 | NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee |
 hockey_lover writes "Hey guys and gals (are there any gals here? Hmm).
With the NHL's research, development, and orientation camp just concluding, Im curious to know what you all think about some of the rule changes that may or may not come into effect in the future. How about some that arent being talked about? How about some that have been talked about but turned down?
Lets start with this years camp. Stuff that is currently on the table from said camp:
No touch icing - I think this is self explanatory
Wider blue lines - this is to help dmen. Wider blue lines gives them more of an
idea as to where they are and gives them a little more
reaction time.
Relocated face off dots - depending on where the dots are, gives different
angles for good one timers off the face off.
Switched ends for overtime - gives teams the "long change" in hopes to create
more odd man rushes to increase scoring in OT
Five man shoot out - again, self explanatory I would think
1 of 2 refs off ice - this gives more room on the ice with one person less on the
surface, gives the ref a "birds eye view" and can see the
game as a whole
Delayed penalty rule - with this rule change, the team getting the delayed
penalty not only needs to touch the puck, but gain
control and exit the zone. This creates more changes for
6on5 opportunities
3 pont win - winning team gets 3 points, losing team in regular time and OT and
SO varies, depending on situtation
Those were the major ones at this years camp. What do you guys think of these potential rule changes?
What about rule changes that arent being talked about by the NHL but us fans think about from time to time? Some that I have heard:
- ditch the 3 point game completely. Winner, be it in regular game time, OT, or
SO gets 2 points. Loser gets 0
- bigger goaltender nets and/or those nets that have the post arc outwards
- smaller goalie / smaller player equipment
- lose the instigator rule
- when players commit the following penalties (high sticking with blood, hit from behind, boarding .. essentially, the more dangerous penalties), offending player is off for the FULL penalty time, no matter how many goals are scored (thus, I believe, going back to how it was pre-1950's? could be wrong though)
- when a player injures another player, is suspended and judged to have willingly "intended to injure" said player, the offending player is out of the line up (without pay) for as long as the player he injured is out. That players forfeited salary is given to fund minor league hockey or whatever.
- harsher suspensions / benchmark numbers for suspensions (ie. elbow to the head = auto 15 games + 'x' where 'x' is player history, cir*****stances, etc, etc)
Just for the record .. the above ones are just stuff that I have heard. Im not saying I agree or disagree. Im just putting it out there to see what people think.
What about some rules that I have missed?
Come on guys ... lets keep this one civil for a change. No bickering and name calling. Lets discuss this as fans of the game and not as "Pens fans vs. Philly fans" or "Habs vs. Leafs fans."
Lets hit 300 on this thread :D"
|
|
|
|
| "NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee" | Login/Create an Account | 55 comments |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by reinjosh on Friday, August 20
(User Info | Send a Message) | No touch icing - I like it. having played with both no-touch and touch, I like no-touch better. Speeds up the game and prevents stupid ass injuries. Granted, I do have a soft spot for good old icing races.
Wider Bluelines - Really? I can't see how adding it makes a difference. Blue lines on white ice. Pretty easy to see. I could see it being used to canceling out some of the neutral zone but too help dman? Can't see it being useful at all.
Relocated Faceoff dots - Interesting idea. I don't think the one-time shot off the faceoff would be made anymore likely but as long as it isn't a radical move, why not?
Switched sides in overtime - I like shootouts. Blasphemy I know but I say no to this.
5 man shootout - yep. More shooters the better
Refs off ice - No way. Refs need to be on the ice. You can't call a game from off the ice.
Delayed Penalty Rule - As a defenseman, I hate this rule but I could see why it would be used. Maybe...
3 point win - I stay quiet on this one. I don't like the way they do it now but I don't like this one much better. I say ditch it entirely. You win or lose, no ifs ands or buts. If they can't be swayed, go the 3 point win in reg time.
Keep nets normal. Start changing them and the dynamic of the game changes dramatically. too dramatically. Goalie equipment already changed this year to be based on the actual goalie on hand rather than just a set number so guys like Giguere can't cheat anymore. The way they did it is great, no need to do anything else.
Don't like the penalty rule. It becomes to complicated and danger is part of the game. Many won't agree with me but a penalty is a penatly. Want to add more 5 minute majors, go ahead but the PP team scores, penalty over on the minor.
I'm not going to talk about suspensions haha. Most people wouldn't like my view on it.
I say we do what Burke is suggesting and be able to trade cap space/salary. I can't really explain it well but their should a way that teams without the ability to pay up to the salary limit can exploit their cap space and teams who have an abundance of money can exploit that.
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by Kramer on Saturday, August 21
(User Info | Send a Message) | Between periods of every game, they should have woman figure skaters doing a striptease on the ice. Forget the stupid zamboni. They gotta do something to bring in the tourists.
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by Leafs_the_word on Saturday, August 21
(User Info | Send a Message) | Though I like some of these ideas, the novelty of change wears thin quickly. The league runs the risk of looking like an arena league if they buck tradition, so though I like the 3 point rule I think it hurts the perception of the game overall.
Didn't see it listed but my favorite rule proposal was a shorthanded goal takes away the power play. This would encourage actual hockey to be played on the PK rather than just dumping the puck.
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by Leafs_the_word on Saturday, August 21
(User Info | Send a Message) | Though I like some of these ideas, the novelty of change wears thin quickly. The league runs the risk of looking like an arena league if they buck tradition, so though I like the 3 point rule I think it hurts the perception of the game overall.
Didn't see it listed but my favorite rule proposal was a shorthanded goal takes away the power play. This would encourage actual hockey to be played on the PK rather than just dumping the puck.
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by goldman on Saturday, August 21
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hybrid Icing is cool Other than that the game is fine. Well not sure about the refs. I think the NHL has the worst refs in sports(that really sucks cause it's the only sport worth watching). I live in Virginia and not there's not to many hockey fans around. I tried to get one of my friends into hockey. He loves the speed, skill, and toughness of the game but he could never understand what was and was not a penalty. He would ask me all the time why is that a penalty? why wasn't that a penalty? All I could say was I don't know. I do understand its hard to call a game but I think it could be done better. The ref in the sky does seem interesting, it would be nice if the really bad calls could be removed or something, but it would be hard to do because of the delayed penalty. it would suck to have the play called dead for no reason. Maybe let the on ice ref see the replays or have another ref in his ear to inform him of dives and cheap shots. Not sure what to do but the refs in the NHL suck.
What ya think of going back to one ref like the old days. I complain more now then I did back then. Maybe I'm just old and grumpy now..
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by old60sleaffan on Saturday, August 21
(User Info | Send a Message) | Suspensions: I feel that the suspension due to an injury would be more appropriate if the suspension started AFTER an injured player is fit to get back in the line up. Like Cole/Savard hit, Cole would serve the league suspension after Savard's first game back. Regardless of superstar or not.
The Additional yellow goal line: The NHL should get more modernized and have a tracking device installed in the puck like GPS. Once over the line it would be conclusive and trigger the goal light and stop play. Except referee rulings like kicked it or high stick (they tried a tracer on the puck in some games, so it is not far fetched) This would solve lengthly delays for video replay.
Diving penalty: This should be more closely monitored. .How many times have we seen a slash or a high stick make contact and the injured player rolling all over the ice. Soon after the penalty, the injuered player is healed for the next power play shift
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by mojo19 on Sunday, August 22
(User Info | Send a Message) | Sorry Don Cherry, I like NHL icing the way it is. Speeds up the game. If the forechecking forward is seemingly beating the defenseman then the goalie has to go out and stop it and play continues, now the team that iced it has an oppurtunity to get sustained pressure in opponents end as opposed to having a face off in their own.
I just think they should get rid of the stupid trapazoid for goalies to speed it up even more. Honestly I never understood how that thing is beneficial. It hurts Brodeur and Turco a ton, and just kind of irratates everyone else. |
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by alpalstewart on Sunday, August 22
(User Info | Send a Message) | | i think top 3 teams in the division shouldnt be 123 in the over all standings unless they have the points to be there. i do think 1 team from each division should be in but if they werent as good or have as many points as another team finishing 2nd or third in another division they should'nt get home ice advantage in the 1st round of the playoffs. this scenario happens every year. |
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by Kramer on Sunday, August 22
(User Info | Send a Message) | The NHL should get rid of all icings and offsides. Too many rules causes discontent, and discontent causes restlessness, and restlessness leads to anarchy. When there's anarchy, societies can crumble like what happened in Mongolia after the plague.
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by Ryanh_oilers (;ljlaeeee@hotmail.com) on Sunday, August 22
(User Info | Send a Message) | No touch icing - i like because less people hurt over a dead play
Switched ends for overtime - I like it because of where the benchs are.
Five man shoot out - This is a great idea because you are more likly to get the best team win and it is more exciting.
1 of 2 refs off ice - This is not a bad idea but I think it is better to have them on the ice.
But I think they should allow a coach to chalange a call and it goes to review and if he is right then the ruling is changed and you keep your timeout and if wrong then you loose your timeout and you can not chalange anymore that game.
Delayed penalty rule - so could sombody score a hail mary goal I do not know about that but i think they should have to have clear control not just tap it.
3 pont win - This should have been in 5 years ago. Is one game worth more points then anouther, no one game should not be worth 2 points and the next 3 points. If you can not finish your opponent in regulation you should not get full credit and if you lasted the 60 mins you should get somthing so the winer in over time should get 2 and the loser should get 1. regulation win 3 points.
For the off sides I like the no line change but it should not go all the way back to the other zone it should either go to center or the other blue line.
I like the new rule if you get waved out of the faceoff then you can pick your opponent. this would stop people from cheating the angles and make it more fair over all.
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by hockey_lover on Monday, August 23
(User Info | Send a Message) | Awesome stuff guys. Im glad to see some good posts on here. I suppose I should weigh in on my own post eh? :P
No touch icing - im indifferent. Whilst I like the races it creates, I hate seeing guys get hurt on these plays. It has nothing to do with icing and everything to do with players lack of respect for each other, mind you. Id say leave the icing as is.
Wider blue lines - meh, I cant see this helping in any way.
Relocated face off dots - like someone said, I cant see this making a huge different on one timers. But so long as it doesnt change things drastically, meh, sure, why not.
Switched ends for overtime - I like this idea. More odd man rushes is a good thing. Its not even about sloppy changes. Just that one less guy on the ice and having them go the extra distance .. I think it would make it a bit exciting.
Five man shoot out - Im all for it. Teams that are top heavy with little depth (Penguins) will have a harder time in the SO. Teams with depth (Chicago last season) will have a better record in the SO.
1 of 2 refs off ice - no, no and more no. Stupid idea. Although, like someone said, I do think the teams should be allowed challenges. I dont want the game to get bogged down like basketball (where the last 3 minutes of the 4th quarter take an hour) but there are some pretty horrid calls on the ice. Letting a team have 1 or 2 challenges a game would be a smart move.
Delayed penalty rule - I like this one. Dont see it hurting anything.
3 pont win - Nope. I dont like this idea nor do I like the way it is now. 2 points for a win, 0 for a loss. Thats it, thats all. FORCES teams to go for the win and not the tie or whatever. Win = points. Loss = head hanging. Too bad, so sad.
smaller equipment - no, no and yet again, more nooooo. I hate this idea. I dont mind making the equipment a bit smaller. Some of these guys are HUUUUGE and the equipment makes them like tanks. Smaller, perhaps ... less adamantium-like equipment would be a good thing. For goalies, sure, why NOT make that trapper NOT the size of a fishing net or that blocker NOT the size of a table for 4. The pads can certainly be trimmed down 0.5" on either side and still protect them as much as the current ones. Im all for it.
bigger goaltender nets and/or those nets that have the post arc outwards - good christ ... no. No more words on this. Just no.
lose the instigator rule - yep. Im all for it. Accountability folks.
when players commit the following penalties (high sticking with blood, hit from behind, boarding .. essentially, the more dangerous penalties), offending player is off for the FULL penalty time, no matter how many goals are scored - I actually like this. A two minute penalty for hooking remains the same. Team scores on the PP, PP over. But these ones above are more serious so why not make the punishment more severe. If a major for boarding (5 min) is called, fine. Have it be a FULL 5 minute. Double minor for high sticking with blood? FULL 4 minutes. Dont do the crime if you cant do the time. This isnt "time off for good behavior." I think this will cut down on the dirty plays, knowing that if you make one, your team is down 5 minutes.
when a player injures another player, is suspended and judged to have willingly "intended to injure" said player, the offending player is out of the line up (without pay) for as long as the player he injured is out. That players forfeited salary is given to fund minor league hockey or whatever - I actually like this idea. It needs tweaking and monitoring (perhaps team doctors are employed by the league instead of the team? Make them more impartial? Dont know). Im just getting tired of these goons taking out star players, having them be out for 30+ games and then the goon gets 5 games, laughing his tush off on his way to the rink. I just hate it.
harsher suspensions / benchmark numbers for suspensions (ie. elbow to the head = auto 15 games + 'x' where 'x&#
Read the rest of this comment... |
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by nordiques100 on Monday, August 23
(User Info | Send a Message) | looks like tie-breaker will change too
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=331308
The first tie-breaker is Wins.
But here, they'd exclude shootout wins in this total and just look at OT/regulation wins.
Makes sense.
Not a shootout fan. exciting at times yes, but if there is a way to loosen up OT and make it more meaningful, do it.
the tie-breaker change, with the change ends in OT, may make some difference overall.
Not a fan though of going to 3 on 3 OT. that's getting too experimental and making it a novelty like the shootouts more than a true hockey game.
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by leafy on Monday, August 23
(User Info | Send a Message) |
I'm a fan of no touch icing. Some people will say that it slows the game, but I don't think that's the case. The Olympics prove no touch icing is cool.
Just think about why they added the icing rule (several decades ago) in the first place. The point of icing is to discourage teams from just simply sending the puck down the ice when pressured. If you whip the puck down before passing the red line, the faceoff should be next to your goalie. It's irrelevant whether or not the opposing team's defender tags. That's my view.
|
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by Boston_Bruins (sdhfsbhf@hotmail.com) on Monday, August 23
(User Info | Send a Message) | | With all the talk about cap-cir*****venting deals, why isn't a bigger deal being made about loaning Huet to a Swiss team? Why do they let teams bury players in the minors? In Huet's case the Blackhawks don't even have to pay all of his salary to get rid of his cap hit. It just caters to franchises who have owners with deeper pockets. That's not in the "spirit" of the new CBA. |
|
|
Re: NHL Rule Changes & the Competition Committee (Score: 1)
by flopfish (forgetabout6_makeit7@gohome.net) on Wednesday, August 25
(User Info | Send a Message) | No touch icing - Yes/No. Yes because the races are intense, but no because of goons running people from behind. It's in the CHL and sometimes you'll have a player who would clearly have beaten it out not be able to reach the puck in time.
Wider blue lines - no. Keep it as it is.
Relocated face off dots - No. Let teams change their positioning on the face-offs to create these good one-timers
Switched ends for overtime - Meh. Don't care too much...
Five man shoot out - Sure.
1 of 2 refs off ice - How about two refs on ice and give them headsets to talk through to each other and the linesmen so they can communicate, because often times you'll see one ref calling all of the penalties (good and bad) and the other one do absolutely nothing but skate.
Delayed penalty rule - This would be cool but it'd provide a lot of problems, so I'll have to say no.. Make it so the team with the penalty has to have FULL control.
3 pont win - YES YES YES. Have to reward teams for winning a game in regulation. Tired of seeing teams playing for the point
bigger nets/nets w/post arc outwards- that's like saying let's make the puck bigger/smaller
- lose the instigator rule - Yes/No. Pros: Retalliation fights go unpunished (which makes sense, gets rid of dirty hits) Cons: Goons running people trying to make them fight. If it's a player running people trying to make them fight, he should get the instigator.
- when players commit the following penalties (high sticking with blood, hit from behind, boarding .. essentially, the more dangerous penalties), offending player is off for the FULL penalty time, no matter how many goals are scored (thus, I believe, going back to how it was pre-1950's? could be wrong though)
when a player injures another player... as long as the player he injured is out - If it is intent then yes.
- harsher suspensions- yes
I'd like to see the Goalies deemed hittable if they are outside their crease.
Also, how about goaltender diving? |
|
|
| |
|
