NHL GM's: Not Taking Drop In Scoring Lying Down

Last week, the GM's of all the teams around the NHL got together in Chicago for a little chit-chat to discuss the state of the game and how to increase offense. The best thing their collective minds could come up with: penalizing players for dropping to the ice to block a shot. If you don't believe me check out the story here. Apparently the security was a little loose for the boardroom and somebody spiked their Gatorade.

Their rationale (I didn't want to use the word 'rational', but I needed it to spell 'rationale') is that by prohibiting players from laying on the ice to stop a blast on net, we will see an immediate rise in the average number of goals scored per game.

Apparently, the GM's feel that fans find it much more exciting when they see a 6-4 slobberknocker such as the Oct. 25 game between the Anaheim Ducks and the Montreal Canadiens than if they watch the Rangers battle back from a 2-0 deficit to tie the Penguins 2-2 and need a shootout to settle things. Didn't most of these GM's actually play hockey at one time in their lives? Who out there in HockeyLand thinks that the excitement of a game is directly proportional to the number of goals scored? Would that mean that the NHL would draw more fans for a 13-0 slaughter than a 1-goal nail-biter? I'd like to get a chance to ask one of these GM's to try to explain how the game of soccer is gaining so much popularity despite the fact it's widely known for its lack of scoring. My guess is because of the decreased hitting and increased diving. Maybe NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is still stuck in his NBA days, where scores would reach triple-digits and players were penalized for goaltending.

Anyone that's played serious, competitive hockey can probably recall a moment where a game was on the line and an opposing player was winding up for big slapper that could potentially tie the score when a guy selflessly threw himself in front of the blast to negate the scoring chance. The best analogy would be to picture a war, where a guy jumps on a live grenade to save the rest of his comrades. Obviously, the mortality rate is slightly less while performing a shot-block than grenade-smothering, but the effect on the people around that person is quite similar. The respect that a player gets for such a feat is increased and the momentum swings in that team's favor. It doesn't seem right to penalize a player for risking some serious bruising for the good of the team. Take that away, and you get a bunch of guys standing around like pylons as they try to close the wickets before the shot comes through. How many more players will go on the IR with broken ankles/feet using this technique?

 If they ban players from blocking shots, what's next? Maybe they could force the goalies to stay outside the crease or incur a penalty. It would be easier to pass around the goaltender for a wide open shot. Heck, why not just get rid of the goalies altogether? There would be scoring galore! The fans would come in droves, paying hundreds of dollars per ticket, just to see the scoring-fest! If increased offense is so marketable and exciting, why do we not see thousands of people gathering to watch a game of pick-up hockey? Tons of scoring, no blocked shots, no hitting (not even to the head), no fighting (usually), no back-checking. According to NHL management's assessment, this would be their dream for the NHL. Why is nobody taking advantage of this cash cow and charging $100 a game to watch this?

Here's my advice to the people who make the decisions on the rule changes: excitement is about the amount of competition, not the amount of scoring. If you walk away from a sporting event with a good feeling, it's most likely because you just experienced a close, hard fought game where either team could've won, regardless of the score. It's not because you watched a bunch of overpaid athletes score a bunch of easy goals. Keep that in mind before you change any more rules.