NHL Considering Bigger Nets

NHL dabbles in bigger nets, and they're shaped like purists' tears
By Greg Wyshynski

Shhhh ... no one tell Roberto Luongo that the NHL is monkeying around with widening the nets again.

Please recall that the Vancouver Canucks goalie famously threatened in 2007 to quit the NHL if the League decided to expand the size of the scoring area behind him. From the Vancouver Province in Sept. '07:

"I've been working 20 years at a game I love trying to improve myself and to start over from square one is not something I'm interested in," Luongo said at today's morning skate. "It changes everything for the goalie and it doesn't, in my mind, bring more excitement to the game if the nets are bigger and guys score from the blueline."

Granted, much of the scuttlebutt back then involved a "soccer-sized" increase between the pipes, which some believed was a scare tactic floated to get the NHLPA to decrease the size of goalie equipment as the lesser of two evils. But the less extreme idea of changing the size and shape of the goalposts in juice scoring has been kicked around since 2005, when goalies like Marty Turco and Martin Brodeur were shown prototypes.

That concept was on display yesterday at the Toronto Maple Leafs practice; where, in what must be a total coincidence, a slew of reporters from the hockey media's most influential newspapers just so happened to be working. The League described the goal as having posts with "a 'teardrop' shape, like the rim of a paper coffee cup that has been squeezed."

The results were intriguing for those who believe more scoring means better hockey, and naturally depressing for the puckheads who don't believe big numbers in the box score and the leader board do anything to enhance the game's entertainment.

Which leads us back to a debate that's once again on the front burner: Should the NHL increase the size and change the dimensions of its nets to juice scoring?

First, from the Globe & Mail, here are the specifics on the goal that was tested, with a few comments from Anaheim Ducks goaltending coach François Allaire, who came up with the concept nearly five years ago:

The prototype is still six feet wide and four feet high, but instead of circular posts, the net tested has oval-shaped posts with the flatter, longer side positioned on the inside of the goal. The belief is when pucks hit these posts or crossbar, they have a better chance ricocheting in for a goal, instead of bounding out. ...

... "I don't have any official stats, but I would say one out of every four shots that beat a goalie but hit the inside of the post bounces in rather than straight out," Allaire explained. "If we can cut the posts in half and have a flat surface turned inward, you would see more goals. This would make the net bigger by about two inches on the width and an inch on the height. ... It would not take away from the skill of a goaltender, but would reward the shooter for beating the goalie."

As the Globe pointed out, the net at Leafs' practice was a tad different than Allaire's concept because "instead of a totally flat surface on the inward part of the post, there still is some curve to the post."

The Toronto Star had reactions from NHL VP of hockey operations Mike Murphy and Leafs goalie Curtis Joseph, who has a few years of experience playing goal on a professional level with a regulation net:

The initial reaction, from Murphy and Leafs goalie Curtis Joseph, is that pucks off the crossbar were indeed likely to go in but shots off the post didn't necessarily react in the same way. Some pucks that might have gone in off the rounded posts seemed to stay out at certain angles.

Joseph said he noticed more shots were going in on the short side but fewer on the far side, where pucks tended to kick out toward the boards. "It's just a guess. You'd have to shoot a thousand pucks (to get a true reading)," he said. "The jury's out."

A possibility now, said Murphy, might be to experiment with "a combination of leaving the posts round but changing the crossbar only. We'll look at it and see if it is worth moving forward with."

There are plenty of these procedural debates among NHL officials, players, media and fans: fighting, head-shots, obstruction and the like. The bigger-nets debate has been an interesting one because the battle lines aren't as clearly drawn.

Sure, from a purist's perspective, the notion of tinkering with the size of the scoring area is a mortal sin at this stage of the game's development.

It's a fundamental altering of the sport, akin to the NFL shortening the field by 10 yards or the NBA increasing the size of the rim.

Then again ... rule book, schmule book. In case you haven't noticed, there have been a few changes since they started tabulating the stats in hockey. How do you think that Gretzky fellow would have fared in 4-on-4 overtimes with the 1980s Edmonton Oilers?

If it comes down to what the players' want ... well, just look at what Matt Bradley of the Washington Capitals wrote this summer in our "5 Ways I'd Change the NHL" series:

2. Make the nets bigger. With the size of goalies and their equipment now, sometimes you look up and there's not much net to shoot at. Some of us can't always hit the part of the net we see. Make'em bigger and there will be a little more margin for error.

Those in favor of larger nets have a simple premise: Everything else in the game has been changed for the benefit of offense expect for the goal cages, which have remained static even as goalies and their equipment have had less in common with Terry Sawchuk and more resemble the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man.

Those against larger nets also have a basic philosophy: It's not about the goals.

Good hockey means good offensive flow, with back and forth scoring chances. Widening the nets will turn a 3-2 game into a 5-4 game, but so what? If it's still NHL hockey with clogged neutral zones, big players crushing skill players and more defensive systems than offensive flair, a few more goal horns doesn't change that. Perhaps widening the ice surface, rather than the nets, would give the game more excitement while juicing offense as well.

For a purist, the NHL's intentions for making the nets bigger fit right in with its other recent changes to the game. You'll get more highlights for SportsCenter, just like with the shootout. You'll get records falling thanks to artificially created circumstances, just like when the League crows about attendance or all-star voting. And hey, you'll get to hear the goal song in your local arena a few more times, which is always exhilarating.

But will you get better hockey?

If they do this I will never, ever watch another hockey game.

If they want more goals, why not eliminate goaltenders completely and just play 6-on-6? Basketball doesn't have goalies.

The NHL has fucked up a lot the last few years with god-awful rule changes, but this would be too much.

Please tell me you are joking



That is ridiculous


Why the hell would they do something so boneheaded


Leave the nets alone

catbox_9 wrote:

If they do this I will never, ever watch another hockey game.

If they want more goals, why not eliminate goaltenders completely and just play 6-on-6? Basketball doesn't have goalies.

The NHL has fucked up a lot the last few years with god-awful rule changes, but this would be too much.

I agree 100 percent Cat


And another thing

They keep talking about having shootouts in the playoffs

If they do that; i will not watch the NHL anymore either


I love multiple OT during the Stanley Cup Playoffs and Finals


Shootouts Suck

gs78 wrote:

And another thing

They keep talking about having shootouts in the playoffs

If they do that; i will not watch the NHL anymore either

That would-be rule change would also be enough for me to never watch hockey again.

Why not have home run derbys instead of extra innings?
Punt, pass, and kick contests would be better than overtime in football, right?
Free throw/3 point/dunk contests would solve basketball ties well, too.

If the NHL wants bigger nets, why make them slightly bigger? That would require building new nets. Instead, just bring in soccer nets - they could take them from parks or something. Those things are huge and every game would be like 125-100

If they want to do some stupid preseason games with these stupid nets (or if the other sports want to try my moronic suggestions in preseason), that's fine. It might grab some viewers who'll stick around for real games, but don't ever do it in a game that means anything.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

And another thing

They keep talking about having shootouts in the playoffs

If they do that; i will not watch the NHL anymore either

That would-be rule change would also be enough for me to never watch hockey again.

Why not have home run derbys instead of extra innings?
Punt, pass, and kick contests would be better than overtime in football, right?
Free throw/3 point/dunk contests would solve basketball ties well, too.

If the NHL wants bigger nets, why make them slightly bigger? That would require building new nets. Instead, just bring in soccer nets - they could take them from parks or something. Those things are huge and every game would be like 125-100

If they want to do some stupid preseason games with these stupid nets (or if the other sports want to try my moronic suggestions in preseason), that's fine. It might grab some viewers who'll stick around for real games, but don't ever do it in a game that means anything.

I agree Catbox


100 percent

And Gary Bettman Sucks!

I dont even watch hockey that much, but I can tell you that this is a dumb move.

The scores in some games already are moderately high for the net size they have now.

And most of the fans are happy with the way the game is currently played, so why change anything.

Sports these days are getting too many rule changes, and its starting to make many sports fans lose interest. Stop fucking up what people love and let the games be played the way they should be played.

Bettman is an idiot


Leave the game the way it is