Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

I wonder if this really works, or if it will go the way of FOX's glowing puck?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

I dunno. I saw it the other day and it made me want to puke. Or that may have been my dinner...

But really, I'm surprised they are allowed to do this. But if you can do it in football, why would hockey be any different, right?

TG1996 wrote:I wonder if this really works, or if it will go the way of FOX's glowing puck?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

Maybe they should experiment this idea at Boise State to go along with their blue football field.

Personally, I'd have to see it in person or on TV to know whether or not I like it. The orange on the ice should be a different color though. Looks more yellow to me.

Kinda looks like old time hockey with the old fading ice paint....be back later, finding Slapshot...

pdt1081 wrote:Personally, I'd have to see it in person or on TV to know whether or not I like it. The orange on the ice should be a different color though. Looks more yellow to me.

yeah, I was confused with why if it was a "light blue" did they need to change the color of the lines?

Good find on the pics, though! What are the diagonal lines behind the net for? I assume it has something to do with contact with the goalie, or the goalie playing the puck... is it an AHL rule, or another experiment?

TG1996 wrote: Good find on the pics, though! What are the diagonal lines behind the net for? I assume it has something to do with contact with the goalie, or the goalie playing the puck... is it an AHL rule, or another experiment?

I think the lines behind the net have to do with the goalie playing the puck. I think it was an experimental rule in the AHL this year about limiting where the goalie can play the puck at. I don't know 100%.

As far as changing the color of the lines, I could see changing the blue. The red could have stayed but the blue would need to go. To really make them standout like now they'd need to be darkened. The darker they are, the harder it is to see the puck. You think offside calls are bad now....

pdt1081 wrote: I think the lines behind the net have to do with the goalie playing the puck. I think it was an experimental rule in the AHL this year about limiting where the goalie can play the puck at. I don't know 100%.

Yes, the lines behind the goal were a new thing this year in the AHL. It was an experimental rule. Goalies were only allowed to play the puck between the lines, otherwise they'd receive a 2:00 penalty for delay of game.

I don't know how its worked out or if they'll keep it for next season.

The AHL also instituted 'Blueline For Dummies,', this big fat blueline that was twice the size of the regular bluelines (normal = 12 inches wide, Blueline For Dummies = 24 inches). Coaches and players seem to like it, although I haven't noticed referees becoming any better at determining whether or not a play is offsides.

What's super fun about Blueline For Dummies is that UML shares its building with the AHL's Lowell Lock Monsters. So we've got the goalie lines (which we don't use) but Blueline For Dummies we have to use by default. We're the only building in Hockey East that has BFD so whenever we're on the road we have normal bluelines. This season I have not noticed a difference between our play on the road vs. at home, but I fear that if BFD stays, the guys will become lazy with the extra room and have more offsides calls on the road. I guess only time will tell.

McConvey,

Do you know Umass-Lowell player Danny O'Brien at all?

I just can't believe that the blue line is 24 inches wide. I don't see how it would make it easier for the refs. Granted the space is bigger but if its a close call, its a close call. There is always bound to be errors. Additionally, McConvey has a good point about messing with players heads. You get used to it after a while, ya know?

And I love the name "Blueline for Dummies."

SaxyIrishTenor wrote:I just can't believe that the blue line is 24 inches wide. I don't see how it would make it easier for the refs. Granted the space is bigger but if its a close call, its a close call. There is always bound to be errors. Additionally, McConvey has a good point about messing with players heads. You get used to it after a while, ya know?

And I love the name "Blueline for Dummies."

The rule isn't supposed to make it easier on the refs. It's supposed to give plays extra room in the attacking zone.

More room=more offense I guess

bgsufan1972 wrote:

TG1996 wrote:I wonder if this really works, or if it will go the way of FOX's glowing puck?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

Maybe they should experiment this idea at Boise State to go along with their blue football field.

Yeah, Smurf Turf!!!!

bgsufan1972 wrote:

TG1996 wrote:I wonder if this really works, or if it will go the way of FOX's glowing puck?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

Maybe they should experiment this idea at Boise State to go along with their blue football field.

Exactly my point.

Dayons_Den wrote:McConvey,

Do you know Umass-Lowell player Danny O'Brien at all?

GREAT guy!!

How do you know O'B?