<< <i>Why leave it at sports being called correctly?
I want my sports played correctly. Humans, even top tier athletes, make mistakes. This is unacceptable. We can do better. One day robots will become so advanced that they can and should replace human athletes. Sports performances will be better than the human bases performances we have today. Human error will be removed from the sports product I, the fan, pay for to see. Am I not entitled to perfection in return for the price I pay for admission?
Further, post game interviews with robots will be better because robots can be programmed to not say "You know" twenty times in a one minute interview.
Further injuries to human athletes would be eliminated and that is a good thing because we must protect those who are unwilling or unable to protect themselves, especially the children.
Because I want my sports pleaded correctly, bring on the robot athletes and ban the human athletes. >>
Plus it will remove any privilege of an athlete's physical superiority and level the playing field. Sure, every game will end in a tie but it's not fair to have a winner or loser.
Participation ribbons for all!
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>What's sad is you honestly think imperfect calls somehow make sports better. >>
It makes them quicker. Long NFL games with endless challenge flags (and pink shoes and socks), is getting unwatchable. >>
Endless? Coaches get two, and a third if they are successful with both of the first two. What's more interminable? A simple flag toss, or a coach/manager going crazy at an official and delaying the game for much, much longer?
Those of us with objectivity know the real answer here. >>
Oh of course, the angry coaches cause long and excessive delays. You can do better than that.
Well when you say get rid of replay because getting the calls right isn't good enough you go to point two. You'd think just getting the calls right would be good enough but not for you!
<< <i>What's sad is you honestly think imperfect calls somehow make sports better. >>
It makes them quicker. Long NFL games with endless challenge flags (and pink shoes and socks), is getting unwatchable. >>
I completely agree. I really don't care how a particular call goes, so long as the officiating isn't biased (i.e., so long as we can expect it to all 'even out' in the long run). If they got rid of replay and shortened the games by 20-30 minutes I would gladly take that trade-off.
<< <i>Well when you say get rid of replay because getting the calls right isn't good enough you go to point two. You'd think just getting the calls right would be good enough but not for you! >>
Baseball has replay only on home run calls yet baseball games are the longest they've ever been, which destroys the argument that a lack of replay makes games shorter.
What the heck. After giving my prior post more thought, I have decided that as a paying sports fan I not only deserve having my sports called and played correctly, I also deserve to have my sports coached, managed and owned correctly.
Toss human coaches, managers and owners. Replace them with robots who do not make mistakes. Add robot athletes and refs to the mix and I, the sports fan, will arrive in sports nirvana where everything will be perfect.
<< <i>Baseball has replay only on home run calls yet baseball games are the longest they've ever been, which destroys the argument that a lack of replay makes games shorter. >>
Lets stick to football. MLB has more problems than the ANA, I quit watching the games a decade ago. Probably watched 6 innings this year.
I find that the replay officiating in the NFL kills the natural flow of the game. Not only regarding the actual reviews but the speculation as to whether a challenge will be made on a given play. The beauty of sports is that we all enjoy it in different ways. You look for perfect outcomes from the officials, I look for an unencumbered progression of the game.
<<<Baseball has replay only on home run calls yet baseball games are the longest they've ever been, which destroys the argument that a lack of replay makes games shorter. >>>
Replay on HR's occurs, what, 4-5 times per season per team? Maybe? Plays are reviewed 10-12 times per game in the NFL. So, replays are a factor, but the not the main factor, IMO.
The main reason is that the league is now a passing league, and the clock stops on every incompletion. It also stops on every pass interference call, defensive holding call, or illegal contact call that goes against the defense, calls which are up significantly over the last 5-7 years. This in turn promotes more scoring. Which results in more commercial breaks.
I understand that the actual amount of time where the football is in play during the 60 minute NFL game is about 11 minutes.
If that is true, then an NFL game that takes about 3 hours to play (with time outs, clock stoppage after an incomplete pass, half time, etc.) has about 2 hours 50 minutes of time where the ball is not in play.
If that it true then an entire regular season of NFL football takes 176 minutes (less than 3 hours) of actual game time to play.
Could you imagine if the game was structured to where the actual playing time in a game was 60 minutes instead of 11? I do not think many of the players who start a game would be able to finish it. They would be exhausted beyond belief and many of them would be injured so badly that they could not perform. It would be possible and likely that the starting units for game one of the seasons would be completely replaced one or more times during a regular season.
The NFL changed things a few years ago so that the clock restarts on incompletions and players going out of bounds except in the last 2 minutes. Before that, the clock stops but gets restarted as soon as the ball is placed again.
<< <i>My reasoning for the increase in net size is that no matter how much you shrink goalie pads, the goalies themselves are a lot bigger than they used to be. There simply isn't the room above the goalie that there used to be. And they're more athletic, hence the need for bigger side to side. >>
unless his name happens to be Jonathan Quick in which case no part of his body is ever more than 1 foot above ice level*. I'd be ok with widening the net and all, but I think that will only create a bit more offense. More than size, it's simply a matter of physics these days in terms of goaltending. It's all about playing angles and reducing shot quality. I mean most of the bigger goalies are below league average. Dubnyk, Lindback, and I firmly believe if Rinne wasn't playing in front of Trotz's system, he would also be league average at best as well. All those guys are at least 6'5, and no one playing today is even in Hasek's area code in terms of athleticism in goal. Quick would probably top the list of current guys.
Anyway, I'd be content if the NHL would simply call obstruction/interference as it's supposed to be called. Tuukka Rask, noted diver- Mike Smith, Rinne, anyone playing goal for Torts etc would all see their Save% rise about 25%-30%** if obstruction/interference was actually enforced.
*you know, since he seems to make every save on his stomach. ** contains zero hyperbole
Clearly this is the zero tolerance/idealist side of me emerging, but if you get caught cheating a single time, your ass is thrown out of the league forever. You wanna clean up a sport like baseball? Stop slapping them on the wrists multiple times. Threaten the removal of a utopian world with one misstep and see who still has the cojones.
<< <i>I don't understand anyone not wanting to get the calls right!
It's not a matter of me being a perfectionist .....it's a matter of me not wanting to see someone or a team lose because of a bad call! >>
I want the calls made correctly, but by the onfield referees. I find the replay stuff to be distracting. There is really no right or wrong, just how we each perceive and enjoy the games.
If you want unencumbered progression in a game then how in god's name do you watch football? Unless it's red zone, football is unwatchable - so many timeouts, so many whizbang graphics, so much talking going on that it is virtually impossible to enjoy. The handful of replays that occur a year do little to interrupt the already broken progression of NFL football.
<< <i>More than size, it's simply a matter of physics these days in terms of goaltending. It's all about playing angles and reducing shot quality. I mean most of the bigger goalies are below league average. >>
The average goalie is a lot bigger than before. Grant Fuhr was 5'10". Andy Moog was 5'8". Darren Pang (who, admittedly, was terrible) was frigging 5'5". Billy Smith was 5'10". As the 80s closed, you got some bigger guys - Hextall is 6'3", Roy is 6'2", Burke was 6'4" - and they started being successful. That led to a big increase in the overall size of goalies.
That said, you are right about shot quality. I think the BIGGEST reason for decreased scoring, besides all the obstruction and interference, is shot blocking. Nowadays, pretty much every player blocks shots and teams get 10, 12, 15 blocks a game all the time. That never happened 20 years ago. Better equipment is the obvious reason for that - while still very dangerous, blocking shots isn't nearly the "life in your own hands" proposition it used to be.
<< <i>More than size, it's simply a matter of physics these days in terms of goaltending. It's all about playing angles and reducing shot quality. I mean most of the bigger goalies are below league average. >>
The average goalie is a lot bigger than before. Grant Fuhr was 5'10". Andy Moog was 5'8". Darren Pang (who, admittedly, was terrible) was frigging 5'5". Billy Smith was 5'10". As the 80s closed, you got some bigger guys - Hextall is 6'3", Roy is 6'2", Burke was 6'4" - and they started being successful. That led to a big increase in the overall size of goalies.
That said, you are right about shot quality. I think the BIGGEST reason for decreased scoring, besides all the obstruction and interference, is shot blocking. Nowadays, pretty much every player blocks shots and teams get 10, 12, 15 blocks a game all the time. That never happened 20 years ago. Better equipment is the obvious reason for that - while still very dangerous, blocking shots isn't nearly the "life in your own hands" proposition it used to be. >>
RE: shot blocking. That's also a good point and one the GMs have actually discussed. Your boy- Ken Holland was one of a couple GMs who lobbied to have "sliding shot blocking" banned....so laying out to block a shot would be a penalty. I'd be ok with that as well.
But more than goalie size, or shot blocking, just call obstruction. They won't do it, of course, because it will slow down the games and Bettman wants 2.5 hour games max....and guys like Chara would be breaking a sweat in the KHL after getting waived, but if you simply eliminate it, especially in the neutral zone, research indicates that teams who carry/skate the puck in as opposed to having to dump & chase, leads to 2x more shots and scoring opportunities. Get the Claude Lemaire and Ken Hitchpenis Ambian on Ice systems which feed off of obstruction and interference out of the game and you don't have to worry about goalie size or pads or attempting to break the 1-3-1 trap that a myriad of teams currently employ with constant stretch pass attempts which invariably leads to deflected passes and neutral zone muck.
There are also other little things you could do to boost offense such as eliminate left/right face-off circles and just have one dot in the center of each end. Both d-men would already be in prime shooting position and the wingers would be primed to crash the crease. They also won't do that either because looks weird.
There was a story in the LA Times the other day about USC's president being among the countrys top paid school executives. They make a million a year, but if a football player is caught receiving "gifts" from an agent, that's bad???
College sports seems to have operated in this grey zone for far too long. It seems like college players should at least get a share of merchandise. The system seems quite backwards for 2013.
What about lifetime scholarships for their family? If you make an NCAA team, you get 5 or 10 scholarships for your kids or family down the road.
-The only other change I can think of....MLB needs to take a **hard** line against ped's or steroids. Instant lifetime suspensions if you're caught or something. Anything that weakens the integrity of the game, you need a **hard** penalty. Forfeit your contracts. You end up at $0 zero. Future players need to see a carrot and stick.
<< <i>If you want unencumbered progression in a game then how in god's name do you watch football? Unless it's red zone, football is unwatchable - so many timeouts, so many whizbang graphics, so much talking going on that it is virtually impossible to enjoy. The handful of replays that occur a year do little to interrupt the already broken progression of NFL football. >>
I watch maybe an hour of football per weekend. can't do a whole game anymore for the reasons that you mentioned. I often listen on the radio while I am doing something else.
<< <i>More than size, it's simply a matter of physics these days in terms of goaltending. It's all about playing angles and reducing shot quality. I mean most of the bigger goalies are below league average. >>
The average goalie is a lot bigger than before. Grant Fuhr was 5'10". Andy Moog was 5'8". Darren Pang (who, admittedly, was terrible) was frigging 5'5". Billy Smith was 5'10". As the 80s closed, you got some bigger guys - Hextall is 6'3", Roy is 6'2", Burke was 6'4" - and they started being successful. That led to a big increase in the overall size of goalies.
That said, you are right about shot quality. I think the BIGGEST reason for decreased scoring, besides all the obstruction and interference, is shot blocking. Nowadays, pretty much every player blocks shots and teams get 10, 12, 15 blocks a game all the time. That never happened 20 years ago. Better equipment is the obvious reason for that - while still very dangerous, blocking shots isn't nearly the "life in your own hands" proposition it used to be. >>
RE: shot blocking. That's also a good point and one the GMs have actually discussed. Your boy- Ken Holland was one of a couple GMs who lobbied to have "sliding shot blocking" banned....so laying out to block a shot would be a penalty. I'd be ok with that as well.
But more than goalie size, or shot blocking, just call obstruction. They won't do it, of course, because it will slow down the games and Bettman wants 2.5 hour games max....and guys like Chara would be breaking a sweat in the KHL after getting waived, but if you simply eliminate it, especially in the neutral zone, research indicates that teams who carry/skate the puck in as opposed to having to dump & chase, leads to 2x more shots and scoring opportunities. Get the Claude Lemaire and Ken Hitchpenis Ambian on Ice systems which feed off of obstruction and interference out of the game and you don't have to worry about goalie size or pads or attempting to break the 1-3-1 trap that a myriad of teams currently employ with constant stretch pass attempts which invariably leads to deflected passes and neutral zone muck.
There are also other little things you could do to boost offense such as eliminate left/right face-off circles and just have one dot in the center of each end. Both d-men would already be in prime shooting position and the wingers would be primed to crash the crease. They also won't do that either because looks weird.
And of course, revoke Pierre Maguire's work visa. >>
Banning Pierre Maguire - something we can ALL agree on.
The worst thing that ever happened to the NHL was New Jersey winning the Cup in '95. The refs swallowed their whistles for four straight games, the Devils committed constant penalties and shut down the NHL's best offense. The rest of the league saw the blueprint and copied it and we got a new dead puck era, from which we have never recovered.
I don't really care about soccer but one rule change in soccer I'd make is if you go collapsing on the field in pain (like all soccers players do in order to draw a penalty) then you must sit out 10 minutes of play.
I think that woul;d stop all this BS about fake injuries.
What a joke!!
Hockey players get crashed into the boards, then on the bench pull out a few teeth and they don't even miss a shift!!
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
<< <i>I don't really care about soccer but one rule change in soccer I'd make is if you go collapsing on the field in pain (like all soccers players do in order to draw a penalty) then you must sit out 10 minutes of play. >>
Not bad.
For the life of me, I'll never understand why the clock keeps running in soccer after a goal while players are still celebrating. If a guy is running around tearing off his shirt, but the clock is still running, why isn't the ref putting the ball back into play?
Comments
<< <i>Why leave it at sports being called correctly?
I want my sports played correctly. Humans, even top tier athletes, make mistakes. This is unacceptable. We can do better. One day robots will become so advanced that they can and should replace human athletes. Sports performances will be better than the human bases performances we have today. Human error will be removed from the sports product I, the fan, pay for to see. Am I not entitled to perfection in return for the price I pay for admission?
Further, post game interviews with robots will be better because robots can be programmed to not say "You know" twenty times in a one minute interview.
Further injuries to human athletes would be eliminated and that is a good thing because we must protect those who are unwilling or unable to protect themselves, especially the children.
Because I want my sports pleaded correctly, bring on the robot athletes and ban the human athletes. >>
Plus it will remove any privilege of an athlete's physical superiority and level the playing field. Sure, every game will end in a tie but it's not fair to have a winner or loser.
Participation ribbons for all!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What's sad is you honestly think imperfect calls somehow make sports better. >>
It makes them quicker. Long NFL games with endless challenge flags (and pink shoes and socks), is getting unwatchable. >>
Endless? Coaches get two, and a third if they are successful with both of the first two. What's more interminable? A simple flag toss, or a coach/manager going crazy at an official and delaying the game for much, much longer?
Those of us with objectivity know the real answer here. >>
Oh of course, the angry coaches cause long and excessive delays. You can do better than that.
<< <i>
<< <i>What's sad is you honestly think imperfect calls somehow make sports better. >>
It makes them quicker. Long NFL games with endless challenge flags (and pink shoes and socks), is getting unwatchable. >>
I completely agree. I really don't care how a particular call goes, so long as the officiating isn't biased (i.e., so long as we can expect it to all 'even out' in the long run). If they got rid of replay and shortened the games by 20-30 minutes I would gladly take that trade-off.
<< <i>Well when you say get rid of replay because getting the calls right isn't good enough you go to point two. You'd think just getting the calls right would be good enough but not for you! >>
What Boopotts said.
Toss human coaches, managers and owners. Replace them with robots who do not make mistakes. Add robot athletes and refs to the mix and I, the sports fan, will arrive in sports nirvana where everything will be perfect.
<< <i>Baseball has replay only on home run calls yet baseball games are the longest they've ever been, which destroys the argument that a lack of replay makes games shorter. >>
Lets stick to football. MLB has more problems than the ANA, I quit watching the games a decade ago. Probably watched 6 innings this year.
I find that the replay officiating in the NFL kills the natural flow of the game. Not only regarding the actual reviews but the speculation as to whether a challenge will be made on a given play. The beauty of sports is that we all enjoy it in different ways. You look for perfect outcomes from the officials, I look for an unencumbered progression of the game.
Replay on HR's occurs, what, 4-5 times per season per team? Maybe? Plays are reviewed 10-12 times per game in the NFL. So, replays are a factor, but the not the main factor, IMO.
The main reason is that the league is now a passing league, and the clock stops on every incompletion. It also stops on every pass interference call, defensive holding call, or illegal contact call that goes against the defense, calls which are up significantly over the last 5-7 years. This in turn promotes more scoring. Which results in more commercial breaks.
If that is true, then an NFL game that takes about 3 hours to play (with time outs, clock stoppage after an incomplete pass, half time, etc.) has about 2 hours 50 minutes of time where the ball is not in play.
If that it true then an entire regular season of NFL football takes 176 minutes (less than 3 hours) of actual game time to play.
Could you imagine if the game was structured to where the actual playing time in a game was 60 minutes instead of 11? I do not think many of the players who start a game would be able to finish it. They would be exhausted beyond belief and many of them would be injured so badly that they could not perform. It would be possible and likely that the starting units for game one of the seasons would be completely replaced one or more times during a regular season.
<< <i>My reasoning for the increase in net size is that no matter how much you shrink goalie pads, the goalies themselves are a lot bigger than they used to be. There simply isn't the room above the goalie that there used to be. And they're more athletic, hence the need for bigger side to side. >>
unless his name happens to be Jonathan Quick in which case no part of his body is ever more than 1 foot above ice level*. I'd be ok with widening the net and all, but I think that will only create a bit more offense. More than size, it's simply a matter of physics these days in terms of goaltending. It's all about playing angles and reducing shot quality. I mean most of the bigger goalies are below league average. Dubnyk, Lindback, and I firmly believe if Rinne wasn't playing in front of Trotz's system, he would also be league average at best as well. All those guys are at least 6'5, and no one playing today is even in Hasek's area code in terms of athleticism in goal. Quick would probably top the list of current guys.
Anyway, I'd be content if the NHL would simply call obstruction/interference as it's supposed to be called. Tuukka Rask, noted diver- Mike Smith, Rinne, anyone playing goal for Torts etc would all see their Save% rise about 25%-30%** if obstruction/interference was actually enforced.
*you know, since he seems to make every save on his stomach.
** contains zero hyperbole
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
It's not a matter of me being a perfectionist .....it's a matter of me not wanting to see someone or a team lose because of a bad call!
<< <i>I don't understand anyone not wanting to get the calls right!
It's not a matter of me being a perfectionist .....it's a matter of me not wanting to see someone or a team lose because of a bad call! >>
I want the calls made correctly, but by the onfield referees. I find the replay stuff to be distracting. There is really no right or wrong, just how we each perceive and enjoy the games.
<< <i>More than size, it's simply a matter of physics these days in terms of goaltending. It's all about playing angles and reducing shot quality. I mean most of the bigger goalies are below league average. >>
The average goalie is a lot bigger than before. Grant Fuhr was 5'10". Andy Moog was 5'8". Darren Pang (who, admittedly, was terrible) was frigging 5'5". Billy Smith was 5'10". As the 80s closed, you got some bigger guys - Hextall is 6'3", Roy is 6'2", Burke was 6'4" - and they started being successful. That led to a big increase in the overall size of goalies.
That said, you are right about shot quality. I think the BIGGEST reason for decreased scoring, besides all the obstruction and interference, is shot blocking. Nowadays, pretty much every player blocks shots and teams get 10, 12, 15 blocks a game all the time. That never happened 20 years ago. Better equipment is the obvious reason for that - while still very dangerous, blocking shots isn't nearly the "life in your own hands" proposition it used to be.
<< <i>
<< <i>More than size, it's simply a matter of physics these days in terms of goaltending. It's all about playing angles and reducing shot quality. I mean most of the bigger goalies are below league average. >>
The average goalie is a lot bigger than before. Grant Fuhr was 5'10". Andy Moog was 5'8". Darren Pang (who, admittedly, was terrible) was frigging 5'5". Billy Smith was 5'10". As the 80s closed, you got some bigger guys - Hextall is 6'3", Roy is 6'2", Burke was 6'4" - and they started being successful. That led to a big increase in the overall size of goalies.
That said, you are right about shot quality. I think the BIGGEST reason for decreased scoring, besides all the obstruction and interference, is shot blocking. Nowadays, pretty much every player blocks shots and teams get 10, 12, 15 blocks a game all the time. That never happened 20 years ago. Better equipment is the obvious reason for that - while still very dangerous, blocking shots isn't nearly the "life in your own hands" proposition it used to be. >>
RE: shot blocking. That's also a good point and one the GMs have actually discussed. Your boy- Ken Holland was one of a couple GMs who lobbied to have "sliding shot blocking" banned....so laying out to block a shot would be a penalty. I'd be ok with that as well.
But more than goalie size, or shot blocking, just call obstruction. They won't do it, of course, because it will slow down the games and Bettman wants 2.5 hour games max....and guys like Chara would be breaking a sweat in the KHL after getting waived, but if you simply eliminate it, especially in the neutral zone, research indicates that teams who carry/skate the puck in as opposed to having to dump & chase, leads to 2x more shots and scoring opportunities. Get the Claude Lemaire and Ken Hitchpenis Ambian on Ice systems which feed off of obstruction and interference out of the game and you don't have to worry about goalie size or pads or attempting to break the 1-3-1 trap that a myriad of teams currently employ with constant stretch pass attempts which invariably leads to deflected passes and neutral zone muck.
There are also other little things you could do to boost offense such as eliminate left/right face-off circles and just have one dot in the center of each end. Both d-men would already be in prime shooting position and the wingers would be primed to crash the crease. They also won't do that either because looks weird.
And of course, revoke Pierre Maguire's work visa.
College sports seems to have operated in this grey zone for far too long. It seems like college players should at least get a share of merchandise. The system seems quite backwards for 2013.
What about lifetime scholarships for their family? If you make an NCAA team, you get 5 or 10 scholarships for your kids or family down the road.
-The only other change I can think of....MLB needs to take a **hard** line against ped's or steroids. Instant lifetime suspensions if you're caught or something. Anything that weakens the integrity of the game, you need a **hard** penalty. Forfeit your contracts. You end up at $0 zero. Future players need to see a carrot and stick.
<< <i>If you want unencumbered progression in a game then how in god's name do you watch football? Unless it's red zone, football is unwatchable - so many timeouts, so many whizbang graphics, so much talking going on that it is virtually impossible to enjoy. The handful of replays that occur a year do little to interrupt the already broken progression of NFL football. >>
I watch maybe an hour of football per weekend. can't do a whole game anymore for the reasons that you mentioned. I often listen on the radio while I am doing something else.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>More than size, it's simply a matter of physics these days in terms of goaltending. It's all about playing angles and reducing shot quality. I mean most of the bigger goalies are below league average. >>
The average goalie is a lot bigger than before. Grant Fuhr was 5'10". Andy Moog was 5'8". Darren Pang (who, admittedly, was terrible) was frigging 5'5". Billy Smith was 5'10". As the 80s closed, you got some bigger guys - Hextall is 6'3", Roy is 6'2", Burke was 6'4" - and they started being successful. That led to a big increase in the overall size of goalies.
That said, you are right about shot quality. I think the BIGGEST reason for decreased scoring, besides all the obstruction and interference, is shot blocking. Nowadays, pretty much every player blocks shots and teams get 10, 12, 15 blocks a game all the time. That never happened 20 years ago. Better equipment is the obvious reason for that - while still very dangerous, blocking shots isn't nearly the "life in your own hands" proposition it used to be. >>
RE: shot blocking. That's also a good point and one the GMs have actually discussed. Your boy- Ken Holland was one of a couple GMs who lobbied to have "sliding shot blocking" banned....so laying out to block a shot would be a penalty. I'd be ok with that as well.
But more than goalie size, or shot blocking, just call obstruction. They won't do it, of course, because it will slow down the games and Bettman wants 2.5 hour games max....and guys like Chara would be breaking a sweat in the KHL after getting waived, but if you simply eliminate it, especially in the neutral zone, research indicates that teams who carry/skate the puck in as opposed to having to dump & chase, leads to 2x more shots and scoring opportunities. Get the Claude Lemaire and Ken Hitchpenis Ambian on Ice systems which feed off of obstruction and interference out of the game and you don't have to worry about goalie size or pads or attempting to break the 1-3-1 trap that a myriad of teams currently employ with constant stretch pass attempts which invariably leads to deflected passes and neutral zone muck.
There are also other little things you could do to boost offense such as eliminate left/right face-off circles and just have one dot in the center of each end. Both d-men would already be in prime shooting position and the wingers would be primed to crash the crease. They also won't do that either because looks weird.
And of course, revoke Pierre Maguire's work visa. >>
Banning Pierre Maguire - something we can ALL agree on.
The worst thing that ever happened to the NHL was New Jersey winning the Cup in '95. The refs swallowed their whistles for four straight games, the Devils committed constant penalties and shut down the NHL's best offense. The rest of the league saw the blueprint and copied it and we got a new dead puck era, from which we have never recovered.
I think that woul;d stop all this BS about fake injuries.
What a joke!!
Hockey players get crashed into the boards, then on the bench pull out a few teeth and they don't even miss a shift!!
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>I don't really care about soccer but one rule change in soccer I'd make is if you go collapsing on the field in pain (like all soccers players do in order to draw a penalty) then you must sit out 10 minutes of play. >>
Not bad.
For the life of me, I'll never understand why the clock keeps running in soccer after a goal while players are still celebrating. If a guy is running around tearing off his shirt, but the clock is still running, why isn't the ref putting the ball back into play?