Arizona wouldn't do that.

More like Kessel, JVR, Kadri and Rielly for OEL + but even then, I don't see the point in trading a potentially generational defenseman.
- James_Tanner

Ok, stop trolling the leaf fans man.

You're probably right which is why this trade will never happen. The Oilers will want to be paid on McDavids potential, but at the same time, the Coyotes will insist they have the second coming of Nick Lidstrom.

It's not entirely impossible that if this trade went down, there would be a Colorado/Philly thing going on where the best player ends up being Forsberg/ OEL.
- James_Tanner

OEL, #3 overall, and Duclair?

So JVR and Rielly for OEL and Hanzal?

Toronto loses that deal, IMO.
- Byfuglien Ate Me

Arizona wouldn't do that.

More like Kessel, JVR, Kadri and Rielly for OEL + but even then, I don't see the point in trading a potentially generational defenseman.
- James_Tanner

You're killin it now bro

Get rid of the rule that the entire puck has to cross the goal-line and instead, adopt the NFL's rule for touchdowns where the ball only has to 'break the plane.'
- James_Tanner

You'll still have the same problem. Instead of it breaking the back plane of the goal line, it will have to break the front plane. You'll still know the difference by the white space between the puck and the line, but would still be the puck breaking some plane. I don't see how this would change things.

It seems like it'd be easy enough to then equip the nets with infrared cameras that create a visual field from the back edge of the goal-line to the top of the net. A simple view of the camera could then show if the plane was in fact broken.
- James_Tanner

I don't think you understand the operating principles of an IR camera. Using an SEM would make more sense.

Great idea. I also like reducing the width of the goal line itself. If that line is say 3/4" from the post inward then reviews will be more conclusive.

Because the argument is always whether the entire puck crossed the line. You can usually tell when a bit of it does. Also, if you're using infrared, you could create a visible plan, and if it's breached at all: goal.
- James_Tanner

I see it as the same thing......


And you honestly think a puck that hits the inside of the post should be a goal? Hah

Problem with number B is that Bettman would rather have bunches of 60 point scorers! Didn't you here?

On a related note... I recently found out the older gunslinger book I have I stole from Father has been updated by king about 10 years ago! I get to read it again and it'll be sorta new!

You're killin it now bro
- LeftCoaster

I hope people can tell when I am joking.

But then again, I make almost no effort to indicate that I am.

That's about half the fun.

You'll still have the same problem. Instead of it breaking the back plane of the goal line, it will have to break the front plane. You'll still know the difference by the white space between the puck and the line, but would still be the puck breaking some plane. I don't see how this would change things.
- jmatchett383

I think if it's in at all is a bit easier to tell than if it went fully in. Maybe not though, you could be right, it's just an idea.

Great idea. I also like reducing the width of the goal line itself. If that line is say 3/4" from the post inward then reviews will be more conclusive.
- habfanforever

No, it won't. You'll still have the same issue trying to determine if the puck breaks a physical 2-D plane. It will create more goals, but you'll still have to decipher whether or not the entire puck crosses the plane. Granted, more pucks will cross the line and be goals, but the process of determining whether or not it was a goal using the same methods will not improve the validation of a goal.

I don't think you understand the operating principles of an IR camera. Using an SEM would make more sense.
- jmatchett383

Oh probably, I have no clue about technology. In my head I am imagining a solid red barrier that will break if the puck crosses it.

Maybe they should use lazers. I watch a lot of Mission Impossible movies.

Problem with number B is that Bettman would rather have bunches of 60 point scorers! Didn't you here?

On a related note... I recently found out the older gunslinger book I have I stole from Father has been updated by king about 10 years ago! I get to read it again and it'll be sorta new!
- ChrisMS

It's pretty cool that he updated the book. I'd like him to do them all, but I doubt he ever will.

I think if it's in at all is a bit easier to tell than if it went fully in. Maybe not though, you could be right, it's just an idea.
- James_Tanner

Like you said, it would create MORE goals. But it's still trying to see if a portion of the puck breaks a plane. All you're changing is the front tangential edge of the puck touching the plane of the goal line to the back tangential edge of the puck breaking the plane.

Oh probably, I have no clue about technology. In my head I am imagining a solid red barrier that will break if the puck crosses it.

Maybe they should use lazers. I watch a lot of Mission Impossible movies.
- James_Tanner

You can't do a photometric approach because other objects will break the plane (i.e. Anderson's leg and pad). You could use something that radiates a field when triggered by a transmitter array that increases in signal as more and more of a trigger (say, a thin metal wire embedded in the puck) comes into contact above the array.

Want more goals? Just make the nets a bit bigger. Goalie's save%'s league-wide are way too high. They're bigger and better these days and the shooters have nothing to shoot at. That's why the majority of goals are basically plays where the goalie is out of position, can't see, or has little time to react. Not way bigger, but just slightly wider and taller could make just enough of a difference to make a point blank shot dangerous again.

Want more goals? Just make the nets a bit bigger. Goalie's save%'s league-wide are way too high. They're bigger and better these days and the shooters have nothing to shoot at. That's why the majority of goals are basically plays where the goalie is out of position, can't see, or has little time to react. Not way bigger, but just slightly wider and taller could make just enough of a difference to make a point blank shot dangerous again.
- Nucker101

It's fine!

Gaudreau doesn't seem to have a hard time sniping

I hope people can tell when I am joking.

But then again, I make almost no effort to indicate that I am.

That's about half the fun.
- James_Tanner

No, it won't. You'll still have the same issue trying to determine if the puck breaks a physical 2-D plane. It will create more goals, but you'll still have to decipher whether or not the entire puck crosses the plane. Granted, more pucks will cross the line and be goals, but the process of determining whether or not it was a goal using the same methods will not improve the validation of a goal.
- jmatchett383

But isn't this ultimately what you have when you have the NFL "break the plane" rule? You'll still be struggling to see by what fraction of an inch the puck is over the line instead of past it.

The only reason the NFL uses the rule in that manner is because a player is physically carrying the ball, and therefore it's almost impossible to determine where the back nose of the ball is. If you're playing a sport where the puck/ball/etc is no longer in someone's possession, then which plane the puck crosses is truly arbitrary.

As for some type of invisible sensor threshold on the goal line, I think that's fine, until teams start disputing the validity and accuracy of a machine that makes judgment calls using data that they can't actually see. Or worse, some goalie backs his ass up with some sort of scrambler device that makes the thing function improperly.

Want more goals? Just make the nets a bit bigger. Goalie's save%'s league-wide are way too high. They're bigger and better these days and the shooters have nothing to shoot at. That's why the majority of goals are basically plays where the goalie is out of position, can't see, or has little time to react. Not way bigger, but just slightly wider and taller could make just enough of a difference to make a point blank shot dangerous again.
- Nucker101

They've tried to "tweak" the game before to increase scoring. Whether it's make the area behind the net wider, change the crease or, in a BIG change, eliminate the red line. And it never has a long-lasting effect. You want to make a change? Take away the huge shoulder pads and leg pads these guys have. Make them wear early-90s style pads.

It's fine!

Gaudreau doesn't seem to have a hard time sniping
- The-O-G

I won't rest until Brandon Bollig is a 50 goal scorer!

They've tried to "tweak" the game before to increase scoring. Whether it's make the area behind the net wider, change the crease or, in a BIG change, eliminate the red line. And it never has a long-lasting effect. You want to make a change? Take away the huge shoulder pads and leg pads these guys have. Make them wear early-90s style pads.
- jmatchett383

Didn't they already put in some new rules to cut down the padding size a bit? The only problem is that the goalies will always have the "safety" excuse in their back pocket. Just making the nets a tad bigger is the way to go, but it won't happen. Bettman wants parity, and lower scoring = more luck involved and that means closer standings.

But isn't this ultimately what you have when you have the NFL "break the plane" rule? You'll still be struggling to see by what fraction of an inch the puck is over the line instead of past it.

The only reason the NFL uses the rule in that manner is because a player is physically carrying the ball, and therefore it's almost impossible to determine where the back nose of the ball is. If you're playing a sport where the puck/ball/etc is no longer in someone's possession, then which plane the puck crosses is truly arbitrary.

As for some type of invisible sensor threshold on the goal line, I think that's fine, until teams start disputing the validity and accuracy of a machine that makes judgment calls using data that they can't actually see. Or worse, some goalie backs his ass up with some sort of scrambler device that makes the thing function improperly.
- Sandus

That's my point, it doesn't matter what plane the puck is breaking (the front or back of the goal line). It's still a visual method, it's just changing where you make the measurement (this would be easier to do with a visual).

As for the EMI thing, yes, you'd have to have the BOG and PA sign off on it, and you'd have to be able to prove its infallibility and make sure it's calibrated before every game (or every period). As for a goalie intentionally doing that, it would set off a signal as soon as he starts to cross the plane in warm-ups, and you'd make the penalty a forfeit.

Didn't they already put in some new rules to cut down the padding size a bit? The only problem is that the goalies will always have the "safety" excuse in their back pocket. Just making the nets a tad bigger is the way to go, but it won't happen. Bettman wants parity, and lower scoring = more luck involved and that means closer standings.
- Nucker101

They did, or were going to. But come on, look at Lundqvist's shoulder pads. He can cover 3/4 of the net with those things. Make them the style that Roy was wearing in the 80s and you'll have tons of more goalies getting beat high. Reduce the width of the leg pads, and you'll have a lot more five hole and far side goals.