Are GMs ready to erase trapezoid, sacrifice goals for safety? (PuckDaddy)

[rinkrat]

Whenever I start bitching about the existence of the trapezoid behind the net, I'm quickly labeled as a bitter New Jersey Devils fan who watched the NHL legislate out of the game the ability of the best puck-handling goalie to be the team's third defenseman.

Which is probably accurate, come to think of it.

But I also have fundamental, dogmatic objections to any rule that restricts the movement of a player on the ice, which is what the trapezoid does. Hockey is a game of constant movement and unparalleled teamwork; shackling a goalie to his posts doesn't mesh with that.

The trapezoid was created during the sweeping post-lockout rules changes to create more offense and speed up the game. It's achieved the former objective: There's no question attacking teams have more opportunity to win the puck, forecheck and break down defensive systems with the goalie restricted.

As for speed, we'll defer to Between The Pipes' superlative essay on the trapezoid, which wonders how a game can be considered faster when it features a goalie gazing "longingly at the puck on the other side of the line with the look that a dog has after seeing [a] peanut butter sandwich hit the shag."

Of course, as with any rules change, it's the unanticipated consequences that determine success or failure. The trapezoid was intended to increase goal-scoring; instead, it's increased man-games lost and hospital bills, thanks to suicide runs to the boards by attacking players on helpless defenders.

The NHLPA's competition committee seriously examined the future of the trapezoid last fall, and the NHL's general managers are expected to debate it this week at their meetings in Toronto. We have a four-season sample of life with the trapezoid; should it stay or should it go?

The previews for the GM meetings focus on hits to the head, which will likely produce the usual non-progress following by dire proclamations to the media about an epidemic by some concerned executives.

The trapezoid issue, however, is somewhat tied to concerns over the increase in injuries. From ESPN's Pierre LeBrun:

It was believed at the time that limiting the goalies' ability to play the puck in the corners would help the opposing team's forecheck; but there's a feeling among some GMs that goalies should be allowed to roam freely again, which may help some defensemen avoid injuries from having to play the puck. We'll see whether or not there's enough widespread support to make a change for next season. I don't get a sense either way right now.

Damien Cox of the Toronto Star goes into more detail:

Defencemen, however, have clearly become more at risk from the big hit, particularly with obstruction on forecheckers removed.

Now, few would seriously argue in favour of returning obstruction to the game. It would be impossible to regulate and you'd end up just going backwards

But removing the trapezoid and letting the goalies play the puck the way they could before the lockout would clearly help the situation to some degree. Problem is, while it would really help, say, Dallas with smooth Marty Turco(notes), it might not help other clubs nearly as much. For example, if the Leafs could tether rookie Jonas Gustavsson(notes) to the crossbar, they probably would.

Well, that's just a stupid reason not to repeal the rule. Yes, Damien, won't anyone think about the goalies that lack the fundamental skills to excel at their position without the NHL rulebook covering for them? The world needs more Roman Cechmaneks.

Make no mistake: Allowing goalies to play the puck behind the net is opening the door for defensive systems to take hold again, depending on whether a given goalie is competent within that skill. We'll go from attacking teams being able to spring the puck free from a defensive player to dancing around the most coddled, protected player in the game to avoid an interference penalty.

But we've seen the alternative, which is defensive players crumpling to the ice as their bodies are crunched awkwardly against the end boards.

I still doubt the GMs will overturn a rule that's so beneficial to the offensive philosophy the NHL has followed since the lockout. But as an incremental solution to the "hits to the head" issue, I can see there being enough support to eliminate the trapezoid from NHL ice rinks. Which means, of course, new real estate for advertisements. Yippee!


http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Are-GMs-ready-to-erase-trapezoid-sacrifice-goal?urn=nhl,201102