Aug 16, 2010, 3:00 PM EDT
While casual fans probably don’t really bat an eye at the league’s post-lockout “trapezoid rule,” it’s something that bothers purists for sure. For those of you who aren’t aware, before the lockout a goalie had much more freedom to play the puck (and therefore hamper an opposing team’s dump-and-chase game). In hopes of increasing scoring, the NHL decided to pass a rule that would charge a team with a two-minute delay of game penalty if their goalie handled the puck outside of that dreaded trapezoid behind the red line.
Ken Campbell makes a passionate argument against the trapezoid for The Hockey News. Here is his argument in a nutshell (click on the link to read his well-reasoned thoughts in greater depth).
Well, we’ve had five full seasons with the trapezoid and while it might have been a concern in the pre-lockout NHL, the game has changed so much and the flow of play has so greatly improved that the league could easily abolish the trapezoid and allow goalies to play the puck with impunity without compromising offensive chances.
I agree with Campbell, but again, I don’t think this is a subject that should create much debate. The rule change that Campbell brought up late in the column, however, has my Nerdy Hockey Spider Sense tingling as if I had a whole bottle of Denorex on my scalp.
Another one I’ve never been able to figure out is why teams are allowed to ice the puck with impunity when killing a penalty. First, you give a team a disadvantage for breaking the rules, then you allow it to break the rules again to mitigate the disadvantage it faced for breaking the rules in the first place.
Here are a couple of remedies: One would be to abolish the free-pass icing when killing a penalty and, just to make it more interesting, retain the rule that doesn’t allow the team that iced the puck to make a player change during the stoppage in play. That way you’d have four tired penalty-killers taking a faceoff in their own end. Another would be to allow each team a pre-determined number of icings per period, let’s say three. The first three icings would not be called, but each one after that would result in a defensive-zone faceoff, even on a penalty kill.
Sound crazy? Well, it’s no more outlandish than establishing a small, defined area in which goaltenders are allowed to play the puck.
OK, I’m not a fan of his “three icings per period” addendum, but the no free-pass icing on the penalty kill idea smells like mad scientist genius to me.
After all, why should a team be given extra rights after committing a penalty? For the record, I’m one of those people who wants sports games to be played the same way at all times. Not only am I against the shootout, but I’d also rather see overtime be 5-on-5 during the regular season. (Of course, I have some more bold ideas about giving teams more incentive to play hard all game long, but that’s a whole other discussion.)
I mean, can you really give me a good reason why icing is allowed on penalty kills … aside from making things easier for teams down a man? Imagine how much more interesting it would be if an opposing team had to get to the middle of the ice before they dumped the puck on the kill? It would make it easier for the powerplay team to retain the puck and make opposing teams “earn” every killed penalty.
If the league was bold enough to do away with the trapezoid and make that icing change, it would signify – to me at least- a subtle nudge away from dump and chase strategies. That, to me, would make hockey that much more appealing for casual fans who need to witness the beautiful skill this sport often exhibits.
With these rule changes in mind, I thought I’d ask you folks out there. Would you like to see either one of these rules changed? Vote in the two polls below. (Yup, that’s right, two of them.)
- Jonathan Toews talks about the Patrick Kane situation 18
- Voynov detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 16
- Ex-‘Hawks goalie Raanta tees off on former club 31
- Report: Hawks feel Kane ‘disrespected’ team, have received trade calls 119
- Hawks’ biggest question: What happens with Patrick Kane? 82
- Hall of Famer Al Arbour passes away 22
- Poll: Who will be San Jose’s next captain? 24
- Mike Richards charged with possession of controlled substance 95
- Gio won’t go: Flames extend Giordano for six years, $40.5M 13
- Pens’ plan for now: Crosby starts as Kessel’s center 25
- Report: Hawks feel Kane ‘disrespected’ team, have received trade calls (119)
- Hawks’ biggest question: What happens with Patrick Kane? (82)
- Report: Hawks’ Kane has not been asked to waive his no-move clause (47)
- Lucic jokes about running through Rask ‘like I did (to) another goalie’ (42)
- It’s Chicago Blackhawks day at PHT (41)