Would this be a good rule change?

Question

Get rid of the penalty for an illegal curve. It's serves absolutely no purpose. Let them bend them however they want.

Pros/cons?

Flames fan-it was adopted back in the day to protect goalies. They are pretty well protected now.

Brett Hull's thoughts on the rule

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/allan_muir/07/11/cheating.nhl/index.html

Answer 1

Personally, I would love to see them do away with the curves on the sticks. I was a player in the Chicago system before becoming a scout, so I was there when Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull had the boomerang curves on their sticks in training camp. Both players knew how to control the puck with those curves (what else would you expect from Hall of Famers).

In today's NHL, puck possession is very important, and not every player has the ability to play with an 'illegal' curve. This is an area where I think the teams can police themselves. If the curve is a detriment to your game....your coach will make you aware of it somehow.....if the curve enhances your game....similar story.

As you mentioned, goalies are protected to the high heavens now, the players and fans are more protected than 40 years ago, and the fact is that there is an optimum curve.....and it's not much more than what is legal. After a point...the curve becomes detrimental to the flight path and speed of the puck.

So, I say...eliminate that rule!

Great question!

Answer 2

I think this came straight from Bettman himself. That would be a terrible idea. First of all, you can't bend your stick that much, or you won't be able to shoot a backhand, and players are already pushing the limits of the rule, like Gaborik, who has a curve that is probably illegal in a few games a year. As far as goalies, are conserned, I don't think the rule is in place to protect them anymore, because I am a goalie, and the equipment does the job, but more to protect the game. You know that somebody would go out there with a real jacked up stick the first day the rule was taken away, shoot somewhere towards the right boards, and the puck would go off to the left because of the awful curve of the stick. I think the rule makes sense, and there are plenty of other rules that need to be changed before we start taking away rules for no reason.

Answer 3

I think they should leave them where they are. Yes, the goalies are protected better now, but they are not impervious to pucks. A couple of years back I can recall the tender from Chicago having his hand broken by a slap shot. I play goal, and while I don't have all pro caliber pads, I also don't play against NHL pros, and I can say that even though protected I still have had quite a few "sore spots" after a Friday night of playing.
Also, there are the other players in the league who are going to be hit by these shots with less padding. More velocity could lead to career ending injuries, or even possibly death. If you let the shots get out of hand then you'd open up the whole discussion over a need to make full face shields the rule to avoid the injuries........OK, done ranting....

Answer 4

I read that article and was going to ask a question about this issue! I should have been inside on my computer asking it, instead of going out in the sun with my friends (dear God, it was 94 degrees out!) to get a Philly cheese steak sandwich. (The craving for which I blame on you, John Disque, and Zam anyway! Grr!)

I think His Zapness (there's a plain old "Zap" now, haha) has a great answer. If it's that much of a gripe with CURRENT NHL players (not Mr. I - Scored - With - My - Foot - In - The - Crease - AND - I - Had - An - Illegal - Stick, LOL) then they can be polled or something damnit and have the rule modified. But only as far as changing the curve regulation goes and only if a greater percentage of players would like there to be more leeway.

No abolishing the rule altogether, because it sounds like a bad idea. Jaromir Jagr would attach the souvenir boomerang he picked up when visiting Melbourne's Crown Casino and attach it to the end of his stick.

Carnage, man. Even though old schoolers like Puck miss that carnage, obviously. Lol.

Answer 5

The players really have all the latitude they need at this point.

The curve rule was amended to allow up to a 3/4" (from 1/2") curvature last year. Anything more would be really excessive and I doubt more than 5% of the players would want to go beyond 3/4" anyhow.

I say this because there wasn't much variance in player patterns last year from the year before. You can monitor these trends by gauging the volume of blade mold requests submitted to manufacturers each year.

The feedback that I got from friends in the industry was that the majority of mold requests were made in efforts to switch players from one brand to another. Meaning most were duplicates of some other company's molds, not huge departures from the players' previous patterns.

On a separate note, paddle height and length tend to be more of an issue with regards to rule violations, as players try to get a slight edge or to compensate for bad ice.

Answer 6

I don't like it. While it's good they upped the limit a quarter inch (now 3/4 inch) too fast gets really dangerous. And while goalies are pretty well protected, anything moving too fast will hurt, especially if you hit the mask dead on. Last time that happened, the goalie (dallas backup, can't remember his name) wound up decked out on the ice lying in the goal. That could become common- you shoot for the head, the instinct is to move it. And more curve makes a faster and more accurate shot.

No, I don't think that's a good thing. I think right now we need to hold of on any rule changes until the impact has been discussed at length by all types of players and the rule should be approved by all groups- players and owners.

They upped the rule during th lockout, let's wait to see how it shakes out.

Answer 7

No. I'd agree with it if visors were mandatory, but since they're not, I find this a very risky rule change. With big curves, the risk of slapshots coming up increases immensely which can cause eye injuries or even serious head injuries. Yes, this rule change might help scoring, but in my mind the risks far outweigh the little increase we may see in scoring. I already disagree with the crazy one piece sticks NHL players have been using. Does it really matter how fast you shoot the puck anymore? The game would be much more entertaining if they cut down the goalie equipment significantly and restricted players to wood sticks, so that goalies would face close to the same equipment as the 80s and 90s, while using the same goalie equipment as they used in the high scoring era of hockey.

Answer 8

There are no cons and it is insane that the NHL did not choose to allow any curvature, but brought in all these other asinine rules to supposedly boost scoring. In the early-70's, the NHL limited the curvature and then lowered it again the following season; I forget how much each time, but I would guess 3/4ths and inch. In any case, this was in direct response to goaltenders - who didn't always wear masks because they were just gaining widespread use - were screaming that they were going to get killed.

If the NHL wanted scoring, all they needed to do was allow the banana blades back into hockey. Holy crap can you let loose a wrister and a half with a 1.5" curve. Even I can light one up and I have a tepid shot.

There are handful of cases of players in the 60's (when the curves started) suddely having their goal-production double.

Answer 9

I agree, goalies don't need the protection, but other players on the ice certainly do. Just think about all the shots that get blocked. Naturally this wouldn't come to the mind of Brett Hull, I highly doubt he ever went down to block a shot in his life.

Answer 10

Yeah i dont think its that great of a rule.

It can be a great disadvantage for other players in the league, because you can get some crazy wrist shots or skill testing shots with a wicked curve.

I dont think there are really any disadvantages for the players with a greater curve so maybe thats why there is a curve limit for the sticks.

--

Yea wll thats why they should probably allow a greater curve now, still put a limit just a greater amount...