Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!alberta!ken
From: ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Newsgroups: net.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Re: NHL rule change
Message-ID: <558@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 16:48:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: alberta.558
Posted: Thu Jun 20 16:48:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Jun-85 02:31:07 EDT
References: <1576@dciem.UUCP> <8235@ucbvax.ARPA> <552@alberta.UUCP> <8314@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Distribution: net
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 75
Keywords: Surely you jest?

In article <8314@ucbvax.ARPA> citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Citrin) writes:
>I don't think Terry understood what I was trying to say in my article,
>so I'll explain it further.
>
>1)  It seems to me that it is easier to provoke offsetting minors than it is 
>    to draw a penalty.

But you have to draw a penalty inorder to get "offsetting minors". Offsetting
minors in next seasons play will effectively mean no penalty, whereas in the
past it meant a pair of penalties.

>
>2)  The advantage that good skating teams have on the 4-on-4 is almost as
>    great as the advantage they have on the power play.

This is a great exaggeration! The disparity in skating talent is not
so huge as to provide this large an advantage!

>
>3)  If a team decides that it can gain the advantage more easily by provoking
>    coincidental minors than by drawing a penalty (or if they attempt to draw
>    a penalty with the knowledge that they are at no risk because they can
>    do almost as well on a 4-on-4) then they will at times deliberately
>    commit an infraction to gain the advantage.  

You'd better explain the above point in more detail,the arguement you present
here makes no sense at all. How is it possible to attempt to "provoke a 
pair of minors" with no risk at all?? If both teams are at even strength then
you risk giving the other team a power play, if you're on the power play
then why would you risk giving up this advantage. The only situations that
would justify the risk would be the ones where you'd be forced to anyway
i.e. stopping a possible breakway by holding, for instance.

>
>4)  This seems to me to be a flaw in the rules.  Penalties exist to prevent
>    a team from doing certain things, not to encourage them to do those
>    things.  The new rule removes the encouragement by removing the advantage
>    that good-skating teams would gain by deliberately breaking the rules.
>

This seems to me to be a flaw in the new rules.  Penalties exist to prevent
a team from doing certain things, not to encourage them to do those things. 
If we accept your premise that it is easy to "provoke a pair of minors", then 
the new rule introduces the encouragement by allowing poorer skating teams 
to attempt to draw a pair of minors against the better skating team without 
any risk. The situation I speak of would allow a poorer player to "take" a 
better player off the ice without putting his team in a 4 - 4 situation, in 
fact, this sort of "trade" will probably be quite common next season. I 
predict many clubs will capitalize on the short temper of players like Messier 
in order to take them off the ice - after all, now they don't have to face a 
faster team on a 4 - 4 situation right?

It is rule changes like this that will promote more violence on the ice
rather than decrease it since there are many more mediocre/poor skating
teams than good ones. 


>I think that this is a fairly compelling argument.  It's not an attack on the 
>Oilers, who found a flaw in the rules and used it to their advantage (as did
>the Canadiens, who used to spend a great deal of time practicing the 4-on-4).
>It's just an attempt to plug a hole in the rules of hockey.  

The arguement is not compelling. This rule is an attempt to slow down
the faster skating clubs. If the NHL feels obliged to play with the rules
in order to "equalize" the teams, then they should do it in such a way
as to promote better play from all teams rather than to penalize the
better ones. Rule changes in the draft selection would accomplish this.

>
>Wayne Citrin
>(ucbvax!citrin)


						Ken Hruday
					  University of Alberta