DAC wrote:
I would counter by asking why should the penalized team get to ice the puck? I don't look at eliminating icing as penalizing the PK team any more. It seems that these kind of rule changes would affect how teams played. It might clean up some of the goonery if the PP is a greater advantage. While these rules would need further testing, I'm not so quick to discount them.
Another idea toyed with was reducing the depth of the goal. They said that reducing the depth 4" had no impact on the sight of the goal but it did open up the area behind the goal. While I don't see how 4" makes that much difference, that's what the Puck Daddy guys stated.
Your first paragraph is an example of pure unadulterated retardation. Taking away the icing from the PK would be a HUGE advantage to a power play and eliminate any sort of balance from the overall game. power plays would become so powerful that they would render even strength play basically useless. As for eliminating goonery, considering that 98% of the penalties taken in a game have nothing to do with gooning it up your comment has no validity.
As for your second comment about reducing the depth of the goal, this is actually a great idea and I fully expect it to go through. Adding 4" of playing surface behind the net may not seem like a lot to you, but to skilled players who like to cycle it would be a huge help and in the long run would increase offense in the game without sacrificing any of the game's integrity.
_________________
LTG wrote:
Trae Young will be a bust. Book It!