Say goodbye to the trapezoid?

I'm okay with this only because to me it didn't seem like it was making that much of a difference. But according to that article defensemen are taking too many hits because of times the goalie can't play the puck? Not sure I follow that, and wouldn't that be good for scoring if it were true?

over 2 years ago macvechkin 13 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It’s unlikely the trapezoid rule will change dramtically. What would be a welcome change is that goalies whose teams are on the power play would be able to play the puck anywhere behind the goal line. Right now, if a team on the PK dumps the puck down and gets it to stay in the corner, the team on the power play has to go get it. Wouldn’t it be better for scoring if the opposing goalie can go get the puck and shoot it right back up the ice.

When a team goes short handed, they get rule broken in their favor. Why not have a rule change going the other way…

Let's go Caps!

by MikeL-Pivonka on Nov 9, 2009 3:17 PM EST reply actions

Eh, you usually see the goalie get to the puck before it hits the goal line anyway — but I like the idea.

by sixsevenfiftysix on Nov 9, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions

If that rule starts getting tweaked it will just add to the absurdity. Either have the trapezoid there or get rid of it.

One guy just drove his semi as a float. I guess semis are cool.

by zephyr on Nov 9, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Get rid of it. The concept of the goaltender playing the puck being a “Delay of game” is a joke. Also, I can’t stand when you have to watch the goalie stand at the edge of it waiting for the puck to get there, and I’m not sure that the goal Theo gave up the other day gets allowed with this rule. It’s a dumb rule for no reason.

I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.

by Whiter Mage on Nov 9, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions

It may be a dumb rule but you can’t really say it has no purpose. The NHL was pretty clear about the reason for the rule, and in a lot of respects it’s hard to argue that they were wrong. I don’t like the rule but saying it has no reason is overstating it.

If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...

by Rob Parker on Nov 9, 2009 4:26 PM EST up reply actions

A better statement is the reason is pointless and in the wrong direction of what the NHL should be focusing on.

I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.

by Whiter Mage on Nov 9, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions

I would love to make the trapezoid go away, but only if that means goalie’s are fair game when playing the puck below the goal line.

This crap that goalies used to be able to wander wherever they wanted and just use their bodies to shield the puck from a forward who has to be “whoa, hands off, can’t touch the delicate goalie” is garbage. Are they hockey players (with INSANE amounts of padding) or aren’t they. You wanna go play the puck in the corner, you take your chances.

God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.

by Chris meet Alex on Nov 9, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions

Goalie equipment isn’t made for being checked.

The NFL protects quarter backs the NHL protects goalies. I think there is a degree to how much contact can be made but I think they should be fair game out of the trapezoid.

One guy just drove his semi as a float. I guess semis are cool.

by zephyr on Nov 9, 2009 6:09 PM EST up reply actions

I agree that it isn’t made for being checked, but it’s got to protect well enough for that doesn’t it? The only area I would say it perhaps doesn’t have sufficient padding would be on the back of the pants (tailbone protector?). I’ll ask my goalie what he thinks…

God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.

by Chris meet Alex on Nov 10, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions

My personal thoughts is that the goalie ought to be free to be bumped anywhere out of his crease, which made me excited when I heard the rules for the recently failed WHA attempt during the lockout. I wouldn’t say flat out checked, for reasons listed below, but a little shove of a bump, as long as it’s not interfering the goalie (i.e. he’d need to have the puck) wouldn’t bug me at all.

I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.

by Whiter Mage on Nov 10, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly. I have enough difficulty trying to explain icing to my non-hockey friends.

I have as many wins in a Capitals uniform as Michael Belhumeur does.

by marky narc on Nov 9, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions

I like the trapezoid.

Now just make the goalie equipment smaller and get rid of the instigator penalty and I will be totally happy with the rules

by LSF76 on Nov 10, 2009 11:30 AM EST reply actions

I like to think of it as two “no play zones” rather than one trapezoid. Discuss.

Void Boyd! Go with Perreault!

by jordanDC on Nov 10, 2009 12:12 PM EST reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Southeast Standings

	GP	W	L	OTL	PT
Washington Japers' Rink	53	28	21	4	60
Florida Litter Box Cats	52	24	17	11	59
Winnipeg Arctic Ice Hockey	55	25	24	6	56
Tampa Bay Raw Charge	52	23	24	5	51
Carolina Canes Country	55	20	25	10	50