The slow regression.......

[Larry Goodenough]

There were 11 games last night. Four shutouts, two 1-0 games, one of them was 0-0 after OT.

Of the 11 games, only 2 had 6 or more goals (4-3 SO and 5-2)

The over/under in sportsaction last year was always 5.5 goals. This year, you often see it now set at 4.5 goals when certain teams are playing. You are now wondering if you'll see more than 4 goals a game?

What I keep thinking as I watch games and witness Vancouver continually getting one or no powerplays, am I witnessing a slow regression back to the dead puck era?

When I watched Van Massenhoven stand 10 feet from a tripped Kesler in OT while an Avs d-man had his stick stuck between his blade and boot and chose to not call a penalty because the call did not fit into his agenda, I was sold the pendulum has swung back.

I know goals don't always mean excitement, but it does increase the chances. Is this hockey being coached more and more defensively or is the refereeing simply regressing from the "new NHL" standards to the old standards, predicated on "let them play" or game circumstance rather that foul or no foul?

[Jovocop]

There were 11 games last night. Four shutouts, two 1-0 games, one of them was 0-0 after OT.

Of the 11 games, only 2 had 6 or more goals (4-3 SO and 5-2)

The over/under in sportsaction last year was always 5.5 goals. This year, you often see it now set at 4.5 goals when certain teams are playing. You are now wondering if you'll see more than 4 goals a game?

What I keep thinking as I watch games and witness Vancouver continually getting one or no powerplays, am I witnessing a slow regression back to the dead puck era?

When I watched Van Massenhoven stand 10 feet from a tripped Kesler in OT while an Avs d-man had his stick stuck between his blade and boot and chose to not call a penalty because the call did not fit into his agenda, I was sold the pendulum has swung back.

I know goals don't always mean excitement, but it does increase the chances. Is this hockey being coached more and more defensively or is the refereeing simply regressing from the "new NHL" standards to the old standards, predicated on "let them play" or game circumstance rather that foul or no foul?

The NHL is a joke. A penalty call is different for different teams at different time. All those stupid ideas of evening the calls always get me thinking. Can you imagine our judges work the same way as the referees? After all, it is just a business.

[nucksin7]

Just a random thought... What if a penalty didn't have to be 2 minutes?

What if Van Massen had the ability to call a 1 minute penalty for tripping in that spot? or even a 30 seconds power play in OT with an offensive faceoff? That way he's not really impacting the outcome of the game persay - hes just giving back the 1 scoring opportunity that was taken away...

How & Why did 2 minutes become the standard "minor" penalty... maybe its time to rethink that?

Just a thought...

[ESQ]

I know goals don't always mean excitement, but it does increase the chances. Is this hockey being coached more and more defensively or is the refereeing simply regressing from the "new NHL" standards to the old standards, predicated on "let them play" or game circumstance rather that foul or no foul?

Hm, very interesting question. Its obvious that scoring is down from the 05/06 season, and goals per game is close to what it was in the dead puck era. But I hadn't noticed until you raised it that PIMs are way down as well, by about 5 minutes per game, and that's with a lot more majors and misconducts getting called under the new headshot rules.

In fact, we're seeing less PIMs than the pre-lockout era as well. But, the increase in PIMs from 03/04 to 05/06 was less than I would have imagined, and about 1/5th the difference between 05/06 and 11/12. So that suggests that post-lockout scoring went up not because of more powerplays being awarded, but because the new rules encouraged offence and the trap began disappearing. On the flip side, the decrease in scoring since 05/06 is proportional to the decrease in PIMs, so that may well be the cause for the decrease in scoring, not a reversion to the dead puck tactics.

I think the NHL officiating is out of control in that they seem to want to have far more control over the outcome than they should. The NBA had the same thing - gambling Ref Tim Donaghy says he bet based on his knowledge of other referees' dislike for certain players rather than by fixing his own games. Without a full-blown scandal, its a very difficult problem to address. I will say that you see far less complaining about NFL officiating since the coach's challenge was introduced.

[Larry Goodenough]

I know goals don't always mean excitement, but it does increase the chances. Is this hockey being coached more and more defensively or is the refereeing simply regressing from the "new NHL" standards to the old standards, predicated on "let them play" or game circumstance rather that foul or no foul?

Hm, very interesting question. Its obvious that scoring is down from the 05/06 season, and goals per game is close to what it was in the dead puck era. But I hadn't noticed until you raised it that PIMs are way down as well, by about 5 minutes per game, and that's with a lot more majors and misconducts getting called under the new headshot rules.

In fact, we're seeing less PIMs than the pre-lockout era as well. But, the increase in PIMs from 03/04 to 05/06 was less than I would have imagined, and about 1/5th the difference between 05/06 and 11/12. So that suggests that post-lockout scoring went up not because of more powerplays being awarded, but because the new rules encouraged offence and the trap began disappearing. On the flip side, the decrease in scoring since 05/06 is proportional to the decrease in PIMs, so that may well be the cause for the decrease in scoring, not a reversion to the dead puck tactics.

I think the NHL officiating is out of control in that they seem to want to have far more control over the outcome than they should. The NBA had the same thing - gambling Ref Tim Donaghy says he bet based on his knowledge of other referees' dislike for certain players rather than by fixing his own games. Without a full-blown scandal, its a very difficult problem to address. I will say that you see far less complaining about NFL officiating since the coach's challenge was introduced.

Less PPs means less goals, but the trip on Kelser also took away a scoring chance and was not penalized. I see the regression effecting scoring in both ways.

[BladesofSteel]

I'd like to see penalties carry out whether the opposing team scores before the play is called down or not. If a team has control of the puck on a delayed call and manages to score prior to the play being whistled down, it makes absolutely no sense to me that the penalty should then nullified. This will not only promote more scoring opportunities, but create more momentum shifts in any given game. Minor tweak that could make a big impact.

I'm not so concerned with the number of goals that occur, rather the number of scoring chances that take place. Regardless, this game is only going to continue to regress so long as the elite don't have room to roam, and more players continue to go down with injuries due to playing on a ridiculously small ice surface.

[ESQ]

I hadn't notice the lack of PP (other than against the Canucks ) being a league-wide issue. But frankly, I'd be happy to just see a tighter-called game. I think the "diving epidemic" is leading to less calls, which is counter-productive for the player doing the embellishing.

I hate it when people say diving/embellishing is cheating, as if tripping, interfering, and cross-checking isn't cheating - its against the rules because it gives the perpetrator an unfair advantage. And frankly I'd rather see an embellishment to a can-opener or cross-check or rabbit-punch.

The danger of under-calling because the ref doesn't want to be embarrassed by embellishment is it allows dirty play to flourish, which is what we've seen.

[ESQ]

Thought this was worth passing along:
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012 ... say-it-is/

“After the (2004-05) lockout, if a guy chipped a puck by you, you couldn’t touch him,” he said. “If you did, it was a penalty every single time. You just had to turn and go get it.”

Larry Goodenough = Brooks Orpik?

[Larry Goodenough]

Thought this was worth passing along:
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012 ... say-it-is/

“After the (2004-05) lockout, if a guy chipped a puck by you, you couldn’t touch him,” he said. “If you did, it was a penalty every single time. You just had to turn and go get it.”

Larry Goodenough = Brooks Orpik?

I often describe my beer league style as a homeless man's Jim Sandlak, so I'll take Brooks Orpik.

The other nite, who saw Corey Perry take an opponent down while chasing him behind the opposition net. Ref wouldn't call it just becuase it was OT. If it was the first period, it was an automatic call.

Perry picks the puck up while the guy slides into the corner and scores. Kirk Muller was beside himself and had every right to be pissed.

Now, this actually led to a goal. But the point of this thread was the refs seemingly letting more stuff go. We were sorta promised this wasn't going to happen with the "new NHL"

[Fred]

Yeah I saw that play...terrible and shows it's a myth the concept of it's called the same from the puck drop...it obviously is not and it's a prelude to the play-offs I'm afraid more of what we watched from the officials last season in the play-offs

[Aaronp18]

Yeah I saw that play...terrible and shows it's a myth the concept of it's called the same from the puck drop...it obviously is not and it's a prelude to the play-offs I'm afraid more of what we watched from the officials last season in the play-offs

Not only that but it also demonstrates one of my most despised misnomers, "letting the players decide the game by not calling penalties."

Where in reality by not calling what should be a penalty the refs had a direct impact on the outcome of the game.

The problem is that the NHL had the backing and patience of the fans, players and team management coming out of the lockout to change the game and call the obstruction, etc. that slowed the game in the dead puck era. Now a new problem has taken the forefront in concussions and there is an association being made between the increased speed of the game post-lockout and the seemingly higher incidence of concussions.

In all likelihood players are going to continue getting bigger, faster and stronger. If we want to maintain the speed and skill of the game there may only be one simple (yet not so simple) solution.

Make the ice surface bigger.

[Larry Goodenough]

Ed Willes stealing our thoughts and presenting them as his own?

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Sympt ... story.html

[okcanuck]

Ed Willes stealing our thoughts and presenting them as his own?

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Sympt ... story.html

Ed Willes owes you part of his paycheque

[ESQ]

Not only that but it also demonstrates one of my most despised misnomers, "letting the players decide the game by not calling penalties."

Exactly, and Game 7 of the ECF was the perfect example of that.

I really think the officials have lost it. Shorty's been pointing out how random icing calls are now, i.e. the first Boston goal in January. Last night on HNIC Glen Healy showed a replay of how the Leafs were winning faceoffs - the linesman just threw the puck between the Leafs' centre's feet. Linesmen never call the delay of game penalty after a team should be waved out of the faceoff twice.

Personally I'm in the camp of Call the rulebook as is. The rulebook is fine, its just the application is all over the map. I don't buy the obstruction-concussion link, why were there no concussion epidemic talk in 05/06 or 06/07, when officiating was the tightest?

Plus, with an extra 4 PP minutes/game, you're not going to see as much off-the-rush, open-ice hits as when its no-whistle hockey.

[Jovocop]

Not only that but it also demonstrates one of my most despised misnomers, "letting the players decide the game by not calling penalties."

The funny part about "letting the players decide the game by not calling penalties" is that the refs actually decide the game by letting the dirty players to take over.