Tampa and Flyers Game

[Kin]

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?

It depends on whether they mean what they did pre-2001 or post-2001(Although I assume they mean pre-2001). Basically it was a judgment call on the part of a referee where if he saw a team drop into a zone, or players defending areas on the court rather than individual players on the other team, there'd be a whistle and the offending defense would give up, if memory serves, a foul shot and possession.

They changed it to a rule where players aren't allowed to be in the shooting lanes for more than three seconds at a time when the argument became popular that Zone defenses, so long as they weren't clogging up the middle of the court, actually led to more turnovers and fast-breaks and increased the pace of the game.

 

[princedpw]

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.

(a) I'm surprised so many people are siding with the trapping team --- I think low-scoring games played in the neutral zone with few chances are boring.  I thought most other people agreed (unless your team was playing the trap and winning with it -- and Toronto hasn't ever done it to my knowledge).

(b) When people say "you can't do X", it strikes me as lacking creativity.  The league can do whatever it wants to create a more entertaining product!  I just don't know why the first reaction many people have is "can't" as opposed to "how can we do it?"

(c) The league already outlaws certain defensive tactics and "positions".  The most obvious is interference in all its various forms.  Specifically, getting in a guy's way when he dumps the puck in on the forecheck.

(d) We don't have to deal with the problem by outlawing a position, we can do it by mandating some motion:  ie: you have to go after the puck carrying within 5 seconds.  This might not be the best solution, but if we brainstorm I'll bet we can come up with a variety of interesting variations on that theme.  I basically I don't get the immediate push to "no, we can't do anything" ...

Bottom line: we don't seem to like the trap.  This game really highlighted a flaw in the current system.  Let's be creative and brainstorm about possible solutions that lead to a game we would want to see as opposed to simply saying we "must" put the onus on the offense and "must not" change the rules to alter the allowed defense....

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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?

It depends on whether they mean what they did pre-2001 or post-2001(Although I assume they mean pre-2001). Basically it was a judgment call on the part of a referee where if he saw a team drop into a zone, or players defending areas on the court rather than individual players on the other team, there'd be a whistle and the offending defense would give up, if memory serves, a foul shot and possession.

They changed it to a rule where players aren't allowed to be in the shooting lanes for more than three seconds at a time when the argument became popular that Zone defenses, so long as they weren't clogging up the middle of the court, actually led to more turnovers and fast-breaks and increased the pace of the game.

I've never been a fan of putting anything in the referee's discretion. I can see why the NHL would have a problem with a team using a 1-3-1 system throughout an entire game/season, but there are definitely situations when it's a very useful tactic. If a team is up by two goals in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals are they not allowed to sit back and protect it? Or even just late in the 3rd period of any regular season game?

I can see why the NHL would want to put an end to the trap, but I just don't see how they can do it that would still allow teams to play a defensive game when they need to.

 

[L K]

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?

It depends on whether they mean what they did pre-2001 or post-2001(Although I assume they mean pre-2001). Basically it was a judgment call on the part of a referee where if he saw a team drop into a zone, or players defending areas on the court rather than individual players on the other team, there'd be a whistle and the offending defense would give up, if memory serves, a foul shot and possession.

They changed it to a rule where players aren't allowed to be in the shooting lanes for more than three seconds at a time when the argument became popular that Zone defenses, so long as they weren't clogging up the middle of the court, actually led to more turnovers and fast-breaks and increased the pace of the game.

I've never been a fan of putting anything in the referee's discretion. I can see why the NHL would have a problem with a team using a 1-3-1 system throughout an entire game/season, but there are definitely situations when it's a very useful tactic. If a team is up by two goals in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals are they not allowed to sit back and protect it? Or even just late in the 3rd period of any regular season game?

I can see why the NHL would want to put an end to the trap, but I just don't see how they can do it that would still allow teams to play a defensive game when they need to.

I have a hard time seeing how you could enforce a "zone defense" rule in the NHL.  While the NBA certainly has a transition game, it doesn't rival the NHL's speed in any way.  It would be next to impossible to enforce a player limit in the neutral zone.

Honestly, I think the best way to impede the trap would be to allow a more lenient off-side rule on dump-ins.  Call offside if you are carrying the puck across the blue-line, but on a play where there is a dump-in, if a guy is only a step or stride into the zone as the puck is entering the zone, don't blow the whistle.  It would allow for more speed coming in on the forecheck and would make standing still in the neutral zone a dangerous situation when a guy can attack the zone with speed instead of standing around waiting for your teammate to try and sludge through the blueline to center line to dump the puck in.

 

[jjjoejr]

Cool. The NHL needs a shot clock.

 

[Sucker Punch]

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?

It depends on whether they mean what they did pre-2001 or post-2001(Although I assume they mean pre-2001). Basically it was a judgment call on the part of a referee where if he saw a team drop into a zone, or players defending areas on the court rather than individual players on the other team, there'd be a whistle and the offending defense would give up, if memory serves, a foul shot and possession.

They changed it to a rule where players aren't allowed to be in the shooting lanes for more than three seconds at a time when the argument became popular that Zone defenses, so long as they weren't clogging up the middle of the court, actually led to more turnovers and fast-breaks and increased the pace of the game.

I've never been a fan of putting anything in the referee's discretion. I can see why the NHL would have a problem with a team using a 1-3-1 system throughout an entire game/season, but there are definitely situations when it's a very useful tactic. If a team is up by two goals in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals are they not allowed to sit back and protect it? Or even just late in the 3rd period of any regular season game?

I can see why the NHL would want to put an end to the trap, but I just don't see how they can do it that would still allow teams to play a defensive game when they need to.

I have a hard time seeing how you could enforce a "zone defense" rule in the NHL.  While the NBA certainly has a transition game, it doesn't rival the NHL's speed in any way.  It would be next to impossible to enforce a player limit in the neutral zone.

Honestly, I think the best way to impede the trap would be to allow a more lenient off-side rule on dump-ins.  Call offside if you are carrying the puck across the blue-line, but on a play where there is a dump-in, if a guy is only a step or stride into the zone as the puck is entering the zone, don't blow the whistle.  It would allow for more speed coming in on the forecheck and would make standing still in the neutral zone a dangerous situation when a guy can attack the zone with speed instead of standing around waiting for your teammate to try and sludge through the blueline to center line to dump the puck in.

Weren't they considering increasing the thickness of the blueline?

Rather than asking the refs to use their judgement with respect to calling offsides, a thicker blueline would keep the rule clear while allowing the players some flexibility when entering the zone.

 

[bustaheims]

Weren't they considering increasing the thickness of the blueline?

Rather than asking the refs to use their judgement with respect to calling offsides, a thicker blueline would keep the rule clear while allowing the players some flexibility when entering the zone.

Yeah, the linesmen have been bad enough with offsides of late. The last thing I'd want is for them to have more leeway in that area.

 

[Kin]

I've never been a fan of putting anything in the referee's discretion. I can see why the NHL would have a problem with a team using a 1-3-1 system throughout an entire game/season, but there are definitely situations when it's a very useful tactic. If a team is up by two goals in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals are they not allowed to sit back and protect it? Or even just late in the 3rd period of any regular season game?

I think the idea of a rule-based solution to the trap should really be a last resort. Ideally the NHL could say to it's member clubs that the NHL is primarily in the entertainment business and that, tempting as it might be to appeal to your fans by winning as many games as possible, they still have a responsibility to put out an entertaining product.

Now, if that foolproof plan doesn't work, I think the league should probably do something. I don't immediately have a solution but I think the league does have legitimate reason to take the trap out of the game. The other sports have tinkered with their rules to produce an on-field product they're more satisfied with and I think the NHL could follow suit.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

it's not fair to say that the league hasn't done anything about the trap either...it's just not been very effective..the thinking behind eliminating the rule against the two line pass was supposed to make it harder to trap..but instead just pushed the trap back further

 

[Sucker Punch]

I've never been a fan of putting anything in the referee's discretion. I can see why the NHL would have a problem with a team using a 1-3-1 system throughout an entire game/season, but there are definitely situations when it's a very useful tactic. If a team is up by two goals in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals are they not allowed to sit back and protect it? Or even just late in the 3rd period of any regular season game?

I think the idea of a rule-based solution to the trap should really be a last resort. Ideally the NHL could say to it's member clubs that the NHL is primarily in the entertainment business and that, tempting as it might be to appeal to your fans by winning as many games as possible, they still have a responsibility to put out an entertaining product.

Now, if that foolproof plan doesn't work, I think the league should probably do something. I don't immediately have a solution but I think the league does have legitimate reason to take the trap out of the game. The other sports have tinkered with their rules to produce an on-field product they're more satisfied with and I think the NHL could follow suit.

As has been said before, introducing an illegal defense penalty to the NHL and letting refs give out power plays if they don't like the system a team is employing is trouble.  That'll create more controversy than it solves.

Maybe the NHL can review game tape and give out fines?

I don't know a good solution to this.  And I don't know enough about basketball to understand their rules with regards to this, and how it would transfer to hockey.

 

[sampson]

I don't believe the defence should be punished. The offensive side needs to find a way to beat it. I like the idea of having a ~5-7 second rule where you can't be stationary with the puck. If you do that you get a faceoff if your end. It's basically what happened in the game anyways.

It's just funny though. The trap has been around forever and only now has a coach decided to "defy" it. I can't see this being a big issue in future. 

 

[hockeyfan1]

I'm not sure what point the flyers proved here except looking like jackasses.

I view it the opposite -- I thought the Lightning looked like fools.

I thought both teams were smart - neither was going to give in and play the other team's game.  Why would Philly let themselves get trapped and deal with TB's counter-attack?  Why would TB push a forecheck and break their trap?

I'm sure it was boring as heck to watch, but I think it was all strategy.

It looked more like they were both trying to figure out the next chess move!

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

They should at least be calling the interference penalty on shoot ins, that has morphed into steering the player into the boards and the rule is deteriorating IMO. You can see it almost every game. They let the defender make the forward "take the long root" to the puck in the zone, but since they introduced the new rules, that rule has slowly gone by the way side and the players are getting away with more and more interference from what I can see.

They need to tighten that call up and maybe it would be easier for the offense to gain the zone.

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

This is a slippery slope. You ban the trap because the games are low scoring. You know what also affects the scoring? Teams collapsing in front of the net to block shots. Ban that too. Also ban clearing the puck out of your own zone, you need to carry it out.

 

[Spider]

I think an easy fix to this is making the defending blue line the indicator for Icing.  That way you can have the attackers start skating through the neutral zone, dumping the puck from your own blue line to start a forecheck, instead of trying to get to the red line first to do this.  The defending team would not be able to sit back for this.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

i really don't get the people coming to say that there should be a rule that makes it so the offense has to play ...that's not the problem..as in this is the only game i know of where the offense took the opportunity not to play into it ..that hardly makes it an epidemic ..it was just a one off...it doesn't need a rule...it's the trap that comes up consistently ..not teams choosing not to play into it

 

[brothert]

Why don't they change the icing rules?  Call icing if you shoot it down from inside your own blue line.  That way you can get a forward going at speed just before the offensive zone when the dman wires it from his own blue line.  That should bust up the trap pretty good, no?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think an easy fix to this is making the defending blue line the indicator for Icing.  That way you can have the attackers start skating through the neutral zone, dumping the puck from your own blue line to start a forecheck, instead of trying to get to the red line first to do this.  The defending team would not be able to sit back for this.

I think you'd see coaches using that as more of a defensive tactic than an offensive one.

 

[Leaf Fan Down Under]

Thought I had mentioned it - Brisbane in February!

And I thought i was the only one in Brisbane round here.

 

[maplesyrup]

And I thought i was the only one in Brisbane round here.

Have you called in to Frost's post-game of late... I heard a guy call in last week from Australia (didn't get the city) and thought it might be someone from here.