Leafs - Sens game last night

[Yogi]

Looks like that game "made history" in terms of the new shoot-out rule to decide games.

I'm not sure I liked it. It was very anti-climatic imo. I did like the 5 minute overtime 4 on 4 though. Hell, why not make hockey a 4 on 4 sport - especially on the smaller NHL rinks??

That would result in a much faster game, and would further reduce the likelihood of sub-par players making it into the big league where they don't belong.

[glitch]

Looks like that game "made history" in terms of the new shoot-out rule to decide games.

I'm not sure I liked it. It was very anti-climatic imo. I did like the 5 minute overtime 4 on 4 though. Hell, why not make hockey a 4 on 4 sport - especially on the smaller NHL rinks??

That would result in a much faster game, and would further reduce the likelihood of sub-par players making it into the big league where they don't belong.

4 on 4 would be awesome. Not everybody has their own Swedish meatball launcher.

[Limey32]

It was ok, except yet another sen injured another leaf in the eye.. starting to think it is on purpose. And as for the game, the Sens dominated the second half, but it should have been a draw. The shootout is a silly was to get the extra point.. I don't like it.

[kibboy]

I agree, the teams fight so hard it should be left a draw instead of one or two players deciding the outcome in this TEAM sport.


I don't agree, however, that you think the Sens are gunning for Leaf eyes. I mean common man, they couldn't put the puck in a 4x6 net before the end of the third and you think their purposely aiming for eye orbitals? Yzerman had the same thing happen to him and he's sworn the value of wearing a visor ever since. Noone ever likes it when things like that happen regardless of team or player.

kibb

[I LIKE EGGS]

I love the shootout. Adds that much more excitement to the game. I love that there is no more tie....someone should win it. Just gives you one more opportunity to step up.

But I agree with Kibb, in this case there is no way that they did it on purpose. Even the Brian Berard injury was not on purpose......stupidity and a definate lack of stick control on Hossa's part....however it did not look intentional.

Now here is something to bake a noodle. Why is it that if a player accidently hits another player with his stick, he gets a penalty...however last night Allison accidently hit the referee with his stick, cuts the ref....and does not get a penalty. If the rules are in play that a player must maintain stick control at all times, why is it null in void regarding the referee? Don't get me wrong I am glad (as a leaf fan) that he did not get a penalty...but I am a firm believer in fair is fair.

[I LIKE EGGS]

4 on 4 would be awesome. Not everybody has their own Swedish meatball launcher.

They had thought about the 4 on 4 concept. However with the ammout of players that are on the bench (11 or 12 forwards vs 6 or 7 defence) mathematically it did not work out. Rotations would be chaotic. Yet another several rule changes would have to have been implied.

There is a wrench in that plan that there would be constant changes in the 3 forwards 1 defence vs the 2 forwards and 2 defence. The problem being that because the home team gets to put his players on last.....there would be yet an unfair advantage to counter whatever configuration the opposition puts forth.

I agreed with the 4 on 4 also....and the NHL had considered it. But they felt that with the new ideas that were already being implimented...that it would have made things worse for now.

I love the new changes. I noticed in the leaf opener....that there were several huge spans of at least 4 to 6 mins of play without a whistle. Most of the ODD DUH WAH penalties were stick infractions or tripping....so to me with regards to getting penalties due to rule changes did not really come into effect....in my eyes at least.

As for Lindros bashing in other posts/threads......I am never wrong about a player. I see big and bright things for Lindros. First off give him some time.....he has been off for awhile and is trying to find his game....especially under the playing field that Quinn has to offer. Secondly he is working on his confidence. Last night I felt he played one hell of a game. He was always working the areas of the ice that no one plays. He is always floating around...true, however he is always open too. The goal he scored was a goal scored from an area of the ice that it would seem no one plays.....and he was there. He fills in those gaps nicely. Taking big hits, and giving them back. Not to worry though....he will come up big when you least expect it. But if you must BIT (and the first 2 letters in CHurch)....BIT(and the first 2 letters in CHurch) about having Richel, Renberg, Kristich, Hogland and all of those other 3 million plus per year pilons that we have had in the past.

[Yogi]

It was ok, except yet another sen injured another leaf in the eye.. starting to think it is on purpose.
I didn't think it was on purpose at all.

Having said that, players have a choice. They can either wear a visor or not wear one. I still find it amazing that players don't wear visors to protect their eyes. :p

[Yogi]

.....I am never wrong about a player.
If this is true, I'm sure every NHL General Manager would trip over each other to hire you as their head of scouting :hst:

[Shaman]

personally i never liked the idea of 4 on 4 hockey for 60 min Hockey's been played 5 on 5 forever, yes I sound like a traditionalist, even Brett Hull didn't like 4 on 4 except for overtime because it's just not hockey.

I mean think the plays you can't do with 4 on 4,
One example

-you can't have the RW shoot it around the boards and the LW bombing in the oppisite corner, then supported by the Centreman, then RW going hard to the net.

I grant you that 4 on 4 more ice to skate, more room to pass etc, but u know somethin, you lose an element with 4 on 4, it just doesn't feel right when your breaking out the puck and you don't see your RW along the boards, the LW streaking along the Blue Line and your C swooping at the bottom of the circle in a regroup.

Plus with 4 on 4 the corner battles are no where to be found, if u see any, it's rare it lasts long at all before the puck is outa the zone.

There are more reasons, but ill stop there. Not the strongest arguement but Id rather see a bigger ice surface than 4 on 4 and we know that the owners wont go to olympic size, and they might not need to if they keep the great job in 'calling' the rules. I noticed a big improvement in puck cycles, drives to the front of the net by players, it was a riot to see.

I honestly am a believer in this new nhl, I hope the refs stick to this I really do, it will go a long way in players confidence to doing things like driving the net from the corners, and other plays.

[I LIKE EGGS]

If this is true, I'm sure every NHL General Manager would trip over each other to hire you as their head of scouting :hst:

No, I did not say that I have opinionated on every player. I am just saying that out of all the players I have selected to comment on either friends, family or here, I have not been wrong about. But hey if they want to offer me a scouting job by all means, I am up for the challenge.

[Yogi]

The problem is that the NHL rinks are smaller than those in international hockey. If the NHL increased the size of the rinks, 5 on 5 would be fine.

Unfortunately, increasing rink size would require removing seats and fewer seats mean less $$ at the gate.

[I LIKE EGGS]

personally i never liked the idea of 4 on 4 hockey for 60 min Hockey's been played 5 on 5 forever, yes I sound like a traditionalist, even Brett Hull didn't like 4 on 4 except for overtime because it's just not hockey.

I mean think the plays you can't do with 4 on 4,
One example

-you can't have the RW shoot it around the boards and the LW bombing in the oppisite corner, then supported by the Centreman, then RW going hard to the net.

I grant you that 4 on 4 more ice to skate, more room to pass etc, but u know somethin, you lose an element with 4 on 4, it just doesn't feel right when your breaking out the puck and you don't see your RW along the boards, the LW streaking along the Blue Line and your C swooping at the bottom of the circle in a regroup.

Plus with 4 on 4 the corner battles are no where to be found, if u see any, it's rare it lasts long at all before the puck is outa the zone.

There are more reasons, but ill stop there. Not the strongest arguement but Id rather see a bigger ice surface than 4 on 4 and we know that the owners wont go to olympic size, and they might not need to if they keep the great job in 'calling' the rules. I noticed a big improvement in puck cycles, drives to the front of the net by players, it was a riot to see.

I honestly am a believer in this new nhl, I hope the refs stick to this I really do, it will go a long way in players confidence to doing things like driving the net from the corners, and other plays.

Previous/current 4 on 4 overtime action was created as a more successful way of getting a tie game broken so that a winner was established. The success rate for ties vs overtime wins was actually quite good.....less ties more winners.

However 4 on 4 regulation time was challenged (in regards to the new rule change(s))as a way to stop the trap from happening, creating more chances for 2 on 1, create a larger playing surface and speed up the overall game. So instead of that they made the redline null in void, created the trapizoid for the goalies, readministered the delayed offside and decreased the neutral zone size.

On a side note, I really like the icing changes. One that if a team ices the puck they CANNOT change their line for the next play. Two that if a team is attempting a pass, that the icing is waved off. One forces players to actually play the puck and Two allows the play to carry on. Great job there!!!!:tti:

[Yogi]

On a side note, I really like the icing changes. One that if a team ices the puck they CANNOT change their line for the next play. Two that if a team is attempting a pass, that the icing is waved off. One forces players to actually play the puck and Two allows the play to carry on. Great job there!!!!:tti:
I agree.