Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!phri!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!rick
From: rick@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: NHL Rule changes
Message-ID: <6170@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 14:24:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6170
Posted: Thu Jun 27 14:24:06 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 06:37:33 EDT
References: <361@philabs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 55

Well, I've stayed as quiet on this one as I can (bozos@alberta start
your flamethrowers :-)).

In article <361@philabs.UUCP> dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) writes:
>> ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) writes:
>> The arguement is not compelling. This rule is an attempt to slow down
>> the faster skating clubs.
>
>Bravo! People in every sport always seem to want to change the rules to
>"equalize" things, - to punish the best clubs for being so good. ...

This is hardly a new area. Rules have been changed constantly in hockey
because of teams *abusing* the rules. They have also been changed because
of teams exploiting the rules. Examples? In the mid-50's the Montreal
Canadiens had such a potent power play that the rules were changed so that
after a goal was scored the penalized player came back onto the ice.
The Habs used to routinely score 2 or 3 goals on a power play. In the
mid-70's the Philadelphia Flyers (aka Broad Street Bullies) were involved
in some many bench clearing brawls that the "3rd man in" and "1st man off
the bench" rules were introduced. In the early-80's the New York Islanders
would change goalies (and get to warm up the new goalie) in order to get
a 'timeout'. So, you see, rules are always introduced to hurt a good team
(although it HAS been done) but, rather, to prevent abuse of the rules.
There were many complaints from teams playing the Oilers in this year's
playoffs that the Oiler players would deliberately try to take coincidental
penalties to set up 4-on-4's. Oh, but you say that all the other player
has to is ignore it? Try it sometime in the heat of a game, it isn't easy
to turn the other cheek.

>Some of the objections to the rule on coincidental minors center on
>teams' deliberately trying to provoke offsetting minor penalties with a faster
>team to get a fast skater off the ice, without suffering the disadvantage
>of opening up the ice to a 4 on 4 situation. One additional rule change
>which would restrict this ability, (and a change I feel would be good anyway)
>would be to institute a penalty situation after a certain number of
>penalties have been committed by a team in a period (or game), much as in
>basketball...

I sure hope no one takes this seriously. Escalating the length of
penalites will skew games in favor of teams with good power plays. Also
there would be *fewer* penalties called because referees do not like
to influence the results of games - however, they *do* when they don't
call penalties as much as when they do call them (the Islanders had
such an awesome power play in the early 80's that referees wouldn't
call as many penalties in the playoffs as they should).

I sure fail to see why the Oiler fans are in such a huff over this. They
are hardly the first team to have legislation changed because of them,
and they won't be the last. And this is merely a return to an *old*
rule, not the introduction of a new one!
-- 
   Rick Gillespie
      ARPANET:	rick@ucla-locus.ARPA	or (soon) rick@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
      UUCP:	...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick
      SPUDNET:	...eye%rick@russet.spud