NHL Glove Size Reduction

[TitanG]

With the recent changes in chest protector sizing, and previously changes in pant, pad, and paddle sizing, the NHL has been researching dramatically decreasing the size of the glove "cheater" and possibly even the catching area. This is according to multiple sources, including InGoal Magazing on Instagram:

While only a prototype, this is a severe reduction in the size of the glove cuff to sizes not seen in decades. With such a drastic change, many have said they do not agree with it, including retired NHL goalie Kevin Weekes who is concerned that a reduction in surface area results in an increase in the pressure (basic physics) distributed to the goalie's hand/cuff. He discusses the surgeries he and other prominent goalies have had due to continuously facing shots at 90+ mph for months on end:

Obviously many of us are concerned with this, but we are only a small portion of the playing/fan base. We continuously hear about how scoring needs to increase and that it has only been depressed by goalies using large equipment, yet the largest impact on scoring has been team systems and speed. What does everyone think?

[Math.]

I think it's ugly has sin. 

Then they make it mandatory, then we get used to it over the next 5 years, all the while all major manufacturer stop manufacturing what we currently know as the "standard" catching glove and in 7-8 years from now, we all look at today's glove and people still using them as we, right now, look at Jim Wait or Olaf Kolzig's equipment from back then.  And we laugh.

My bottom line is, whatever comes of it, we unfortunately have absolutely zero say in.

[WillyGrips13]

All I want is for the powers that be to use scientific testing and data that results from that to determine what size goalie equipment should be so it can still be safe for the athletes. I’m tired of the chorus of the uninformed in this sport. Every old timer thinks they know everything and believe what they say is what should be done just because they say so. Use the technology available and figure it out once and for all. After that, leave the equipment alone. Perhaps a larger goal is the next evolution in this sport, IDK. 

[TitanG]

32 minutes ago, Math. said:

I think it's ugly has sin. 

Then they make it mandatory, then we get used to it over the next 5 years, all the while all major manufacturer stop manufacturing what we currently know as the "standard" catching glove and in 7-8 years from now, we all look at today's glove and people still using them as we, right now, look at Jim Wait or Olaf Kolzig's equipment from back then.  And we laugh.

My bottom line is, whatever comes of it, we unfortunately have absolutely zero say in.

Fair enough. Whatever changes they make will be accepted in due time, assuming they do not result in serious injuries (I hope not).

14 minutes ago, WillyGrips13 said:

All I want is for the powers that be to use scientific testing and data that results from that to determine what size goalie equipment should be so it can still be safe for the athletes. I’m tired of the chorus of the uninformed in this sport. Every old timer thinks they know everything and believe what they say is what should be done just because they say so. Use the technology available and figure it out once and for all. After that, leave the equipment alone. Perhaps a larger goal is the next evolution in this sport, IDK. 

I think this is the way to go. I hope that if they go through with the size changes (and with the current changes too) that they can use better material development to ensure safety. It certainly can be done, just depends on the price you want to pay for the materials. If this indeed happens, it may be that the changes are only in effect in the NHL until material prices decrease, just like how Lundqvist used OD1N pads for a couple of years before anyone else because they were so expensive.

[RichMan]

I think the Bettman squad has lost some marbles and are acting illogically and irresponsibly with, as Weeks clearly pointed out, little understanding of the position and what it entails, especially at the pro level. It's a total disregard to goalies safety for the sake of what...a few extra goals!?

Snow and Giguère and company all STILL got scored on regardless of the size of their equipment!!

I think at this point that NHL/AHL goalies, as well as gear manufacturers need to stand up against this nonsense and voice their opinions and concerns to protect their well being, physical and mental,.

[Math.]

1 hour ago, TitanG said:

Fair enough. Whatever changes they make will be accepted in due time, assuming they do not result in serious injuries (I hope not).

Indeed.  That being said, I think this here proposition is the one that actually makes the most sense in terms of reduction of "useless" surface area without affecting safety.  I mean, they're taking out a piece of board taht is, let's face it, there only to increase surface coverage since there is no limb behind the cheater portion (the line between the tip of the thumb and the base of the board, next to your forearm).  If they decide to make the wrist/forearm portion shorter, I'd have an issue with that since it may open up holes in the forearm protection.

1 hour ago, RichMan said:

I think the Bettman squad has lost some marbles and are acting illogically and irresponsibly with, as Weeks clearly pointed out, little understanding of the position and what it entails, especially at the pro level. It's a total disregard to goalies safety for the sake of what...a few extra goals!?

Snow and Giguère and company all STILL got scored on regardless of the size of their equipment!!

I think at this point that NHL/AHL goalies, as well as gear manufacturers need to stand up against this nonsense and voice their opinions and concerns to protect their well being, physical and mental,.

100% agrre.  The only problem is, it's up to the players association to stand up as a whole, otherwise, goalies that stand up will just get replaced with other goalies, eager to make their mark (think union/strikes/scabs here).

[Moose75]

more like NHL Hand Injury Production.

How come none of the other leagues anywhere have the dumb problems the NHL focuses on?

[seagoal]

13 hours ago, Moose75 said:

more like NHL Hand Injury Production.

How come none of the other leagues anywhere have the dumb problems the NHL focuses on?

I think they do, they just wait for the NHL to make moves and then adopt and follow suit.  That comes along with being the top league.

Plus,  the NHL explicitly runs itself as a large business in need of growth, so a primary concern is more eyeballs on their advertisers and their product.

Since low scoring games with stingy goaltending are seen as boring and an inhibition to growth in the eyes of the NHL....you can fill in the rest of that thought.

[coopaloop1234]

16 hours ago, Math. said:

Indeed.  That being said, I think this here proposition is the one that actually makes the most sense in terms of reduction of "useless" surface area without affecting safety.  I mean, they're taking out a piece of board taht is, let's face it, there only to increase surface coverage since there is no limb behind the cheater portion (the line between the tip of the thumb and the base of the board, next to your forearm).  ).

Its also there to reduce torque on the thumb/wrist area. 

They've experimented with reducing the cheater before but all the testing came back that the majority or testers were deeply concerned about how badly shots to the cuff twisted their hands around. 

Every piece aside from the jock, helmet and neckguards have seen reductions over the past ten years, I think it's time to stop tinkering and just let things play out a bit. 

[Math.]

13 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Its also there to reduce torque on the thumb/wrist area. 

They've experimented with reducing the cheater before but all the testing came back that the majority or testers were deeply concerned about how badly shots to the cuff twisted their hands around. 

Every piece aside from the jock, helmet and neckguards have seen reductions over the past ten years, I think it's time to stop tinkering and just let things play out a bit. 

Good input, and it makes sense.  Never thought of it that way, but I guess I'm also not facing the kind of caliber shot they do!

[TitanG]

1 hour ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Its also there to reduce torque on the thumb/wrist area. 

They've experimented with reducing the cheater before but all the testing came back that the majority or testers were deeply concerned about how badly shots to the cuff twisted their hands around. 

Every piece aside from the jock, helmet and neckguards have seen reductions over the past ten years, I think it's time to stop tinkering and just let things play out a bit. 

As you and others put it, there are far better ways to increase scoring, like allowing the powerplay to continue even if you score (Crosby supported this one, wonder why?). If these type of rule changes occur, then after that if they aren't satisfied they'll probably just make the nets bigger...

[RichMan]

4 hours ago, TitanG said:

As you and others put it, there are far better ways to increase scoring, like allowing the powerplay to continue even if you score (Crosby supported this one, wonder why?). If these type of rule changes occur, then after that if they aren't satisfied they'll probably just make the nets bigger...

And then watch as goalies are forced to overextend, AGAIN, and watch a rise in groin and knee and hip injury, AGAIN, and finally see all methods of goaltending learned over the past 20 years all go to shit and the most occurring saves you'll see will resemble a short-stop diving for the ball on a drive hit down the middle  

[TitanG]

Just now, RichMan said:

And then watch as goalies are forced to overextend, AGAIN, and watch a rise in groin and knee and hip injury, AGAIN, and finally see all methods of goaltending learned over the past 20 years all go to shit and the most occurring saves you'll see will resemble a short-stop diving for the ball on a drive hit down the middle  

We'll all become soccer goalies in due time...

[Math.]

10 hours ago, TitanG said:

As you and others put it, there are far better ways to increase scoring, like allowing the powerplay to continue even if you score (Crosby supported this one, wonder why?). If these type of rule changes occur, then after that if they aren't satisfied they'll probably just make the nets bigger...

I can't remember where I saw this, but there's this rule that, the offside entering the zone is ruled against the blue line, but once you're in the offensive zone clean, you can go all the way back to the red line without having to get outside of the blue line to re-enter.  I don't know if I'm clear on this one but I thought it was an awesome rule and never understood why it was not implemented in hockey, especially if they want to create more offense.

[estogoalie]

On 11/12/2018 at 12:44 AM, RichMan said:

Snow and Giguère and company all STILL got scored on regardless of the size of their equipment!!

Excellent point that everybody seems to overlook. It's always assumed that bigger goalie gear equals better coverage and "cheating". What everyone forgets is that there are two main factors in goaltending: mobility and coverage. It's geometry. And there is a trade-off in gear size advantages: If your gear is small, you have better mobility, but less coverage. If your gear is big, you have more coverage, but less mobility.

Ever wonder why a team just doesn't get a 600 lbs sumo wrestler and put him in goal? Even tho he will cover 80% of the net in body size, he won't be able to move, and snipers will light him up in any exposed area (and unless he is exactly 6'x4', there will be exposed areas) . In the Snow/Giguere era, not everybody was rocking XXXXL chestys. Brodeur didn't. Belfour didn't. Kipper didn't. Actually most didn't. Why? Because alot of goalies didn't like the lack of mobility. It's a negative. In the late 90's/early 00's, when I saw average size goalies with XXXL pants and CA's, I thought it was ridiculous. Not because I felt they were cheating, but because I knew I wouldn't be able to move myself in that crap, and wondered how in the hell they could. I thought they were idiots for sacrificing mobility for coverage. But that was their choice.  My CA was always size Large, because it fits and I can move comfortably.

I would actually like to see the NHL go in the other direction, and remove most restrictions on goalie gear size. If someone wants to wear XXXXL gear, let them, at their own peril. Oversized gear wasn't the "boogie man" it was made out to be.  Every goalie in the 90/00's wasn't in huge gear. There was a handfull of goalies then who chose oversized gear, and they weren't even really the best ones. Altho they were more visible with the larger gear, and to the average viewer it became "Oh look, how unfair, they have huge gear and take up half the net!"....only the goalies were thinking "How the f--k can he move in that s--t?"

[Puckstopper]

I couldn't agree more.   Unfortunately Bettman has shown that he's stubborn to the point of being obstinate.  He started out shrinking gear and didn't foresee the consequences of making some of the world's best athletes faster and more mobile.  Now that he's started down that path he's going to continue shrinking gear until it actually results in more scoring, and the consequences to the goalie's health be damned.    If this is really what they're after I wish they'd quit nibbling around the edges and simply go all in on changing the equipment.   Mandate 60's style masks and outlaw knee stacks.  If they really want guys to not be able to (or want to) use the butterfly to take up the bottom portion of the net this would do it.   The NHL is already clearly not too concerned with goalie safety (equipment gets smaller, guys get run with minimal consequences, goals are allowed with clear interference, etc...) so just put all your cards on the table and let's get to the end of this road as quickly as possible.

Or, (and I know this is CRAZY!) we could acknowledge that ALL players are getting bigger, faster and stronger.  We could rip one row of seats out of each NHL arena and increase the size of the ice slightly to give these bigger, faster athletes more room to work their magic. Ticket prices could go up slightly to compensate.  We could consistently call the rules as they're written.  All of the time, not just in the first 10 games of the year.  And yes, we could increase the size of the net SLIGHTLY.  A fairly minor 3" increase in net size (both height and width) would result in 2.56 extra square feet of net.  Imagine what NHL shooters could do with an extra 10% of room to shoot at.  But again, looking at the problem logically is insane.  It's far easier to blame the goalies and reduce their protection until they're no longer effective.

[coopaloop1234]

10 hours ago, Math. said:

I can't remember where I saw this, but there's this rule that, the offside entering the zone is ruled against the blue line, but once you're in the offensive zone clean, you can go all the way back to the red line without having to get outside of the blue line to re-enter.  I don't know if I'm clear on this one but I thought it was an awesome rule and never understood why it was not implemented in hockey, especially if they want to create more offense.

Those are roller hockey rules.

I think a better place to start would be to increase the ice surface to International sizes. Kills two birds with one stone:

1. Opens up the ice to allow the better players to showcase their skillset
2. Lessens the frequency of hitting, helping mitigate the shitshow of that consists of a clean hit in today's game.

[Math.]

1 hour ago, Puckstopper said:

I couldn't agree more.   Unfortunately Bettman has shown that he's stubborn to the point of being obstinate.  He started out shrinking gear and didn't foresee the consequences of making some of the world's best athletes faster and more mobile.  Now that he's started down that path he's going to continue shrinking gear until it actually results in more scoring, and the consequences to the goalie's health be damned.    If this is really what they're after I wish they'd quit nibbling around the edges and simply go all in on changing the equipment.   Mandate 60's style masks and outlaw knee stacks.  If they really want guys to not be able to (or want to) use the butterfly to take up the bottom portion of the net this would do it.   The NHL is already clearly not too concerned with goalie safety (equipment gets smaller, guys get run with minimal consequences, goals are allowed with clear interference, etc...) so just put all your cards on the table and let's get to the end of this road as quickly as possible.

Or, (and I know this is CRAZY!) we could acknowledge that ALL players are getting bigger, faster and stronger.  We could rip one row of seats out of each NHL arena and increase the size of the ice slightly to give these bigger, faster athletes more room to work their magic. Ticket prices could go up slightly to compensate.  We could consistently call the rules as they're written.  All of the time, not just in the first 10 games of the year.  And yes, we could increase the size of the net SLIGHTLY.  A fairly minor 3" increase in net size (both height and width) would result in 2.56 extra square feet of net.  Imagine what NHL shooters could do with an extra 10% of room to shoot at.  But again, looking at the problem logically is insane.  It's far easier to blame the goalies and reduce their protection until they're no longer effective.

I love you for that post.  Now package it up and send it to Bettman!

11 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Those are roller hockey rules.

I think a better place to start would be to increase the ice surface to International sizes. Kills two birds with one stone:

1. Opens up the ice to allow the better players to showcase their skillset
2. Lessens the frequency of hitting, helping mitigate the shitshow of that consists of a clean hit in today's game.

100% agreed on that one, but it's way too obvious to be the selected option because you know, money and heritage (but really, heritage only when it's convenient to).  And besides, could you imagine how bad the NHL and Bettman would look (in their mind) towards international hockey by simply taking a knee and conceed that their idea and regulation makes more sense?!!

[ThatCarGuy]

18 hours ago, RichMan said:

And then watch as goalies are forced to overextend, AGAIN, and watch a rise in groin and knee and hip injury, AGAIN, and finally see all methods of goaltending learned over the past 20 years all go to shit and the most occurring saves you'll see will resemble a short-stop diving for the ball on a drive hit down the middle  

It would benefit the NHL as a business though. A diving save is far more spectacular than a perfect glove save. I think the best way to increase scoring without compromising as much safety is to create a minimum weight for goalie gear. This would create slower goalies resulting in more goals. No pad surface area has to be taken away either.

[Isles12]

23 hours ago, Math. said:

I can't remember where I saw this, but there's this rule that, the offside entering the zone is ruled against the blue line, but once you're in the offensive zone clean, you can go all the way back to the red line without having to get outside of the blue line to re-enter.  I don't know if I'm clear on this one but I thought it was an awesome rule and never understood why it was not implemented in hockey, especially if they want to create more offense.

That's called the floating blue line. We use it in ball hockey and I've seen it used in 3 on 3 ice hockey as well

12 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Those are roller hockey rules.

I think a better place to start would be to increase the ice surface to International sizes. Kills two birds with one stone:

1. Opens up the ice to allow the better players to showcase their skillset
2. Lessens the frequency of hitting, helping mitigate the shitshow of that consists of a clean hit in today's game.

Hey now what's this about rules in roller hockey? We don't need rules. Offsides and icings are for nerds... maybe Bettman should ditch those from the NHL lotsa scoring in roller lol just look at my GAA

[Puckstopper]

On 11/13/2018 at 1:07 PM, ThatCarGuy said:

It would benefit the NHL as a business though. A diving save is far more spectacular than a perfect glove save. I think the best way to increase scoring without compromising as much safety is to create a minimum weight for goalie gear. This would create slower goalies resulting in more goals. No pad surface area has to be taken away either.

I've thought of that as well.  They do it in certain types of horse racing to avoid giving advantages for having a smaller jockey.  Hopefully you wouldn't see anything too drastic being done, but we could roll things back to the weight of gear around 2010.  Personally I'd rather see them set a minimum weight for the entire bag and let guys hit that weight any way they want as opposed to a per piece weight minimum.   Goalie A might prefer lighter pads and more weight in his C/A and pants, where Goalie B would rather carry the weight low in his skates and pads and trim as many ounces as possible off the C/A and gloves.  If nothing else it would make for some interesting discussions surrounding various pro setups.  Start the weight restrictions in Major Junior, NCAA, and Pro hockey.  That way us old, slow beer leaguers don't have to carry around any more excess pounds than we already do and house league kids aren't penalized.

[ThatCarGuy]

1 hour ago, Puckstopper said:

Start the weight restrictions in Major Junior, NCAA, and Pro hockey.  That way us old, slow beer leaguers don't have to carry around any more excess pounds than we already do and house league kids aren't penalized.

Yeah I realized I didn't specify after I posted. My bad. That would definitely be the right way to go about with this idea. I'm not really sure how they would go about monitoring or enforcing this rule unless they weight gear before every game. I guess weighing gear before every game wouldn't hurt. People could just put all of their gear on a scale and if it meets the minimum weight then it's legal. I think we've created a good system here. We would sort of end up with Formula Hockey but that's fine. Weight anywhere should, in theory, slow a goalie down.

Eventually goalies will get stronger and the extra weight won't matter as much aside from over-sliding.

Changing the rules for off sides, icing, and such could also work. Recently I played in the Dallas Stars Fall Showcase in Austin TX. Something I was not told before going to the tournament is that we'd be playing with pond hockey rules. No icing calls. No off sides calls. It made for a much more interesting game and there we're far less breaks in the play. This style of hockey really allowed the better players to showcase their skill without making our bigger hitters completely obsolete. There was some mild cherry picking but nothing too terrible. My defense was still able to cover the cherry picker because they could take the puck across the blue line whenever they wanted. 

Both of the above listed ideas are wonderful and could improve professional hockey goal counts as well as creating a more exciting game.

Credit to Math for mentioning the second idea above.