Failed R&D Attempts

The Research and Development Camp for the NHL is coming up in mid-August. The NHL brings out some of the top junior players to test out some of the crazy schemes that the NHL has to offer. We remember last year's R&D camp that provided bigger blue lines, hybrid icings, and a giant Cyclops face-off circle in the attacking zone.

As this is a giant gimmick blog, I have wondered what attempts could have been made for this year's R&D camp that didn't quite make the cut. There is some truth to the rumor that most of these ideas are from the Face Off Hockey Show tirades over the past decade.

The Doubler Puck: Popularized by the old MTV Rock N' Jock series of games, the Doubler Puck would be used by a team that's down late in the game and need to take a risk for these games. Of course, the adverse effect would be the team who wanted the Doubler Puck would be down in the hole if they get scored on-- but it's a risk you have to take. The NHL denied it because it would inflate some of the statistics, even though the ratings for the games would spike during those times.

Behind-the-Net Ramps: Another bit taken from TV, the Pro Beach Hockey on ESPN had ramps behind the net to create new plays and to keep the players from stopping and stalling behind the net. While the NHL liked the continuous playing idea, the brass didn't enjoy the idea of constant stoppages from the net being off their moorings because of players not having the momentum to make it around the ramp behind the net. Plus, ice makers have said they'd go on strike and owners wouldn't want to kill the behind-the-net seating since those are primo dollars.

The Three-Way Dance: To keep some costs down for the lower level teams, the idea of having three-teams played at once was pitched. This was immediately shutdown due to the rink being not only overly cluttered, but other owners claiming they would be getting shutout of revenue by missing a home game because of it. However, it would provide more bang for the buck for those there.

The Run-In Rule: While this would only be instituted during the playoff race late in the year, the run-in rule would allow rival teams who are battling for those valuable playoff spots to come out onto the ice late into a crucial period of the game to switch the momentum of the game and reek havoc on their opponents. For example-- if the Flyers were playing the Rangers late in the season and the game was tied; both battling for a playoff spot-- you could see two member of the Hurricanes come running onto the ice and create havoc for both teams, possibly costing them valuable points in the end. Somewhere, Vince McMahon is reading this and smiling.

Speaking of McMahon, he could use these all for his XHL that he'll get started when he realizes there's a market for something like this to rival the NHL and create the extreme side of things. Yes, these are silly-- but it's oddly not out of place for the R&D side of things, so it's not too far fetched in the end.

Friday Five: Believers and Dreamers

As we get closer and closer to the end of the year-- we finally get a little clearer and murkier on who's going to into the second season. In this Friday Five, we'll cover that, plus other non-concussion (to a point) stuff.

1. While the West has people wanting moving up every day, the East seems to be scared of advancement-- what's the East's problem??

The East's placeholders are definitely on the downside of thing when it comes to fighting for spots. However, with them losing-- that makes it more exciting. Look at the Devils and Leafs-- both had "must-win" games on Thursday and both lost.....so, you have the bizarro-Western situation, which is just as good; if not sadistic, as the Western race. There doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency, but as we get to less than 10 games left, you can bet the killer instinct will kick in.

2. For teams like the Calgary Flames and New Jersey Devils who have been fighting for their playoff lives since December; if they do make the playoffs-- will they be running on fumes by then??

It's an interesting situations, but at the same time-- they're a little more battle tested when it comes to fighting for each game. The Flames are clawing and grabbing for a spot and should be able to get things going and know how urgent they have to play rather than a mid-level seed or a team that has clinched a spot earlier. The Devils, however, will have a little more a tough battle because they have been on a such a great run and have been a solid story-- but at the same time, probably won't have enough for the last week of the season, much less a huge playoff run. If the Devils do make it-- it's the story of the year, minus the Cup winners plight, mind you.

3. With Manny Malhotra being struck with an errant puck in the face, is there a chance that the visor debate should be brought up again??

There was a little stir on Twitter about this and I don't know which side I fall on. For one, you'd think that with a good amount of Junior players keeping their visor on when they come into the league, the time to make a mandatory rule and grandfather in the guys who don't want to wear one would be now. Plus, it'd be good for insurance purposes, but you also don't want to determine the free-will of players rights. Of course, the AHL and lower leagues have a visor rule (if I'm not mistaken, mind you), so even the guys filtering in from the minors have some experience with the rule and would be able to deal with it moving into the NHL. While I doubt it'll be mandated, it's probably something to consider for the next round of GM meetings.

4. In a surprise move, the St. Louis Blues have been put up for sale. With this-- the Blues, Atlanta Thrashers, and Dallas Stars are the teams that are definitely up for sale. What's next for these teams??

In all of these cases, the current owners will want the team to stay in the city they're in. The Blues could most likely find someone who fits that criteria, the Stars should be able to find someone, but the Thrashers are the ultimate wild card in this. In the end, all of these teams are not only going to be hard-pressed to find local owners in this economy, but at the same time; they'll be hard-pressed to move the team if they find owners who won't keep them in town. While it's great to have teams stay in one place, if it's not a viable option-- you can't force it and have to let them go. That said, the Blues having been in the city since 1967 and they probably won't be moved because there's going to be enough interest to keep the team there-- but the Stars and Thrashers?? The former could stay, but the latter could be on the way out.

5. Leaving out the Coyotes for some reasons, the City of Glendale said their "Plan B" is to seek out a minor league franchise. How much will THIS idea fail??

If nothing else, the attendance could stay the same-- but you don't want to level down if you can help it. You saw a place like Kansas City not support a minor league squad when they had the Sprint Center built up the aspiration of a NHL team coming to town. Plus, the Phoenix area hasn't been keen to many minor league teams, as the Roadrunners of the ECHL had to fold up because they were in the bottom part of the league for attendance. Odds are, the operating costs will be far too high to bring in a minor league team to Jobing.Com Arena and be a successful organization-- but at the same time; you don't want a place sitting vacant when you want it to be a revenue producer for you. Some hockey is better than no hockey, I assume-- which if push comes to shove, something could get done. Just have to hope the Coyotes fans would follow the minor league team as much as they do the Coyotes, should it happen.

---------

That's another week down and another week until the playoffs. If you have a topic or questions-- Scotty.Wazz@Gmail.com is the place to email me for it and give your two cents for everything.

Reviewing the Rules

Alright, since NHL's Concept Car of Rule Change Expo has ended; it's time to take it all in, see what worked, what didn't, and where common sense all lands for me personally. Sure, the craziness that ensued was something to get the internet a-typin' with rage and debate. We'll take it step-by-step (day-by-day) when it comes to some of the ideas that came out of camp and see what'll stick when thrown at the wall.

-Icing: For many, this will be the rule that will probably be the first in the line to change. Both a no-touch and hybrid, which is up to linesman digression, were tested out. With the issues that have happened recently, you can bet that no-touch icing will be the thing that gets called out to the floor and utilized. The idea of a hybrid seems alright in theory, but there's too much of a gray area and nothing uniformed for the linesmen to look at; thus making it a dicey move to go with. While Sean-O had an idea of moving the icing line up so that it's different from the goal-line, but in the end, it could get a little crazed to begin and may never catch on.

-Face-Off Techniques: One of the interesting spots was the "choose your opponent" option should someone get thrown out of the face-off circle. It would definitely allow for more options and make all the players self-aware when it comes to trying to jump the gun. Another thing would be the "lacrosse face-off" option, whereas the ref puts the puck in the circle and blows the whistle to start play. If someone jumps, possession goes to the other side. The lacrosse option does seem like it's a bit much, but something that would be too much shades of gray. Finally, a penalty line which is a foot back from the dot if a player jumps. Again, a gray area-- especially with linesmen often stalling and holding the puck much too long on the draw. All of these are very innovative, but the "choose your opponent" option may be the one who wins out in all of this, if any of these rules are implemented, as it would keep the game with the same flow; but as more intrigue in terms of match-ups.

-One Dot Per Zone: One change that created some of the most buzz was the one face-off dot per zone. It turned the attack zone into a Cyclops looking area rather than boobage. This is also probably one of the most extreme changes. If nothing else, the change could create the most own goals and goals off the face-off ever. While it won't happen in our lifetime, the fact they tried it out seemed to maybe foreshadow what could happen. Of course, this sparked my mind of the NHL using this as their "Concept Car" when it came to this camp.

-Net Gains: Some changes to the goal area, from a plexiglass top to the net for better sight on goal reviews to shrinking the shallowness of the net in order to create more wrap-around chances and area behind the net to a thinner mesh used around the net. While I only support the plexiglass, the isse of where a water bottle would be placed is one thing, as well as keeping it clean and even with all the bodies in the way would only be a band-aid for the problem. The thinner mesh seems silly due to the heaviness of the shots and could create a record in net repairs if used.

-Officiating From On-High: The option of the second referee off the ice surface, lording over the play is something I can get behind, though you can debate he was doing the same job on the ice. At least with this, the players would be more away seeing him tower over the ice surface. One of the ideas that were looked at, which could be the towering refs domain, is the "bench crease" to show the refs how far out players are from the bench when they change. While this does save the refs from themselves, as well as players knowing when they can go; it almost starts to look like a D-III basketball court with all the lines for volleyball and shorter basketball courts. Another "good in theory" idea, but you would hope the players wouldn't have to be babied like this, as they are professionals. Plus, it's not like those rules will be bantered over if someone jumps just a bit early while the guy he's coming off for is still out of the crease. Now, if they use it as a DMZ and any amount of players can be in that area without getting caught-- I could see getting behind that.

There were some others like the offside rules of not being able to change or the face-off going into the other attacking zone should it be that way-- but I'm neither here nor there about that. In the grand scheme those ideas I mentioned were the most extreme in my eyes and it's doubtful that many of them will be accepted, sans two or three. Obviously, there will be some other leagues playing the role of guinea pig to test these out if not fully accepted, which would cause those fans to get up-in-arms over things. In the end, to change for change sake is something the NHL doesn't want to do, and they've said that, which I believe. They get enough flack as it is for changing some aspects of the game, no matter how tiny. However, many GMs have said the no-touch icing is a no-brainer and if only one rule gets adopted, it should be that. They are onto something with that and fully back them in that.

Intent on Writing About Intent on Stopping the Play

The buzz phrase for the 2009 Playoffs, aside from "Scrums after the whistle", may be "Intent to blow the whistle." That's a phrase I've heard way too much in the past week and two days since the playoffs have started. Apparently, this is a way to get the refs out of some hot water if they can't find the puck and it goes in the net.

Quite frankly, this could be the silliest rule out there to date. I mean, if you intent to blow the whistle, if you intent to stop the play....you have a whistle, you have fluid motion in your elbow to move your arm from your side to your mouth-- blow the effin' whistle, it's not that hard.

Maybe it's me being a little bit antsy when it comes to dealing with the drama of playoff hockey, as it is. Maybe it's the fact that this is an instant scape clause for the refs and that's a BS way to go about things, but they do it anyway. Maybe it was Memphis, maybe it was southern summer nights.....but enough Pam Tillis. The fact remains that this is something that should be looked at over the summer when it comes to rule changes.

To be honest, I can see that it's effective only in terms of guys hacking at a goalie who has it covered for a few second prior, but in terms of reviewing a goal and maybe making or breaking a team who could have a chance to tie it up or put themselves ahead, it's a craptastic rule to have on the books. This rule has a chance of being like the puck over the glass in terms that it could turn the game on it's end and could cost a team dearly when all is said and done. I hope that it never has to get to that point, but you can almost imagine that it will take an incident and uproar for the NHL to actually give it some thought. Hell, we almost had that in Game Four of the St. Louis/Vancouver series, so that should be enough to bring it to the forefront.

I'm just tired of hearing it as an excuse for refs, especially when it comes to reviewing plays that could have a meaningful connotation to it all. I mean, I definitely intend to hooking up with all the girls I flirt with, but sadly it never happens that way. If the ref intends to call a play dead, then they should do it or deal with the consequences when he didn't.

Laraque Staging Fight For Staged Fights

The GM meetings in Naples, Florida has brought a lot of buzz to the hockey world and to some role players in the NHL these past few days. The biggest buzz being Georges Laraque's reaction to the idea that a staged fight would be a 10-minute misconduct and would be up to the referee to decide if it was staged or not.

Now, Laraque calls the idea a joke and says that it'll take fighting out of the game, as well as destroy the careers of many of the one-dimensional players in the league. Laraque also feels slighted that, as a player who's livelihood could be effected by this rule, he wasn't invited to partake in the discussion of it. Obviously, GM who are there in their little section of the media row aren't on the ice, but it is what it is.

Before I go any further, let me preface the following (which I'm sure you'll figure out what it is soon enough) by saying that fighting shouldn't be taken out of the game. It's a part of the game for a reason, it's what sets the NHL and hockey in general apart from the other sports in the lexicon. The emotion in the game is very high and the physicality of the game should be a selling point of the NHL and other leagues.

With that said, the staged fighting and the fights that happen after a clean hit are pure and utter bullshit. The staged fights are the worst of all, especially since most of them have no meaning to them except for being the sideshow act of the game. Laraque is notorious for these, even with A/V proof when he get mic'd up for local TV games. The staged fight takes away any flow from either team, it sometimes turns into a big hug fest, and just puts a bad face on fighting because it has no emotion, especially five minutes into the first period of a 0-0 game. If I want a staged fight, I'll go to YouTube and watch some WWE clips. Plus, if staged fights were a huge draw, how come there weren't that many people to back the Hockey Enforcers Fight Night gimmick from a couple years back??

The fighting after a big hit is a little more manageable, because it does have something to do with passion of the game and the intensity of it, but when did clean hits become a set-up for a fight?? Didn't people used to love hockey because of the big hits?? Now, you can't have a guy like Dion Phaneuf set a guy up without the threat of him being mugged afterwards for it. The perfect example is Tyler Sloan this year laying out Daymond Langkow, then Rene Bourque flying in for no reason, except to retaliate by dropping the mitts. If it was a dirty hit, sure-- I could understand a little better for stepping up for your teammate, but if it's a solid hit and you do that-- to me it signals you think your guy is weak and can't take a hit and be alright with it. As much as fighting is a part of the game, so is a solid, clean body check.

As far as removing one-dimensional hockey players from the game-- here's an idea, get a new dimension. Get into the two dimensions so you can be equal to the paper that your name is written on when the line-ups are exchanged. If you're a giant oaf who can bearly skate and only purpose is to get less than 30 seconds of ice time, maybe this wasn't the game for you. No offense, odds are I wouldn't be able to do the fight load they can-- but at the same time, you may want to have something to fall back on if fighting doesn't turn out to be the thing for you. I think in the NHL today, you can't be a one-dimensional guy and survive in the league for more than two or three years.

It's all well and good that Laraque wants to step up for his brethern in the hockey world, but at the same time; reality needs to kick into his head and realize that maybe it's time for a new career path in terms of what he can and can't do on the ice. With the way the game is being focused on, the idea that fighting will be the selling hook is not going to happen. Maybe pre-lockout it would have been, but now it's about youth, speed, skill, and scoring. Fighting will always play it's part in the game, but it having to do with the game and not for the sake of fighting alone is the only reason it should still be included.

The Incredible Shrinking Goalie

Gary Bettman held his "State of the League" address before Game One of the Cup Finals today and while addressing the fact that all the teams will play each other at least once, the topic of goaltender's equipment came up again. Bettman citing that goals are down and that goaltenders are better physically and in their equipment, that there needs to be a way to get more room for the shooters to shoot. This comes weeks after the league and PA announced they would be forming a group to find a way to deal with goalie equipment issues.

This has been a debate that has been going on since the new rules came into effect after the work stoppage. The game was opened up, for sure, but it always seemed that the league and the people in charge of rule changes have it out for goalies. It's an odd statement to say that because goalies are being better that they need to be punished and have equipment taken away from them. It's almost like saying that guys like Alex Ovechkin, Sidney Crosby, and Jarome Iginla need to use wood sticks because they are much too good for composite and that Dion Phaneuf and Shea Weber can only stick check because they hit too hard.

The problem I have is that the NHL brass isn't embracing the goaltenders for their stellar work. Not only do they have to be physically sharp, but mentality as well. The fact they have been subjected to these changes and still are as good as they are-- it's a testament to how far goaltending has come in the last two decades. To be honest, if a young Wayne Gretzky had to play against goalies of today back then-- odds are he wouldn't have scored 92 goals and 215 points like he did in the early 80s.

I think the time has come to embrace the idea of bigger nets. It needs to happen. It HAS to happen. For the sanity of goalies and fans out there-- bigger nets need to be a god-send and needs to be the saving grace. My reasoning is on how far these decrease in pads will end up being. Will we soon see that goalies wearing editions of the local papers on their legs, like so much Greg Goldberg in the "Mighty Ducks??" Sure, it would bring up advertising dollars for papers to bid to have their goalie wear their paper, but it's joke in the long run of things.

Bigger nets will stop the insanity of the shrinking the size of goalie pads, while also give Bettman what he wants, which is to give shooters more to shoot at. That is, until goalies adapt to that, to which there will be a scurry to figure out how to adjust the game more to give the shooter even more to shoot at.

Adaptation is the reason for the goalies getting better. It has been the case ever since the beginning of the sport. From wearing proper padding to freezing the puck to the mask to the butterfly position; goalies have been able to adjust themselves to the game around them and become better players. Sure, people love scoring and it's what gets fans out of their seats (aside from fighting); but why can't people realize that a great goaltending performance could outweigh scoring in a single game.

Plus, the protection issue comes up as well. Hockey sticks are becoming lighter and the velocity coming off the sticks are becoming higher and higher. The goalies need all the padding they need to help protect their bodies from these weapons the stick companies are coming out with today. Sure, the one-piece composites may break like a wet snowball, but when they stay together, they are deadly both in accuracy and velocity. Taking padding away is taking away absorption of the blow from guys who are facing upwards of 100mph shots on a regular basis throughout the game.

The thought of bringing back the firewagon hockey style of the old days is an intriguing one and one that many older fans may enjoy-- but in the grand scheme of things; it probably won't be as good as some thought it would be. All it would do is allow teams to adapt (there's that word again) to a more defensive style of hockey and we're right back to where we were before the lockout with clutching and grabbing being the norm and posing as defensive hockey.

Note to Gary Bettman and those in charge of rule changes-- bigger nets. It's the thing that'll allow goalies to keep their padding for protection, as well as give the league the bigger shooting area for the offense to shoot at. It's the only sane thing to keep the sanctity of the game in tact....until scoring is down again and we put in the "Doubler" puck like MTV's Rock n' Jock.