NHL business

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: NHL business

Postby Per » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:59 am

More players on the unfortunate decision:









User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: NHL business

Postby SKYO » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:20 pm

Well Per at least Backstrom will go thanks to Ted Leonis (sp) Caps owner be cool AF, allowing players to go, as he cares for his players like family.
Canucks 2017/18
A NEW HOPE
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7997
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: NHL business

Postby Strangelove » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:30 pm

Per wrote:Ovechkin says he'll go, no matter what.

Hopefully the other players will join him.


Subversive tactics. :hmmm:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 14169
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: NHL business

Postby Hockey Widow » Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:18 pm

2 new rule change recommendations made today. Still need league approval:

Rule 87 Time-outs: The Committee recommends a change so that no time-out shall be granted following an icing for the team that committed the icing infraction.

Rule 80.4: The Committee recommends a change so that when a team has a power-play and a player on the team at full strength causes a stoppage of play as the result of striking the puck with a high stick in the offensive zone, the resulting face-off shall be made in the neutral zone on the nearest face-off spot. This makes the rule consistent with the how the face-off is addressed when there is a stoppage under the same circumstances when both teams are at full strength.


Rule 87 could have significant impact especially late in a game. Rule 80.4 shouldn't mean much.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 11621
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: NHL business

Postby Hockey Widow » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:21 am

NHLPA begin voting today to raise cap by 2.5% escalator. That would raise the cap to 75M. Results expected very soon, well anywhere from 24 hours to 4 days.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 11621
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: NHL business

Postby Meds » Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:02 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:NHLPA begin voting today to raise cap by 2.5% escalator. That would raise the cap to 75M. Results expected very soon, well anywhere from 24 hours to 4 days.


Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the players will want a higher cap?
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5391
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: NHL business

Postby Hockey Widow » Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:01 pm

Meds wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:NHLPA begin voting today to raise cap by 2.5% escalator. That would raise the cap to 75M. Results expected very soon, well anywhere from 24 hours to 4 days.


Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the players will want a higher cap?



No, due to the rising cost of escrow there is division within the PA. Yes a higher cap potentially increases jobs and or increases salaries but with that up goes escrow. But inside sources say they expect the PA to overwhelming vote yes to the increase.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 11621
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: NHL business

Postby Hockey Widow » Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:09 pm

From SN

Elliotte Friedman
September 6, 2017, 5:12 PM
The NHL is making a very interesting rule change for the 2017-18 season, introducing a harsher penalty for one particular video review.

From now on, a failed offside challenge will result in a two-minute penalty against the club asking for the review. It’s a potentially powerful infraction. Can you imagine a team in a tight game giving up a goal it thought was offside, losing the challenge, then having to withstand an immediate power-play opportunity? It’s going to make bench bosses much more wary — and ratchet up the pressure on video coaches.

Incorrect goaltender interference reviews stay the same — the loss of your timeout. That’s probably a wise decision, since there’s much more grey area than with an offside call.

Another adjustment that will have strategic impact. Teams are no longer able to call timeout after icing the puck. The other club can still do so if it wishes, but tired defenders won’t be able to ask for the extra rest.


Both moves should speed up the game and increase scoring/chances, which is what most of us want to see.

The final change is smaller, but also helps those with an offensive advantage. Previously, under Rule 80.4, a team on the power play that was guilty of playing the puck after a high stick saw the ensuing faceoff come deep into their own zone. Now, the team will gain territory (assuming the infraction is in the offensive end). Instead of going all the way down the ice, the faceoff will be in the neutral zone, close to the defending team’s blue line.
***********************




Now the immediate question is why not eliminate the offside challenge altogether. It seems the NHL doeany really want a challenge. It shouldn't take 10-15 minute every challenge for them to review. I get that so many challenges failed but that's is still significant. One reason given is that teams were using the challenge to rest players on icings?!?!? I don't recall this being abused. Keeping in mind if they lose their challenge they lose their timeout, same as if they used it on an icing to rest players. Since teams have barely enough time to decide if they want to challenge I think we see them drop significantly. Just get rid of it.

I like that teams can't call a time out after icing the puck. Now since they could do it only once a game anyway I don't think it will have a huge impact but I like that one.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 11621
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: NHL business

Postby micky107 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:50 pm

I don't think, deep down, the NHL really wants the offside challenge at all.
The refs dilly daddle, the war room is too slow and some of the reviews are still inconclusive.
It just takes so damn long and can change the flow of the game, but it sounds like this will help.

If there is just one little change I would love to see, that would be simple is that if they are going to be persistent
in keeping those stupid trapazoids, then void the rule for three on three overtime!
The goalies are itchin to get involved now and this could make it pretty entertaining.
A forward could strip the goalie of the puck but NOT body check him.
"evolution"
User avatar
micky107
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: NHL business

Postby BladesofSteel » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:03 pm

I like all the changes.

I really hate how much of an impact the offside review made on each and every game. I get it, it needed to be instilled, but it created far too much unnecessary drama and delay. But I'm old school and believe the linesman are correct 97% of the time, which is good enough for me. This adjusted rule should limit the reviews to the blatantly obvious.

The last one, the high-sticking infraction, should be treated as an off-side and drop the puck outside the defenders blueline. Minor quibble I know, but they are trying to increase offensive opportunities after all.

Lastly, I know this has been mentioned ad naseum. But what would be the harm in altering the rule for the size of the ice? Give teams the option of keeping it the same, or increasing the width up to 'X' amount. It would provide much discussion/interest and debate for sure, but it may also alter a coaches game plan, thus providing more of a home ice advantage.

The players are just too big, too skilled and too fast for todays ice dimensions. Make a harmless rule amendment and let the individual teams decide what to do. It works in baseball.
"A life, Jimmy, you know what that is? It's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come." -Det. Lester Freamon
BladesofSteel
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: Lower left-hand corner

Re: NHL business

Postby Tciso » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:48 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:From now on, a failed offside challenge will result in a two-minute penalty against the club asking for the review. It’s a potentially powerful infraction. Can you imagine a team in a tight game giving up a goal it thought was offside, losing the challenge, then having to withstand an immediate power-play opportunity? It’s going to make bench bosses much more wary — and ratchet up the pressure on video coaches.


I liked the rule, but I thought it should have a 10 second window of play before the challenge expired. That gave time to call the offside break-away, but, not to call the offside after a 30 second cycle down low that scores. Teams will have their own war room watching off-sides on PVR like crazy now.
The Cup is soooooo ours!!!!!!!
User avatar
Tciso
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:44 am

Re: NHL business

Postby Hockey Widow » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:52 pm

I wonder if you still need an available time out, and if you lose that time out in a bad challenge, if that precludes you from challenging any other offsides?

I ask because the skeptic in me says the penalty notwithstanding I could actually see more challenges. If you get scored on and have confidence in your PK why not challenge every goal?
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 11621
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: NHL business

Postby SKYO » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:43 pm

Breaking: Ken King drops bombshell, saying owners no longer going to pursue new arena in Calgary.(Flames)


Just when Seattle approves a new arena. :o :o

The city of Seattle on Tuesday was scheduled to announce its Memorandum of Understanding with the L.A.-based Oak View Group, which plans to spend $600 million renovating the arena for NBA and NHL use.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/nba/ ... tion-fund/


Flames reporter-Helen Pike:
"Bettman saying it will be hard for the Flames to remain competitive without a new arena "without a new building there will be consequences".
Canucks 2017/18
A NEW HOPE
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7997
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: NHL business

Postby Uncle dans leg » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:52 pm

SKYO wrote:
Breaking: Ken King drops bombshell, saying owners no longer going to pursue new arena in Calgary.(Flames)


Just when Seattle approves a new arena. :o :o

The city of Seattle on Tuesday was scheduled to announce its Memorandum of Understanding with the L.A.-based Oak View Group, which plans to spend $600 million renovating the arena for NBA and NHL use.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/nba/ ... tion-fund/


Flames reporter-Helen Pike:
"Bettman saying it will be hard for the Flames to remain competitive without a new arena "without a new building there will be consequences".

The obvious logic is to move the lames out of bountiful to the emerald city!

Fuck you cowgrease....fluery still sucks and Otto kicked it in
nobody forks...with the jesus
User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: NHL business

Postby Hockey Widow » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:11 pm

We've seen this game of chicken before. Heck BB still has his quarter!

I think the powers to be in Calgary will crawl back with their tail between their legs and beg the Flames to stay.

But.......I won't cry if the Flames move. That city doesn't deserve anything positive, ever. Still, I think it more likely the city finds a way to keep the team and Seattle gets an expansion team in 2-3 years, yikes, just when all our prospects develop.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 11621
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests