Talk:Neutral zone trap

Hmm. I'm wondering if the text added by the most recent edit violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It seems as if it's somewhere near the edge. I'd like to know what the thoughts of those who've spent a little more time editing think. - Wheresmysocks 06:04, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, especially "However, since NHL referees no longer call penalties according to the rulebook, the trap has taken much of the blame for the recent decrease in scoring." What is that supposed to mean? Adam Bishop 20:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's curious, but I think it was a reference to 2002-2003 when they were clamping down on obstruction penalties for about the first 10-15 games of the season. Either that or the general decrease in scoring over the years. I don't pretend to understand, but it is POV, and I reverted the article. &mdash; wheresmysocks 16:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I hate the trap and think it's stupid. Adam Bishop 16:32, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it is true that refs didn't penalties by the book at the time. That being said, such a statement still smacks of sour grapes and whininess.   Doogie2K (talk)  23:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Nearly Across the Board
This article is factually incorrect as well as biased.

The NZT can have as many as two forecheckers, it is not limited to one. The New Jersey Devils absolutely did not create or develop the NZT. The trap first emerged in Sweden, in the 70s, when the national team began playing a 1-3-1 system designed to clog up the neutral zone. It was created as a result of Swedish frustration over not being able to keep up offensively with the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakian national teams.

And then we have the worst error of the article: The trap employs obstruction, such as holding and hooking. That is entirely false. Inherently, there is actually LESS obstruction with the NZT because there isn't any need for it. Either way, obstruction and NZT are NOT synonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendon (talk • contribs)


 * That should address most of the concerns. Trappers did make frequent use of obstruction, though that was not unique to the trap as a strategy.  It did, however, increase the efficiency of the trap, because players that simply decided to skate it could be held up until the turnover was forced, the shot was prevented, or the goaltender could get into position for an easy save.


 * And the trap was not invented by the Swedes, either. Players from the Detroit Red Wings in the '50s reported using such a system, albeit without the "fancy name" (Though it's not from the most scholarly of sources &mdash; Uncle John's Bathroom Reader Shoots and Scores, if I remember correctly &mdash; so make of it what you will).  Regardless, I said nothing, not having a handy reference to give me the authenticity and audacity to make a definitive statment.


 * Also, if you didn't like what the article said, you could have changed it yourself. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. ;-)  Doogie2K (talk)  23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Source
The source used to verify that the trap "reached prominence with the New Jersey Devils' 1995 Stanley Cup victory, and has been widely criticized for reducing scoring" was not valid. It contained the word trap once. It didn't mention any wide criticism of the trap, nor did it mention the New Jersey Devils' 1995 Stanley Cup Victory. I have removed the source because it did not verify the statement at all. •• Fly by Night (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)