's not completely moronic and ten is what the fuck are they thinking....i give this a 45. Having said that, it's not as bad as this gem. If a player is deemed to have committed a face-off violation, he will be required to move back and keep his skates behind a "penalty line" (1' foot further back) to take the faceoff. the what the puck factor of this potential new rule needs to be written in scientific notation. i guess i can kinda see the "logic" behind this possible change, but it's still fucking retarded. the system is fine the way it is.

there's talk of no-icing or "hybrid" icing rule, where the ref can blow it dead prior to the player touching the puck. what the puck? that's no touch icing. why are you trying to give it an even douchier name? Well i suppose if it's a close foot race they might not whistle it dead. I enjoy seeing dudes get creamed trying to get an icing call, but this rule makes the most sense to me...relatively speaking looking at this list. this would, in theory, cut down on blind side hits to the head, which the league is cracking down on, so go for it with this one.

they're also talking of making the crease 3 inches bigger in all directions. why? we've have a bajilloin different creases and no one seems to give a shit about any one of them. i mean ever since the amended the in the crease rule, have you seen anyone called for it? pointless bullshit. Alright, i've covered some of the more ridiculous ones on the list, but feel free to check it out yourself over at TSN.ca. honestly, it's probably the best traditional place for hockey news since ESPN treats hockey like the gay son they've disowned.


in other news, there's that lovely rumor that the flyers are going to persue Antii Niemi. my question is why? look at the dude play, he's not THAT good. yes he has won a cup, and he certainly earned it, but the 2nd coming of christ in net he is not. Yes, i know this may come as a shock to some of you, but there's goaltending issues in philadelphia. in other news the sky is blue. Michael Leighton has earned the right to compete for the starting role after essentially saving the season for the flyers. Yes boucher got them in, on the last day, but it was his play most of the season that practically eliminated them. A 9-18 record does not a starter make. they only thing i like about niemi over leighton is the athleticism. leighton won't make that ridiculous no pucking way save that niemi can, but he usually doesn't have to. the flyers also have a few solid prospects looking to crack the line up in a year or two. Niemi will be looking for a longer deal than that, and that's bullshit for this franchise at this point. Besides, the flyers are over the cap and haven't really expressed their lack of depth at the forward position. why have 4 goalies signed to deals? Who are we, the islanders? Let him sign somewhere else.

No comments:

Post a Comment