Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!jeff
From: jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson)
Newsgroups: net.sport.hockey
Subject: NHL rule change
Message-ID: <1576@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 08:59:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1576
Posted: Fri Jun 14 08:59:49 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Jun-85 12:35:38 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 44

On the afternoon of the awards dinner, the NHL announced a rule change.
First, a little background:  For as long as I can remember, whenever two
players on opposite teams were given coincident major penalties, the
players would go to the penalty box to serve their penalties, but the
number of players on the ice would not be affected.  This seems reasonable
because coincident majors are almost always for fighting, and fights don't
normally affect the play, so the combatants should be prohibited from playing
for a while, but there's no reason to make the teams play short-handed.
Until recently, coincident minor penalties always meant that each team would
lose a man.  A year or two ago, the rule was changed so that if one team
was short-handed, coincident minors would not affect the number of players
on the ice.  That's reasonable too because if both teams lost another man, it
would increase the advantage to the team that was on the power play, because
4 skaters against 3 is better than 5 against 4.

The new rule announced on Wednesday states that even of the teams are at
even strength, coincident minors will never affect the number of players
on the ice.  The new rule seems to be aimed at the Oilers who, because of
their speed, seem to play even better in 4 on 4 situations.  So, it's no
surprise that Wayne Gretzky used the awards dinner that evening to criticise
the new rule on national television.  Although I'm in favour of narrowing
the gap between the Oilers and the rest of the league, as Gretzky said,
they should try to narrow it by improving the other teams rather than by
weakening the Oilers.  However, that's not the main reason I'm against the
new rule.  I think that the Oilers advantage in 4 on 4 situations is due
more to the strategy they use in those situations, rather than their
speed.  Most teams play 4 on 4 situations defensively, almost as if they
were killing a penalty, so it's no wonder they don't score many goals,
but the Oilers treat it the way it should be treated, as an opportunity
to let the speedsters loose and go for goals.  My main objection is that
it almost eliminates one of the many different exciting situations in the
game.  Also, the new rule assumes that it's easy for a team to draw
coincident minors, and that there isn't much the other team can do about
it.  This assumption is stupid because if a player commits a foul, he
knows his team will be penalised and if the other player doesn't retaliate,
they'll have to play short-handed.  The player on the other team knows
that if he does retaliate, it will lead to a 4 on 4 situation and he'll
be giving up a power play opportunity.  If the player's stupid enough to
retaliate in that situation, even if he's playing the Oilers, then he
deserves any disadvantages that a 4 on 4 situation entails.
-- 
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto  (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff