John Toperzer: Does shot-blocking deserve a minor penalty? Vote here All-out shot-blocking has become more prevalent than ever in the NHL

FIRST!!!

No. Pain is enough punishment for blocking a shot.

EDIT: just look at what happened when the Rangers faced the Devils.

... no?

whats next 2 mins for icing, 2 mins for getting kicked out of the faceoff dot

Sutton had 21 wins in 1976. Penalty for shot blocking?

Not at all.

John Toperzer: Does shot-blocking deserve a minor penalty? Vote here
All-out shot-blocking has become more prevalent than ever in the NHL
- the-mitch-wilsons

Yeah let's give a penalty to a player anytime the puck hits him.

I can't see any problems with that at all.


Tip ins and screens should also be penalized as well as shots that miss the net.

No. Pain is enough punishment for blocking a shot.

EDIT: just look at what happened when the Rangers faced the Devils.
- TheRollingPuck

The style grinds you down a lot. Its amazing to think how healthy the rangers were with their style of play. I do think the play caught up with them at the end.

Yeah let's give a penalty to a player anytime the puck hits him.

I can't see any problems with that at all.


Tip ins and screens should also be penalized as well as shots that miss the net.
- robin_steele264

I think we should just go straight to shootout every game. Ultimate entertainment.

Sutton had 21 wins in 1976. Penalty for shot blocking?
- ODalton

You're correct. I'm wrong. He did win 20 games one time in his 23-year career. Kind of like Sundin getting 100 points once in his career.

Thanks for the correction and thanks for reading!

JT

Seriously? This is a question? And some people actually voted yes!?!

As ridiculous as I think this is I'm going to keep an open mind. Would someone who voted yes please explain your reasoning.

When I was in 9th grade i went down to block a shot and made a huge mistake. I went on my hip and was going a lil faster than I though, took a slapper right in the jock! I still have nightmares from that.

Seriously? This is a question? And some people actually voted yes!?!

As ridiculous as I think this is I'm going to keep an open mind. Would someone who voted yes please explain your reasoning.
- BlueBallz

I voted no.. but I think the idea is that the way the Rangers played was really a bit ridiculous. The biggest problem is that the equipment today basically allows a guy to block a shot with out fearing injury (so long as you block correctly). With it being that way you end up with (like the Rags did) a bunch of goalies on the ice. They would just crouch down in front of the net and eliminate offense.

John Toperzer: Does shot-blocking deserve a minor penalty? Vote here
All-out shot-blocking has become more prevalent than ever in the NHL
- the-mitch-wilsons

Penalty for shot blocking? WTF?

I voted no.. but I think the idea is that the way the Rangers played was really a bit ridiculous. The biggest problem is that the equipment today basically allows a guy to block a shot with out fearing injury (so long as you block correctly). With it being that way you end up with (like the Rags did) a bunch of goalies on the ice. They would just crouch down in front of the net and eliminate offense.
- jak521

I think the Rangers' lack of injury was an exception, a team playing that kind of shot blocking game won't typically make it through a season impervious like they did. Anyways, as to whether 2011-12 Rangers-style defense should be allowed, I think of it the same way as I do the trap: It's not exciting hockey, but I can't favor making rules against it just for being too effective.

I voted no.. but I think the idea is that the way the Rangers played was really a bit ridiculous. The biggest problem is that the equipment today basically allows a guy to block a shot with out fearing injury (so long as you block correctly). With it being that way you end up with (like the Rags did) a bunch of goalies on the ice. They would just crouch down in front of the net and eliminate offense.
- jak521

Yeah, I get that for sure, but just like this guy above stated, you shouldn't penalize an effective strategy, boring or not. This isn't even as bad as the trap because at least there is a risk involved for the players employing the tactic.

Yeah, I get that for sure, but just like this guy above stated, you shouldn't penalize an effective strategy, boring or not.
- BlueBallz

Im right there with you.. but I can (to a very minor degree) associate with people who would want to see that style of play frowned upon...


Also, as sick as it sounds.. You just start shooting high.. people will start to move..

I voted no.. but I think the idea is that the way the Rangers played was really a bit ridiculous. The biggest problem is that the equipment today basically allows a guy to block a shot with out fearing injury (so long as you block correctly). With it being that way you end up with (like the Rags did) a bunch of goalies on the ice. They would just crouch down in front of the net and eliminate offense.
- jak521

Injuries aside, it's just a stupid way to play the game.

Sure, the Rangers did okay last season, but let's not forget, they were the #1 seed going into the playoffs.

The #8 Seed Sens took them to 7 games (and the Rangers were down 3-2). Then the #7 Seed Caps took them to 7 games
Finally, they got smoked by the Devils in round 3.

For a top-seeded team, that's not a great playoff.

I can't see too many teams copying that style of play.

Injuries aside, it's just a stupid way to play the game.

Sure, the Rangers did okay last season, but let's not forget, they were the #1 seed going into the playoffs.

The #8 Seed Sens took them to 7 games (and the Rangers were down 3-2). Then the #7 Seed Caps took them to 7 games
Finally, they got smoked by the Devils in round 3.

For a top-seeded team, that's not a great playoff.

I can't see too many teams copying that style of play.
- Charliebox

It was boring as hell too.

Im right there with you.. but I can (to a very minor degree) associate with people who would want to see that style of play frowned upon...


Also, as sick as it sounds.. You just start shooting high.. people will start to move..
- jak521

I was thinking that too, just didn't want to be the guy to actually say it

Absolutely not.

Injuries aside, it's just a stupid way to play the game.

Sure, the Rangers did okay last season, but let's not forget, they were the #1 seed going into the playoffs.

The #8 Seed Sens took them to 7 games (and the Rangers were down 3-2). Then the #7 Seed Caps took them to 7 games
Finally, they got smoked by the Devils in round 3.

For a top-seeded team, that's not a great playoff.

I can't see too many teams copying that style of play.
- Charliebox

I like to think that the difficulties they encountered in the playoffs are more of an indication of the increased parity of the league, but I could be wrong.

I do find it strange that a team with a world class goalie would employ the strategy they did but regardless, the original question was if shot blocking should get a 2 minute penalty and I still think the answer is a resounding no.

I like to think that the difficulties they encountered in the playoffs are more of an indication of the increased parity of the league, but I could be wrong.

I do find it strange that a team with a world class goalie would employ the strategy they did but regardless, the original question was if shot blocking should get a 2 minute penalty and I still think the answer is a resounding no.
- BlueBallz

Yeah, I agree. There's no need to make it a penalty. If a team wants to give the other team posession all the time and never be agressive, I don't see them wining the cup. Sure it may work against teams that don't have a bunch of skilled guys, but the further you get, the better the competition is. Letting good to great teams dictate the pace of play generally isn't going to work out for you.

I do get your point about the parity, and you're right to an extent. That said, the Sens and Caps weren't great teams last year, and going 7 games against each of those opponents shouldn't happen.

Also, it's alot more tiring always chasing the puck around than it is if you have posession.

I think the Rangers style finally caught up with them against the Devils as they were probably exhausted playing two 7 game series' with that style.

I can see 'borderline' playoff teams using that style, but not cup champs.

I like to think that the difficulties they encountered in the playoffs are more of an indication of the increased parity of the league, but I could be wrong.

I do find it strange that a team with a world class goalie would employ the strategy they did but regardless, the original question was if shot blocking should get a 2 minute penalty and I still think the answer is a resounding no.
- BlueBallz

I think the idea is, between Hank and the brick wall shot blocking, that they could completely suffocate other teams' offense. At least for the Flyers, they seemed to quickly become desperate for goals, which leads to defensive breakdowns the Rangers could easily exploit (somebody had a picture with screencaps showing the same pass from the half boards to a lone undefended Ranger waiting to slam dunk). When they hit the playoffs, I guess teams tightening up their defense made it more difficult to do that. Either way, the gas had to run out eventually for that team.

I worry that Rick Nash will be the offensive force they need to really bring that game full circle.

... no?

whats next 2 mins for icing, 2 mins for getting kicked out of the faceoff dot
- nightmare3020

No....but why does the short handed team get the benefit of icing the puck? I say if they do ice it, call it, and faceoff in your own end with not being able to change lines either. And don't allow a timeout by the offending icing team.....EVER!!