NHL: Quarterly Report

So we're about a quarter of the way into the first season of the NEW NHL. A season that many people in Canada have been anxiously awaiting. A season that promised a new beginning, a new financial system and a higher level of entertainment.

So far, I've got to tell you, I'm really impressed.

The new game is faster, more exciting, higher-scoring and it emphasizes the more skilled players over the goons. If you haven't had a chance to check out a game yet this year, I highly recommend that you do so.

I think that a lot of hockey fans (especially in the states) have either been turned off of hockey, or realized that there is indeed life without hockey; something they found out last year during the lockout. It's their prerogative weather they come back or not; just like some baseball fans didn't come back after the MLB lockout. But to those who are staying away in protest to the lockout, let me just say this...

When Baseball cancelled a chunk of their season and the World Series in 1994, the owners set out to break the player's union and instill a salary-cap. It didn't happen. In fact, when play resumed the following year, things didn't improve one bit, they went in the opposite direction. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox began spending in the hundreds-of-millions ensuring that the smaller-market teams never got a chance to compete again. Coincidentally, it was around this time that the Yankees began their dynasty. I don't blame fans for not coming back to the game.

The NHL lockout was different though. Sure they cancelled an entire season including playoffs, but unlike baseball, there was a point to the lockout; and the post-lockout game IS better; and the league is stronger for it.

Now I don't agree with all of the new rules, and I do think some other tweaks would be beneficial. Here is a run-down of some of the main changes:

The new rules:

The Shootout

Probably one of the most exciting plays in sport is the penalty shot. Now the purists will say that it is gimmicky and that it does not reflect a team effort when the outcome of the game comes down to a single shooter and an opposing goalie. Some will ask, "what is wrong with a tie?". Others may say, if we must have a winner, let them play it out in overtime until someone scores, or better yet, play 5 minutes of 4-on-4, then 5 minutes of 3-on-3 and so on until all you have left are goalies lobbing pucks at each other.

Talk about a gimmick!: That last suggestion is the most gimmicky of them all! Plus don't all goals come down to a shooter and a goalie? Sure there are other players on the ice, but only one can score at a time. Logistically, playing until there is a winner during the regular season is not very practical. Look at some playoff games that go 2-3 overtime periods into the wee hours of the morning. Now picture that happening a few times over an already-condensed 82-game regular-season.

As far as ties go...I HATE them with a passion. I'm happy to see a final result either way, even if it IS against my favourite team. Why? Because these are grown men; professionals who get paid a lot of money to WIN games, not to just play. Ties are fine in the midget and peewee leagues where the lesson is "it's not weather you win or lose...", but in the big leagues, it IS weather you win or lose so spare me the hyper-sensitive CRAP! For those players and fans who say, "yeah but sometimes the better team loses in a shootout." I say, if they were the better team, then why the FUCK were they tied to begin with?

I Say: Get rid of the extra point for the tie. Stop rewarding mediocrity! In fact get rid of points altogether and just rate teams on winning percentage. Also, raise the number of shooters to 5 instead of 3, the fans seem to be enjoying it, but it's over way too fast. Finally, to make it a little more interesting and to appease some of the purists, only allow the players who are on the ice at the end of the game when the horn blows, to participate in the shootout. This way, you guarantee the best players are on the ice at the end of the game; and who knows, maybe they'll score before overtime is up.

Grade: B

It's about time the league recognized that most fans don't want ties; but they missed a chance to get things completely right by not getting rid of the point system.

Lines

I love that they removed the centre red line and it has had its desired effect. It has opened up the ice surface considerably because now, defences have to stay back a little in order to take away that long pass option. Players are taking FULL advantage of this rule. In the first couple of weeks alone, I could count 7-8 passes every game that would have been illegal in the old NHL; many of them leading to great scoring opportunities.

Moving the goal lines back has created a bit more room in the defensive zone which has resulted in much more cycling and puck movement; making it more difficult on penalty killers. The tag-up off-side hasn't really made a visible difference (to me anyway); although if your on defense you may beg to differ.

I Say: The only proposed change that I wish had made it, (but didn't get past the trial stage) was making the bluelines wider. Imagine adding 4 feet to both the neutral and defensive zones without physically increasing the size of the ice surface. I suppose it may have given linesmen headaches though.

Grade: A

Overall, I think the changes have had their desired effect and, in fact I don't think anyone thought that removing the centre line would have made as BIG a difference as it has. The two-line pass has gone from illegal to invaluable as a tool for most successful teams.

Goaltender Equipment

It was just getting crazy with the size of some of the pads in the league and some of the sneaky, albeit innovative "adjustments" the goalies were getting away with. Now, everyone should be on an even playing field and a goalie can be measured on his skill, speed and positioning, not on the size of his blocker.

I Say: BRAVO! Don't change a thing!

Grade: A+

Nothing to add here.

Goaltender Trap Zone

With all of the other rule changes working so well, I think this one has become unnecessary. Goalies are already under more pressure with a larger neutral zone, less power to clear players from in front of their net and smaller equipment. As a result scoring is already up. Now they're being told where they can and can't handle the puck.

I Say: Give this important tool back to the goaltenders. Some of the best ones have added puck-handling and passing to their arsenal of skills. It isn't fair to take it away from them.

Grade: F

Officiating

Finally, this is probably the biggest change in the game and ironically, it isn't a rule-change as much as it is a change in implementation. Rules against obstruction, hooking and holding have always existed. The problem was that referees seemed to have a certain degree of discretion on how and when they would be called. This resulted in some referees calling games more strictly than others and almost no calls being made at important times in important games.

Players and coaches recognized these tendencies and used them to their advantage (and rightfully so). Players figured out when (and for how long) they could hook or hold another player before the whistle would be blown and they used these tactics to slow the game down to an excruciating halt.

So what has changed?: Refs are now being asked to call anything and everything they see at ANY time during the game, with NO tolerance. Players' hands should remain on their own sticks and should NEVER be found on another players' stick or sweater. Sticks are to be used to handle the puck, not a rushing offensive player as he deeks around the Defense.

In the beginning, this lead to a parade to the penalty box, and many critics saying that the game was being ruined due to too many power-plays. Coaches and players alike complained that things had gone too far in the opposite direction; that there was no room for toughness in the new NHL and goals were being scored seemingly at will by highly skilled players...imagine that...

I Say: There IS room for toughness, there is just no room for laziness. Hopefully, gone is the day that when a player got by a defenseman with his speed or skill, the defender would just hook on for the ride (like a water skier) and eventually slow that player down (or bring him down) before he got a shot off.

Grade: A-

Along with change, comes a certain degree of growing pains, and we felt them early on in the season. Defensemen who were stars in the old NHL were now being exposed as pylons for the skilled players. Defensive schemes like the infamous left-wing-lock (probably single-handedly responsible for ruining the game to begin with) were being broken by speed and puck movement.

Overall Grade: B+

There are other more minor rule changes, but these are the ones that have made the biggest impact in my humble opinion.

Looking Ahead: The parade to the penalty box has slowed down in recent weeks. Hopefully it's because players are learning to play under the new rules. Unfortunately, I fear that this is more a case of regression than progression. Scoring seems to have come down to a pre-lockout level. Some of the players who were tearing it up early on in the season seem to have cooled off as of late. Hopefully the league will recognize this and step in to remind the players and officials the reason changes were necessary to begin with.

The new NHL has come a long way from where it was two years ago. Now thanks to a salary cap and the new rules, every team has a chance to compete Including the smaller-market Canadian and US teams; like Calgary and Edmonton; who always had good fan support, but just didn't have the money to ice a competitive team every year.

Unfortunately there are still some teams in false hockey markets (teams in the southern states) that continue to have difficulties despite the new rules. There was a time when the NHL wanted to build into these markets to try to increase the league's profile in the US beyond the original six American teams; moving away from smaller Canadian cities like Winnipeg and Quebec City who supported their teams but just couldn't compete financially. Well now with the new financial model in place, maybe we can see hockey back in those two deserving markets. It may come at the expense of another team, but I think the league would be even stronger for it.

Comments

[Candice]

There are 3 divisions on the east. The top 3 spots go to the Division ldeears. However there are 8 playoff spots for the east so after the Division ldeears take the top 3 the teams with the highest points who aren't division ldeears get the last 5 spots for the playoffs. So a Division Winner will always have a playoff spot. If there are a tie for a division leader let's say they each of 100 points then the team with the most wins will be the division leader for Overtime games give you 1 point they don't count as a win. If some how the two teams have the same exact Win-Loss-Overtime Loss then they will go by goals depending on how soon the playoffs are, if there is a week or so before the start of the playoffs They will have an option to have an extra game which happened 5 or 6 years ago between the Islanders and the Bruins.So let's say the Atlantic division (which is really the weakest division) let's say they only get 60 points but the other teams get 80 or 90 the Atlantic Division winner would still get a playoff spot, Sad but true.