**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Cheating & changing rules? Oh you don't say

When you have lawmakers flouting their sworn oath by exploiting the rules to facilitate an agenda of obstruction....seems perfectly reasonable to change them.

In the late 90's and early 00's, the New Jersey Devils made a living playing something called "The Trap". Once they got a lead in the game, they would hang back, put an extra guy on defense, and basically make it impossible for the opposing team to gain the offensive zone. They would just grind out wins 1-0, or 2-1, and they would always play for a tie in overtime.

That's great if you're the Devils. But if you're any other team, the league, or a fan, you hate it. That hopelessly boring and exhausting style of play undermined the sport's purpose as entertainment. So...the NHL changed the rules. Now there's no redline, and overtime losses still get you a point in the standings.

[Poopadoop]

overtime losses still get you a point in the standings.

This is the worst rule in the game imo. Right now, if the game is tied in the final period, there is no incentive to take a chance to win, since you can get a minimum one point for taking the game to overtime, and possibly two if you win in OT/shootout.

Make a regular time win 3 points, an OT win 2, an OT loss 1, and a regulation loss 0, and teams will have an incentive to win in regulation.

The reason the league doesn't do this is because OT is exciting and they want to encourage it. But I'd rather have a 60 minute exciting game than 60 minutes of close checking and a 5 minute exciting OT.

[BananaStand]

This is the worst rule in the game imo. Right now, if the game is tied in the final period, there is no incentive to take a chance to win, since you can get a minimum one point for taking the game to overtime, and possibly two if you win in OT/shootout.

Make a regular time win 3 points, an OT win 2, an OT loss 1, and a regulation loss 0, and teams will have an incentive to win in regulation.

The reason the league doesn't do this is because OT is exciting and they want to encourage it. But I'd rather have a 60 minute exciting game than 60 minutes of close checking and a 5 minute exciting OT.

Not quite the worst rule in the game, but I see what you're saying.

But the reason that OT is exciting is at least partly because it's not 5 on 5 like regulation play. Fewer players means more open ice, which creates a faster, more fluid gameplay that heavily favors the offense, and is loads more fun to watch.

If you ask me, the worst rule in the game is the limitations on rink size. In the Olympics, and I think other international leagues, the rink is bigger. And again, more open ice, means more offense, means more scoring.

But we're getting off topic, my only point with this analogy is that it's possible for someone to be within the rules, but still undermining the spirit, purpose, and intent of the game. That's what Dems were doing by boycotting these hearings. The NHL dealt with it the same way repubs did. Change the rules, and force the players to play.

[Poopadoop]

Not quite the worst rule in the game, but I see what you're saying.

But the reason that OT is exciting is at least partly because it's not 5 on 5 like regulation play. Fewer players means more open ice, which creates a faster, more fluid gameplay that heavily favors the offense, and is loads more fun to watch.

If you ask me, the worst rule in the game is the limitations on rink size. In the Olympics, and I think other international leagues, the rink is bigger. And again, more open ice, means more offense, means more scoring.

But we're getting off topic, my only point with this analogy is that it's possible for someone to be within the rules, but still undermining the spirit, purpose, and intent of the game. That's what Dems were doing by boycotting these hearings. The NHL dealt with it the same way repubs did. Change the rules, and force the players to play.

Sorry, thought this was hockey thread. Or at least it should be.

More ice would be ok but not a decisive change imo. There's only so much you can do on the boards and behind the net, though I agree it would help the game a bit. I wouldn't mind seeing 4 on 4 in regulation as standard. Give the skill players room to manouevre.