NHL: Increasing the size of the net is insanely stupid
Posted in Commentary on March 30th, 2005 by Sacha PeterWhen driving home from work today, I listened on the radio that the NHL was proposing to increase the size of the net by 2 inches, both horizontally and vertically. The reason for this change is to increase scoring in games. This is a terrible idea which doesn’t solve professional hockey’s fundamental problem which is the invention of the neutral zone trap. The neutral zone trap really became effective in the mid-1990′s when the NHL started cracking down on physical confrontation with heavy penalties for players involved. The coach to perfect the technique was Jacques Lemaire, which culminated to the New Jersey Devils winning the Stanley Cup in 1995 in what could arguably have been the most boring Stanley Cup playoff series ever for that time. Not surprisingly, when the New Jersey Devils won the Stanley Cup in 1999 and 2000, they managed to put legions of fans in the hockey world asleep with their iron-clad disciplined strategies.
So the NHL thinks that increasing the size of the net will increase offense – their thinking is that by increasing the net size, more goals will be scored, and this will lead to more offensive gameplay. While more goals will be scored, I will argue that they will only be scored due to a higher ratio of goals scored per shot. Scoring opportunities, not scoring itself, leads to excitement. If you increase the size of the net, such an action will have exactly the opposite effect of creating scoring chances – the correct strategy will be for teams to minimise the shots taken on their own goal. If you think this will be exciting, then you must like soccer, where the nets are even bigger.
The real solution to promote scoring chances is to eliminate the blue-line offside rule. Note that the two-line pass offside rule remains intact. This subtle modification completely nullifies the neutral zone trap, as you can send players in your opponent’s zone after you cross your own blue line. This will increase scoring chances, as the opposing team can no longer keep four people in centre ice without risking the possibility of getting caught out of position if you pass the puck to a teammate inside the opponent’s zone. Finally, more scoring chances will occur during the power play, as the team doing the penalty killing can no longer just dribble the puck across the blue line – they will have to clear the punk into their opponent’s zone in order to provide defensive relief. Penalties will be more expensive, as I would expect power play conversion to rise about 10%.
Increasing the size of the net is a band-aid solution for a more systemic problem – do I think that hockey will be more exciting with a larger net? Will expanding the net size do anything about the neutral zone trap? The answer to both questions is no. I think the NHL administration is trying to transform the NHL into the NBA. Instead, they should be looking at Lacrosse, where you have plenty of scoring chances and 20 goals a game despite the fact that their goal size is only two-thirds the width of the NHL’s.
I agree that increasing the size of the NHL nets won’t improve the game of hockey. The nets have long been 6 feet wide and 4 feet high. Players and goaltenders alike have spent countless hours training their game for nets that size. I say tradition keeps the nets the same size.
I completely disagree with your blue-line offside rule. If you have attackers deep inside my zone, they can basically stay there without fear of ever being called offside? Pavel Bure would have a field day. The game would have players in both ends of the ice with no one in the middle. If my defense came up with the puck in my own end, I just fire it down the ice to where my 3 forwards are standing (on your blue line – otherwise its 2-line offside pass)? Absurd, strategy goes out the window and it becomes a game of "pickup hockey". If I’m penalty killing I can’t just chip the puck out to trap your forwards in my zone? The final scores in games will resemble lacross or football games. "The Canucks won 19-17 last night, 4 players had hat tricks…"
I know the AHL had experiments where they doubled the width of the blue lines and the center red line. This allows 3 or 4 more feet of leeway on breakout passes and icings. They noticed it made the game faster.
Here’s my solution: Same current rules, but eliminate the center red-line for 2-line passes. This is very similar to International and Olympic hockey rules. This creates more open ice in the neutral zone (which is what the trap prevents). Defensemen have to keep their eye on goalsucking forwards (like Pavel Bure – has that guy ever backchecked?). The icing rule would still be in effect, so you can’t just wing the puck down the ice.
Very good thoughts about why changing the net size would be a Bad Thing(tm), however I agree with Den in that removing the blue lines would be a Bad Thing(tm) as well.
What I would like to see (as per Den) is the red line eliminated as per international rules. International was a BLAST to watch because they could feed from their zone to someone streaking down a wing and near their blue line. It opens things up SO much.
Do either of you realize that Olympic rinks are 15 feet wider than NHL rinks? International hockey is played with rinks 100 feet wide, while NHL rinks are 85 feet wide. That would explain why you could rush along the side a lot more in Olympic hockey than in the NHL – there’s much more room.
I don’t think getting rid of the 2-line pass offside rule would eliminate the viability of the neutral zone trap.
You can’t trap in an Olympic sized ice rink, its too wide. Also, you can’t employ a "dump-n-chase" style of hockey in those rinks. The wider rinks allow for more open ice, more skating without being impeded all the time.
Actually now that I think about it, Team Canada got lit-up on those Olympic sized rinks early on in the last Olympics. Their defensemen were playing too far apart, and the quick Swedish forwards were splitting them down the middle for plenty of breakaway opportunities. The Canada wingers in the neutral zone were playing too wide and too far forward (they forgot or weren’t used to the center line offside pass not being called).
What do you mean you can’t trap in olympic sized ice?? What do you think happened to Canada in the olympics this year, thats the real reason they lost. They couldn’t get any offense going because the swedish kept on trapping them.
Lacrosse goaltenders wear a chest pad and nothing else (except for the women). The true solution is to decrease the goalie pads even more so that they are for protection, not for taking up space in the net. The alternative to that though, is indeed increasing the net size. Shots will not decrease (as you said in you soccer comparison), but they will increase because teams will be more willing to put the puck towards the goal based on their higher chance to score. It would also punish defensive breakdowns more severely because a professional player on a breakaway with a wider and taller net will have the same 2 options as always, deke or shoot, but the differece is that if the goalie takes down the angle (which means a deke is the proper strategy) he will have to be farther out of his net to properly cut the angle, thus making it easier to pull a move on him. Likewise, if the goalie stays back and invites a shot, the shooter has more room in which to place the puck. The net size may also semi-eliminate butterfly goaltending and create another erra of standup goalies. I predict that if the change is made, the leading scorer will likely have 160-170 points (sidney crosby) and the goalscorers will again have a realistic chance of getting 70 and 80 goals. Also, the great overall players will again have the hope (with an outstanding season) to flirt with 200 points. Again, Sidney Crosby.
The net size is a great idea where-as changing the jerseys is an aweful one. Debate that.
I am against what eric says because I myself think that the size change of NHL nets is an awful one and that the jerseys are a great idea, I rest my small but good case.
I think that if the NHL could somehow make it work financially to make their rinks Olympic sized the game would be opened up and become so much more exciting. I’ve watched a lot of international hockey and I agree that the games are so much more open and fun to watch because players have room to skate and dangle with the puck. I understand that it would cost a lot of money and personally I’m not sure that this would even be physically possible in many of the existing arenas; even if it is possible it will surely require a fair amount of construction.
I believed in this firmly after the lockout and I remember hoping that the NHL would consider it, but I felt for this so much more strongly after I attended a Bruins game recently and was able to sit close to the ice. When you sit close you really get a feel for how disproportionate the rink seems in comparison with the size and speed of today’s players. It’s really like watching sumo wrestlers searching for seats on a crowded subway train.
The players in this game are bigger, faster, and stronger than they were in the past, and in a game that relies on fast paced action and the ability for good players to create space and make plays, keeping them on the same sized rink all these years is rediculous and unrealistic.
If anyone has heard that the NHL has considered, or is still considering this change, please let me know..
this is probly the worst idea in NHL history. hockey is about skill callange and thats what gretski had. if u increas the net size his record will be shattered