Tampa and Flyers Game

[princedpw]

But shouldn't players be going to where the puck is? Even the lone forechecker was staying behind the Philly blueline.

As I just said in another post, when Philly has the puck, the primary goal of the Tampa skaters is to prevent the Flyers from scoring. How they choose to do that is up to them - whether we like the strategy or not. While I'm not a fan of the strategy the Lightning employed, there's nothing illegal about it and the primary responsibility is on the attacking team to break through it, rather than for the defending team to give them opportunities.

I think it is the obligation of both teams to play within the rules and that is all.  I think the game illustrated a flaw in the rules as both teams thought it was to their advantage to sit back.  And to be honest, I think it is.  If both teams play like that the entire game, they pick up a point each guaranteed.

I think the league should quickly make up a rule (like they have done in the past:  see Avery antics) to fix the situation.  I'd need more time to think through the ramifications but a simple 5-second rule for the defensive team of the form:  You have 5 seconds to begin to advance towards the puck carrier if the puck is not on your side of the ice and you aren't killing a penalty.  Likewise, the offense cannot hold the puck behind its goal line (especially behind its net) for more than 5 seconds.  In the case the offense holds the puck behind its goal line for 5 seconds and the defense does not attack, the offense only is penalized.  (2 minutes delay of game.)

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

if the goal is to get points ..then the argument can be made that neither team is wrong ..it was 0-0 when this started...and if the teams want to play that way..they could go through the whole game like that .... i guess i think talking about "obligation" is non sense ..because that's subjective..and if we're allowing that into the discussion i don't see why we can't just say what everyone has said from the 90's on ..the trap sucks .. so for that reason i..an avid philly hater ...loved what they did here..if tampa wants to play this kind of suffocating game right from the get go ..on home ice no less...let the fans get a taste of how boring it really is .... maybe this should have happened before..

after all ..it wasn't until there were back to back games ..i think between new york and boston?  back in the bad old days ..that they decided to changes the rules and add icing to the game ..this only happened after both teams took turns exploiting the lack of a rule to their advantage in one of the most boring ways humanly imaginable ...

this is a protest of sorts...and i have no problem with philly making it ...i wouldn't mind seeing other teams follow suit

 

[Kin]

I don't have a strong opinion on this in terms of the small picture "Tampa vs. Philly" sense but now that it's happened it surprises me that it's taken this long.

(although I can't help but think it funny that Philadelphia is getting criticized by some for not trying to score and making the game boring to watch while the trapping team gets off the hook)

The league has slept on the problem of the trap for 15 years. If this opens their eyes to it then my hat is off to the Flyers.

 

[Spider]

I don't have a strong opinion on this in terms of the small picture "Tampa vs. Philly" sense but now that it's happened it surprises me that it's taken this long.

(although I can't help but think it funny that Philadelphia is getting criticized by some for not trying to score and making the game boring to watch while the trapping team gets off the hook)

The league has slept on the problem of the trap for 15 years. If this opens their eyes to it then my hat is off to the Flyers.

Maybe they should add a rule, where the attacking team has 15 or 20 seconds to bring the puck out of thier zone (as basketball has - to bring the ball past half).  This will eliminate the boring, I will wait until you make the first move. 

This will force teams to find ways to break the trap system.  Since there is only one defender in the defending zone - there can be an easy 3-on-1, if you can get the puck past the 3 players at center ice.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

I don't have a strong opinion on this in terms of the small picture "Tampa vs. Philly" sense but now that it's happened it surprises me that it's taken this long.

(although I can't help but think it funny that Philadelphia is getting criticized by some for not trying to score and making the game boring to watch while the trapping team gets off the hook)

The league has slept on the problem of the trap for 15 years. If this opens their eyes to it then my hat is off to the Flyers.

Maybe they should add a rule, where the attacking team has 15 or 20 seconds to bring the puck out of thier zone (as basketball has - to bring the ball past half).  This will eliminate the boring, I will wait until you make the first move. 

This will force teams to find ways to break the trap system.  Since there is only one defender in the defending zone - there can be an easy 3-on-1, if you can get the puck past the 3 players at center ice.

i really don't think it's the attacking team that's the problem here

 

[Kin]

This will force teams to find ways to break the trap system.  Since there is only one defender in the defending zone - there can be an easy 3-on-1, if you can get the puck past the 3 players at center ice.

Teams have been trying to beat the trap for years and the reality is that it's not easy. For instance, the kind of play you're talking about would be very hard to make and far more subject to an interception and an odd man rush than paying off for your team.

Like cpd alludes to, this isn't Philly's problem. This is a league problem and it's one they've slept on for a while.

 

[pnjunction]

It doesn't really matter who is to blame you can only really penalize the team who has the puck.  Trying to define how teams should play without it would be weird.

Something like 10-20s at the ref's discretion to get the puck moving or get either a defensive zone faceoff or a penalty.

You'd think opposing teams could use the predictability this defense to plan a coordinated attack.  Those guys were standing exactly in pre-defined locations.

 

[Bender]

Is there a news article on the story?

*Edit

Just saw the TSN clip on youtube.

I agree with Busta here. I think the trap is boring to watch but it's very effective as a defensive strategy. I don't see how you can outlaw a defensive formation. I would say it's on the onus of the attacking team to break through the defense of the other team.

I agree with one of the statements earlier that stated PL basically didn't want to play ball simply because he doesn't have a strategy to play against the trap. The trap isn't a magic bullet, so why penalize that formation? I think Philly not even trying to get through right off the bat in the first period is extremely unsportsmanlike.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

Is there a news article on the story?

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1084433  like that one?  i'm sure there are others

 

[oldman]

bender, I think PL does know how to beat the trap. They scored 6 or 7 against them last year in a game when the Bolts were doing the 1-3-1. I think he just chose to expose the trap for what it is. I hope the next team against Tampa does the same thing. And I wish more teams did it back in the '90's Devils style hockey. Why should Philly play into the 1-3-1? It's no different than a player skating behind his net and waiting for a safe outlet.  I don't know, maybe I'm just soured on the trap after seeing it for so many years.  The Pens even did it last season and it was boring hockey.

 

[Bates]

I don't have an issue with either team but I can say with certainty that if my team(Leafs) played a system with literally no forecheck(Lightning) they would very quickly lose one fan.  The NHL is in the entertainment business and no one was entertained during that game.  I have watched the Oilers quite a bit over last few years and one of the things I have liked about them the most is the very entertaining style of hockey they play even when team is not that good.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

But shouldn't players be going to where the puck is? Even the lone forechecker was staying behind the Philly blueline.

As I just said in another post, when Philly has the puck, the primary goal of the Tampa skaters is to prevent the Flyers from scoring. How they choose to do that is up to them - whether we like the strategy or not. While I'm not a fan of the strategy the Lightning employed, there's nothing illegal about it and the primary responsibility is on the attacking team to break through it, rather than for the defending team to give them opportunities.

By that same token there was nothing illegal that the Flyers were doing by not advancing the puck up the ice.  They were not intentionally avoiding play with the puck, which is the point of the dead puck/delay of game whistle.  I'm not a fan of what Philly did either, but why should Philly be obligated to try and break through a trap system that is entirely built on low-percentage puck advancement and attempts at capitalizing on turnovers and odd-man rushes the other way?

This is my view. 

If Tampa doesn't have an obligation to be sucked into forechecking Philly's D and opening up, why does Philly have the obligation to be sucked into the trap in the neutral zone?

Both teams are trying to disrupt the other.

 

[WAYNEINIONA]

It's not like Tampa is the only team that plays the trap.

 

[maplesyrup]

Interesting... 13 of 17 NHL GMs polled say Tampa is to blame for this. (2 abstained from voting.)

 

[Bender]

But shouldn't players be going to where the puck is? Even the lone forechecker was staying behind the Philly blueline.

As I just said in another post, when Philly has the puck, the primary goal of the Tampa skaters is to prevent the Flyers from scoring. How they choose to do that is up to them - whether we like the strategy or not. While I'm not a fan of the strategy the Lightning employed, there's nothing illegal about it and the primary responsibility is on the attacking team to break through it, rather than for the defending team to give them opportunities.

By that same token there was nothing illegal that the Flyers were doing by not advancing the puck up the ice.  They were not intentionally avoiding play with the puck, which is the point of the dead puck/delay of game whistle.  I'm not a fan of what Philly did either, but why should Philly be obligated to try and break through a trap system that is entirely built on low-percentage puck advancement and attempts at capitalizing on turnovers and odd-man rushes the other way?

This is my view. 

If Tampa doesn't have an obligation to be sucked into forechecking Philly's D and opening up, why does Philly have the obligation to be sucked into the trap in the neutral zone?

Both teams are trying to disrupt the other.

The point of the game is to score, though. If Tampa feels it can do that by bringing Philly in and stealing the puck or choking them out, so be it. That's how they'll generate their offense. The onus is on the team with the puck, generally, to break through the defense. Its not like Tampa was the first team to play the trap, and I don't know how you outlaw a specific formation in a game of formations just because it's more effective than others.

I like the Jets' coach response: "Just deal with it."

 

[Kin]

Interesting... 13 of 17 NHL GMs polled say Tampa is to blame for this. (2 abstained from voting.)

I think that's probably right. But more than that, just in an in-game sense, Tampa is the home team and they're the ones having trouble selling tickets. If they want to bore their fans like that, well, that's on them.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The NHL is apparently going to be discussing this at the upcoming Governors meeting. Boucher has been using the 1-3-1 system since starting out with Tampa, and even before that in the AHL. And of course forms of the trap have been used for longer than I can remember. I don't like the trap, but if nobody thought to discuss banning zone defences when the Devils were doing it why is this being discussed just because the Flyers decided to take a stand one period?

 

[Kin]

I don't like the trap, but if nobody thought to discuss banning zone defences when the Devils were doing it why is this being discussed just because the Flyers decided to take a stand one period?

1) When the Devils were doing it you could make a legitimate argument that the lower income teams needed to have every possible on-ice tactic at their disposal against the teams with more skill than them and two to five times their payroll.

2) They decided it was better to be right eventually than wrong consistently

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't like the trap, but if nobody thought to discuss banning zone defences when the Devils were doing it why is this being discussed just because the Flyers decided to take a stand one period?

1) When the Devils were doing it you could make a legitimate argument that the lower income teams needed to have every possible on-ice tactic at their disposal against the teams with more skill than them and two to five times their payroll.

I suppose that's a fair point. Still, I don't like the idea of the NHL dictating how a coach should do its job. Although I suppose every rule, like icings, do that.

Just out of curiosity, I keep hearing/reading that the NHL could follow what the NBA did to outlaw "zone defences". Any chance you could explain what they did there?

 

[princedpw]

It doesn't really matter who is to blame you can only really penalize the team who has the puck. 

The team without the puck gets penalized all the time under current NHL rules.