Gm's Pondering Removal Of Trapezoid

[franck5890]

Just watching SportsCentre and Darren Dreger was going through a short list of things that NHL GM's will be discussing in Toronto later this week and the idea of removing the trapezoid caught my eye. The idea is that it would help create more offense, but also that it could potentially remove some of the serious icing-related injuries we've seen in recent years.

Other proposals ranged from players purchasing their own sticks and helmets to controlling the artists and what they use on goalie masks.

[FlHabsFan]

So in other words, theyre trying to justify having the meeting? I mean helmet art is an issue? And I thought the players did buy their own sticks. I would think someone making a couple hundred grand to a few million a year could afford a few sticks and such.

[QbGamer]

not going to happen

[leafs_rock_go_mccabe]

Good. I hope they get rid of the stupid trapezoid. Anything to minimize the number of stupid and restrictive rules.

[Manatee-X]

Just watching SportsCentre and Darren Dreger was going through a short list of things that NHL GM's will be discussing in Toronto later this week and the idea of removing the trapezoid caught my eye. The idea is that it would help create more offense, but also that it could potentially remove some of the serious icing-related injuries we've seen in recent years.

Other proposals ranged from players purchasing their own sticks and helmets to controlling the artists and what they use on goalie masks.

I don't think it was so much about controlling what the artists put on the masks as much as it is controlling who owns the artwork itself. In other words, if replicas of Price's mask are sold in the Bell Centre gift shop does the artist get royalties? The player? The team?

Anyway, I've always found the whole trapezoid rule to be a little dumb. If the goalie feels he can take the risk to come out and play the puck, I say let him. It seems really arbitrary that he can play it in one location behind his net and he can't if it travels another foot towards the side boards.

If you ask me, though, as far as rules go the #1 change should be killing the automatic penalty for putting the puck over the glass. If a ref feels it was done on purpose, so be it, give them a penalty. But I hate, hate, hate those times when a player is on the PK, gets to a puck in a position to throw it cleanly down the boards only to be sent to the box because it was a little too high. The penalty is for delay of game... if someone threw it out of bounds behind their goalie to delay the game and force a faceoff he should be penalized. If they were just trying to clear the puck then having a faceoff in their own zone should be penalty enough. Why not make it like icing and keep the same players on, if they really think this is a problem they need to crack down on?

[thefooligan5]

I don't think it was so much about controlling what the artists put on the masks as much as it is controlling who owns the artwork itself. In other words, if replicas of Price's mask are sold in the Bell Centre gift shop does the artist get royalties? The player? The team?

Anyway, I've always found the whole trapezoid rule to be a little dumb. If the goalie feels he can take the risk to come out and play the puck, I say let him. It seems really arbitrary that he can play it in one location behind his net and he can't if it travels another foot towards the side boards.

If you ask me, though, as far as rules go the #1 change should be killing the automatic penalty for putting the puck over the glass. If a ref feels it was done on purpose, so be it, give them a penalty. But I hate, hate, hate those times when a player is on the PK, gets to a puck in a position to throw it cleanly down the boards only to be sent to the box because it was a little too high. The penalty is for delay of game... if someone threw it out of bounds behind their goalie to delay the game and force a faceoff he should be penalized. If they were just trying to clear the puck then having a faceoff in their own zone should be penalty enough. Why not make it like icing and keep the same players on, if they really think this is a problem they need to crack down on?

Maybe my memory is skewed but I seem to remember a whole lot more pucks going over the glass prior to this rule being instituted. It was always maddening for a puck to exit the playing surface because it kills all the momentum. I think this rule has served its purpose - to keep the game more exciting by decreasing the stoppages in play.

[leafs_rock_go_mccabe]

If you ask me, though, as far as rules go the #1 change should be killing the automatic penalty for putting the puck over the glass. If a ref feels it was done on purpose, so be it, give them a penalty. But I hate, hate, hate those times when a player is on the PK, gets to a puck in a position to throw it cleanly down the boards only to be sent to the box because it was a little too high. The penalty is for delay of game... if someone threw it out of bounds behind their goalie to delay the game and force a faceoff he should be penalized. If they were just trying to clear the puck then having a faceoff in their own zone should be penalty enough. Why not make it like icing and keep the same players on, if they really think this is a problem they need to crack down on?

I agree 100%! They should change the rule so dumping the puck over the glass in the defensive zone has the same result as icing the puck. If the referee determines that it's done intentionally, like a few years back, then he can call a delay a game penalty. It's the one time I might agree to let the referees have a little subjectivity back.

[franck5890]

I don't think it was so much about controlling what the artists put on the masks as much as it is controlling who owns the artwork itself. In other words, if replicas of Price's mask are sold in the Bell Centre gift shop does the artist get royalties? The player? The team?

Anyway, I've always found the whole trapezoid rule to be a little dumb. If the goalie feels he can take the risk to come out and play the puck, I say let him. It seems really arbitrary that he can play it in one location behind his net and he can't if it travels another foot towards the side boards.

If you ask me, though, as far as rules go the #1 change should be killing the automatic penalty for putting the puck over the glass. If a ref feels it was done on purpose, so be it, give them a penalty. But I hate, hate, hate those times when a player is on the PK, gets to a puck in a position to throw it cleanly down the boards only to be sent to the box because it was a little too high. The penalty is for delay of game... if someone threw it out of bounds behind their goalie to delay the game and force a faceoff he should be penalized. If they were just trying to clear the puck then having a faceoff in their own zone should be penalty enough. Why not make it like icing and keep the same players on, if they really think this is a problem they need to crack down on?

You're probably correct.

[thefooligan5]

I agree 100%! They should change the rule so dumping the puck over the glass in the defensive zone has the same result as icing the puck. If the referee determines that it's done intentionally, like a few years back, then he can call a delay a game penalty. It's the one time I might agree to let the referees have a little subjectivity back.

Do you mean that the faceoff should stay in their zone (it always did) and the players can't change? That may do the trick. It's hard to say. I think once you remove the threat of a penalty though we'll be seeing a lot more stoppages in play which no hockey fan really wants. Even icings peave me off although I understand why the stoppage is there.

[Manatee-X]

Do you mean that the faceoff should stay in their zone (it always did) and the players can't change? That may do the trick. It's hard to say. I think once you remove the threat of a penalty though we'll be seeing a lot more stoppages in play which no hockey fan really wants. Even icings peave me off although I understand why the stoppage is there.

In response to the part I bolded: exactly. In a 5 on 5 situation, what is the practical difference between icing the puck and throwing it over the glass? Both are done a ) to delay the game if you are winning or b ) to relieve pressure in your zone if you are tired or getting beat. It's the exact same crime, why is one arbitrarily penalized so severely?

Now it's a little different on the PK when you're allowed to ice the puck, as obviously we can't have guys throwing it over the glass willy-nilly. So keep the rule there at the referees' discretion, and add to that that you can't change if it is done by accident. Even on the PK it's not worth it if your tired penalty killers need to stay out while they switch over to fresh scorers.

[Dintrox12]

The trapezoid was added to penalize a few goalies that could handle the puck well. It really made no sense to begin with.

With the goalie masks, I hope they look into that Saw mask stuff in Tampa last year. Can a goalie be forced to wear a mask that sells something ownership is involved with? I guess also there is the question of ownership of the mask design and who profits from replicas etc...

[SmoothCriminalj5]

What they NEED to get rid of is the instigator penalty! Hockey NEEDS fighting to control other teams goons. I was so disgusted with last nights game. Montreal is a small team and they can't stand up for themselves because A. They're scared or B. The refs are against them. I would love to see Montreal bring up a bunch of minor players who are big and have a crusher line and that is all they will be expected to do, kind of like when Philadelphia had the broad street bullies.

[habsfanfla]

I don't think it was so much about controlling what the artists put on the masks as much as it is controlling who owns the artwork itself. In other words, if replicas of Price's mask are sold in the Bell Centre gift shop does the artist get royalties? The player? The team?

I'm no lawyer or anything but If I pay you to paint me a picture, don't I own it? I paid you for your time and effort and you created this work of art for me. Your claim to it ends when you sell me the art. I commisioned you to create it, you created it, I paid you and took delivery, dosen't that end the artists involvment? I would think the question would between the goalie and the team, but in my non-legal opinon if the goalie paid for the mask, he should get any royalties from reproduction sales...

Someone made referenvce to a mask someone wore with a movie ad or something on it that the team owner was involved with...THAT they can look at, if they want to ban goalies from selling their masks as advertising I have no problem with that....not interested in seeing Halak or Price wearing a Coca Cola mask........

[Dintrox12]

The movie in question was Saw V. Lightning co-owner (is he still?) owen koules produced the movie and special masks were commissioned for the Tampa goalies - Smith and Kolzig. The masks were auctioned off for charity I think it went toward autism (possibly Kolzig's Carson Kolzig Foundation) and the goalies agreed to it. But what is next, could the brothers Molson force Price and Halak to wear Molson Ex masks?

[FanFromAB]

I like the trapezoid, maybe we should not allow goalies to freeze the puck either...keep the game going!

[Manatee-X]

I'm no lawyer or anything but If I pay you to paint me a picture, don't I own it? I paid you for your time and effort and you created this work of art for me. Your claim to it ends when you sell me the art. I commisioned you to create it, you created it, I paid you and took delivery, dosen't that end the artists involvment? I would think the question would between the goalie and the team, but in my non-legal opinon if the goalie paid for the mask, he should get any royalties from reproduction sales...

Someone made referenvce to a mask someone wore with a movie ad or something on it that the team owner was involved with...THAT they can look at, if they want to ban goalies from selling their masks as advertising I have no problem with that....not interested in seeing Halak or Price wearing a Coca Cola mask........

It would depend entirely on the contract. I would assume that you're right, though, as the chances are pretty good that either the team or the goalie commissioned the artist to paint the mask which would then be owned by the team/goalie. It's legaly possible, though, that the artist could ask for royalties if that's what the contract dictates. If you're a popular singer who comes to me to write you a song, you'll get the public credit and most of the money if the song is popular but I'll likely still get some royalties based on sales and whatnot. (But like I said, you're probably right since chances are in this case the image belongs to the player or the team).

As for the trapezoid, they had an interesting idea on the TSN Quiz: invert the trapezoid (and make it a little smaller). The goalie's allowed to play it in the corners, just not behind his own net. This causes three things to happen that I like:

1)It maintains the spirit of the original rule, which was to stop goalies from breaking up dump-ins and negating offense. I'd say it actually does this better, since it's easier for the goalie to go behind his net than into the corner.

2)If the goalie is going to be playing the puck in the corner, it's probably going to be when there are no players nearby (like after a puck is iced on a power play, for instance). In these situations it would actually cause more offense by allowing the goalie's team to start their rush that much sooner, and may lead to breakout passes.

3)It might keep some guys from getting injured in a race for the puck to get an icing call if the goalie could get there first when the other team's player seems to be winning the race.