I am whole heartedly against having defensive offsides and limits on blocking shots. I think this is a panicky overreaction to the scoring drop. It would make the rules even more confusing for non-hockey fans, some of whom have enough trouble with offsides and icing, never mind “defensive 3 second violations or the hockey equivalent.

It’s impossible to quanitfy, but I absolutely disagree that obstruction is up. You still see hooking to the hands and midsection penalized vigilantly. There are fewer phantom calls (referees more used to calling it) and much fewer actual infractions, because players have adapted by not being on the wrong side of their man, and take fewer pointless hooking penalties that were common in 05-06.

I believe there is a “free market” solution. If teams believe that more offense will put fannies in the seats, we’ll see run and gun teams. I for one, believe that this belief that more offense leads to more entertainment is somewhat misguided. Watch some southeast division games (where teams have GAA’s over 3) and tell me if they are that much more exciting. Some of them make me want to pull my hair out.

Posted by Steve Urkel on 01/27/08 at 10:40 AM ET

Or, teams could simply stop revolving their entire offense around cycling the puck out to the point for a shot, and could instead try to cycle the puck somewhere else for a better shot.

That’s what’s killed DET in the playoffs more than anything the past couple years with Schneider on the PP—blasting away with no regard from the point and missing the net 3/4 of the time, or just having it hit a d-man’s shin.  It’s no coincidence that replacing Schneider with Rafalski has resulted in PP goals form completely different araes of the ice.

Posted by Primis on 01/27/08 at 11:27 AM ET

I am wholeheartedly against any “illegal defense” rules in hockey. I have to admit I don’t understand the “illegal defense”, “illegal motion”, “not enough guys on the line of scrimmage”, etc. of American football and basketball. That’s mostly because I don’t care to learn them. There really should be better ways of either (1) making less intrusive, easier to understand rule changes or (2) coaches and players learning to cope with the way the game is changing. Many rules, like the “skate in the crease by one inch a tenth of a second before the puck arrives” and the “no tag-up offsides” rules didn’t last long, because it inhibited the players from doing what felt natural. If anything, I think the rules should be relaxed more, to let creative and talented players do what the do best (removing the two-line pass rule was one step in this direction). Back in 2001-02, I remember some TV commentators stating that the Red Wings played a much more wide-open style than any other team. I realize that it’s unlikely to form another team of their experience and talent, but I don’t understand why other teams always draft physically large and intimidating players, while ignoring the ones who get by on hockey knowledge and skill. Brunnstsrom, Datsyuk, Lidstrom, Brunette, St. Louis, Rafalski, McDonald, Jason Blake . . . all are among the recent players either not drafted at all or drafted well below where they “should have been”, looking back.  Detroit is usually considered the top organization in the NHL today, and they usually draft smaller, intelligent, skilled guys instead of the physically dominant specimens. When will other teams catch on?

As a side note, is there as much discussion about how to make hockey more fan-friendly and less trap-like in the European leagues. The sport is 95% the same on both sides of the water, so what is the state of the game over there?

Posted by Muero from Ohio on 01/28/08 at 11:54 AM ET