Hockey is a rough game - lots of hitting, checking is all built into the rules.  Some activities are penalties, but enforcement is often lax, so a lot of extracurricular activity goes on.  Having a narrower ice sheet crowds the players into each other more and increases the opportunity to crunch your opponent both legally and illegally.  Wider ice emphasizes skating and passing more than the narrow ice does and, therefore, a little less of the hitting, etc.  It certainly doesn't eliminate the rough parts of the sport, and I would not want it to.  But, IMO, one reason the pro game is popular with its fans is that emphasis on rough play.  Take away that and you might lose fans (even though it would be a better game from my POV).

If you mandate new rinks to be Olympic size, then you have two kinds of ice sheets in play.  That happens in college, but will never happen in the pros.  You are certainly right about the costs involved, too.  All of this tells me its a no-go.  But to answer your question, goonism is unnecessarily rough play that steps outside the bounds of the rules and includes those extra little hits while your opponent is on the ice because you know it won't be called, attempts to intimidate, vicious hits designed to injure even if legal, and on and on and on.... Not eliminated by big ice, but perhaps reduced in level some.

Just my opinion.  If no one agrees with me, I can live with that.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: erik [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 10:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Red lines and rinks
>
>
> > From: "Rowe, Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > I love the big ice sheet which emphasizes skill over goonism,
> > but seriously doubt the NHL would change to that for that reason
> > alone.  I mean, forget loss of seating - they want to crowd
> the ice for
> big banging.
>
> Not sure I understnad your point here.  What exactly does
> small ice have to
> do with "goonism"?
>
> The NHL won't force a change to bigger ice because it would
> be VERY costly
> to do so.  One day, they may mandate it for all new arena,
> but they could
> never force existing arenas to change.
>
> Erik Johnson
>