reaction to rule changes

[nemesis8679]

18 hours ago, GrumpyOldPucker said:

Hey Jack,

Go find some footage of the old Russian red army team. They were better skaters and  more skilled than most of the NHL players 

They also played on a much larger ice surface that complimented possession. 

[GrumpyOldPucker]

On 9/25/2021 at 5:28 PM, carroll81 said:

 I see your point.  So I paid a little more attention to the neutral zone play in my games this week.   Rustin vs. Downingtown - Puck comes out of zone, D to D and right back on the attack; either a quick pass to a forward cutting through the middle, pass opposite to a wing on the blue line or skate it in.  In a rare instance of a clogged zone or a line change, it's a pass back to the D partner to change a side of the attack and try it again.  So, it is really not a 50/50 battle in the neutral zone because you never give up the possession to begin with.  Still plenty of cycling and play below the goal line. 

Reminded me of a game last year when Bishop McQuid(?) from Rochester came through.  It was maddening how they would never dump the puck, ever.  They would cycle all the way back into their own end if they had to.  If they could not generate a clean zone entry, they would reset and do it over.  Sometimes 3-4 times.  Crazy.   When you do it like that, it is actually easier to maintain possession.  You are spreading play out over 2 zones, instead of jammed in one.

I watched the NHL teams do it on the powerplay last season and it would drive me crazy.  I now see the value in it.

Aaaand this is exactly what the Red Army team did to the NHL'ers on NHL ice until the the goons took over. You work really hard to get control of the puck... I don't want to give it up just to have to go fight for it again..... But it takes skills and awareness - two things that are not associated with 90% of the players that have been coached to fire the puck back in deep. 

[RJUSHL]

On 9/22/2021 at 11:40 AM, Jack Handey said:

You can have a 50-50 battle at the blue line, or you can have a 50-50 battle behind the opponents' goal line.  If you want to see more offense and more scoring and just as much creativity, let them have the battle behind the goal line.  The new offsides rule forces a puck carrier at the blue line to turn back and re-group into traffic.  On occasion I have seen as many as 8 or 9 skaters between the blue and the red line because of the turn back.  Yes some creativity will be required to keep possession.  But the rule forces more play and more time spent in the neutral zone with high traffic.  Is this really what we want to see and where we want to play the game?

But in one scenario you concede possession and then try and win it again. In the other scenario you try and keep possession with deceptive skating and quick puck movement. If you have defenseman that know what they are doing the regroup will not be in traffic. They may occasionally have to evade a good aggressive skating forward but that's hockey. Make a move. Find an open guy.

I'm honestly not 100% convinced one way or another about this rule change one way or another, but I am surprised how people are immediately against it like it's a completely cut and dry issue. I think the jury is still out. I like what USA Hockey is trying to accomplish with the rule.

[Lifelongbender]

As I have said above, the positions of those who support the rule change are well-reasoned. I don't think this rule change is cataclysmic, but I have the following reasons for disagreeing with it, some of which are good ones and some of which are not as good. In no particular order:

• There is no justification for allowing delayed offsides at the high school level but not allowing amateur players of that age delayed offsides. Let's all play the same game.
• While I agree that highly skilled players can perform a regroup and retain possession of the puck, @GrumpyOldPucker noted that the Russians tortured opponents with their regroups. Even their most skilled opponents couldn't do regroups like the Russians. Just because Makharov and Kharlomov could do this, should we expect all players to be able to? I don't know if I am on board with that. You do different sorts of regroups if Letang and Dumoulin are on the ice than if it's Ruhwedel and Maata.
• Coaches are free to coach their players to regroup in the neutral zone, and in this argument thereby dominate opponents at will, if they like, whether delayed offsides exists or not. I fail to see how removing an option from the game enhances creativity. It just requires everyone to play the game one particular way at all times. If coaches saw a huge advantage to the Russian style regroups, more teams would be playing that style now, even before the rule change. The fact that you don't see it being played that way already tells you something. We can, of course ,debate whether the coaches are correct in their perceptions here, but kids regrouped rather than dump the puck all the way through peewee under the old system because they didn't have delayed offsides, so coaching bantams to do it would have been trivial if a coach saw a way to gain a competitive advantage.
• Games I have watched this season have taken longer, and flowed less well, than they did last season. That may well - probably will - change as teams get used to the new rules.

I'm not saying that hockey is better when players dump the puck rather than trying to do something more possession-oriented in the neutral zone, or even further back. I am saying that removing that option doesn't make the game better in my opinion, because there are isolated and possibly rare situations where dumping a puck makes sense.

Again, maybe most or all of these concerns are going to lessen as players get used to this new rule. Maybe my biggest objection to this change is that touch-up offsides is just how hockey is played in my book, as a lifelong fan. But my first bullet is not going to fade away - if touch up offsides is bad for player development and bad for the game, why permit it at any level, or allow players to do it with their HS teams but not their amateur teams? The rules should be the same for everyone.

Finally, for the record I think that not permitting a team on the PK is not a huge change. Although it can make it harder for the defending team to change (especially in the second period), in the games I have watched this season this rule change hasn't really been an issue. The kids have been aware of the the rule at HS and at amateur and generally acted appropriately. I still believe, though, that the rules should be the same for HS hockey as for amateur.

[aaaahockey]

@Lifelongbender that post was way too high quality for this forum. Saving for myself as I agree with you totally 

[GrumpyOldPucker]

I've seen this rules flip-flop a couple times now..... There was just as much gnashing of teeth on both sides every time...... 

Yup coaches are free to to coach as they see fit.  Remember that the rule change is not about making the elite players better, it's about trying to develop more of the younger\maybe marginal players to be better and maybe eventually have a couple more develop to higher\elite levels. The problem is that coaches are like many of the current crop of school teachers that teach to pass standardized tests..... The coaches want (need?) to WIN and will coach the simplest style that their entire team can grasp in order to WIN. You don't need delayed offside to play basic dump & chase\crash the net hockey and it's a lot easier for the less skilled players too. Players need skills to pass and regroup and you need to have coaches willing to teach the skills and situational awareness maybe at the cost of WINNING. Some coaches are teaching the skills no matter what the offsides rule is. And just how many parents will buy into paying a couple grand and driving all over hells' half acre and NOT WIN?

As for Highschool hockey.... USAH doesn't give a flying flip about it other than it's hockey and they want control over it..... IIRC, the PIHL DID NOT have a seat at the table in Mid-Am for a long time. Anyone remember rumblings about HS switching to NFHS, AAU or PIAA? Me thinks a big part of the reason they are allowed to play to different rules are simply that they want to and would take their puck (and registration dollars) and go play somewhere else.

Edited September 29, 2021 by GrumpyOldPucker