I don't Even Know What to Say About This

This is the single most dumbfounding thing I've ever read from Damien Cox - and that's saying something.

He should seriously consider being a comedian; this quote is really funny.

This was a line from Cox's new article on the GM meetings, he was talking about an expectation that a rule change would occur this weekend, and here were two of his suggestions:

"Like a ban on head shots? Or a non-bodychecking zone on the ice?"

I can't actually believe that somebody who has followed the NHL for so long would actually suggest "a non-bodychecking zone on the ice".

I am literally stupefied.

about 2 years ago Belligerent Burkie 16 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

maybe we can install a no hair zone on the ice.

by 6rick6 on Nov 9, 2009 5:29 PM EST reply actions

no mustache zone?

THIS IS A JOKE

by loser domi on Nov 9, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions

Whoa, careful now, Ian White is still in the league, and I don’t want to live in a world where George Parros doesn’t have a stache.

by Belligerent Burkie on Nov 9, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

fine

no pedo-beard zone?

THIS IS A JOKE

by loser domi on Nov 9, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

No swearing zone.

by 6rick6 on Nov 9, 2009 5:32 PM EST reply actions

no standing zone

THIS IS A JOKE

by loser domi on Nov 9, 2009 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

The No Five-Hole Zone

(No Toskalas Allowed)

Junior Director of Anti-Bandwagoning, PPP Amalgamated Heavy Industries
Truculence is Everything: We Rant, We Caption, We Care.

by Marc Pilgrim on Nov 9, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions

No Toskala zone would be Kyle Wellwood’s prodigious girth. It can barely fit through Toskalol’s five-hole

Space Weed Says The Steve Ott of Hockey Blogs
"DO NOT get stuck behind Kyle Wellwood in the buffet line. This isn't really etiquette, but it will prevent you from starving to death"- Down Goes Brown on Etiquette for Jason Spezza's wedding

by Kevin Sellathamby on Nov 9, 2009 6:55 PM EST up reply actions

No fat chicks?

THIS IS A JOKE

by loser domi on Nov 9, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions

rumor has it the league is looking at removing the trapezoid from behind the net, allowing goalies to play the puck more, easing pressure on the d. not a “no hit zone” but at least the league is looking at easing up hits on the end boards.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Nov 9, 2009 6:02 PM EST reply actions

i am for removing the trapezoid, as long as it’s not a “non-bodychecking zone”

by Belligerent Burkie on Nov 9, 2009 6:04 PM EST up reply actions

What about tweaking the icing rules? Not completely eliminating touch icing, but making the play safer.

Basically, if the forechecking forward is leading or even with the defenceman at the defensive zone face off dots, icing is waved off. There is still a race for the puck, but less chance of someone plowing into the boards at full speed.

by Its Cold In Here on Nov 9, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions

That’s what I think should happen, though there should be a more definitive line than the faceoff dots

Moustache Fever, not to be confused with swine flu.

by Shield on Nov 9, 2009 8:33 PM EST up reply actions

No-touch icing and a removal of the trapezoid would save a lot of trouble for defencemen. There is no reason to keep touch icing. It is not used elsewhere in the hockey world, and it seems to work fine. I don’t buy the argument that that particular race for the puck is such an exciting and integral part of the game that it can’t be removed.

No-bodychecking zone is just a stupid idea though. Depending on how it is conceived, it could cause more problems. Players will think they are safe, but others might decide to hit them anyway, and if you are not ready for a hit, that can cause a lot of damage. If they put it behind the net, or along the boards, that just encourages hitting in the most dangerous spot—just a little bit away from the boards. There are already penalties for charging, boarding and hitting from behind. Just enforce those penalties and you’ll deal with the “into the boards” stuff.

The big open ice hits are tougher to fix, but that assumes they need fixing. You can cut down on concussions by a) keeping your head up and b) softer equipment. If everyone has softer equipment, there’s no disadvantage.

by Leaf in Habland on Nov 10, 2009 1:40 PM EST reply actions

*seems to work fine without the touch up rule.

by Leaf in Habland on Nov 10, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions

The problem with softer equipment is that it can lead to more injuries because players won’t be as protected for things like shot-blocking or taking an accidental puck or stick – or even accidental contact with a teammate – although that usually results in injury anyways.

No-touch icing isn’t a bad idea. Although I think the NHL would rather adopt a rule whereby if an attacking player clearly will get the puck first then the play keeps on going, but that also has some problems too.

The non-bodychecking zone idea has only 1 use for anybody: proving that Damien Cox does in fact support the removal of hitting – at least to a degree. It doesn’t prove that everybody like him thinks that, but the next time you see him write that he doesn’t want to remove hitting, you can confidently say “BULL SHIT!”

by Belligerent Burkie on Nov 10, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions