News Article: Cult of Hockey Rule Change Suggestions

[Captain Pilsner]

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2015/07/24/what-can-be-done-to-address-the-nhls-alarming-reduction-in-powerplay-goals-three-ideas/

I think these are worth discussing - ideas from Bruce McCurdy to increase power play opportunities and thus goals per game:

1. penalties do not expire early after a goal is scored. eg. they run for the full two minutes (or whatever) no matter what

2. begin calling icing on a penalty killing team. making clearing more difficult.

What say you?

Click to read more...

 

[K1984]

Much too punitive. This is how you fast track obstruction re-entering the league in a big way when officials put the whistles away to be "sure" on a call.

Changing a fundamental aspect of the game that has been in place for over 50 years only to raise scoring makes no sense.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

No offsides is the obvious answer.

To understand why, one must first understand how the rule came into existence.

Forward passing within the neutral and defensive zones was first allowed in the NHL in 1927 but after a season of extremely low scoring in 1928–29, the league first allowed forward passing in all zones. The result was immediate and dramatic as the number of goals scored per game more than doubled immediately. Under the NHL's new rule, there was no restrictions placed on where a player could be relative to the puck, resulting in players standing deep in their offensive zone while waiting for teammates to bring the puck forward. As a result, the NHL introduced the modern offside rule requiring that the puck precede attacking players on December 16, 1929, and which took effect six days later.

If a player decided to do that in 2015, he would get destroyed by his coaches, media, internet posters and call-in radio shows.

What does an offside look like today...

The point is that we are killing the flow of the game and eliminating good offensive opportunities because some guy went a fraction of a foot over a line 64 feet from the goal line. Seriously who the **** cares, stop blowing the play dead because of a rule created 100 years ago to stop cherry pickers.

I want a free flowing/fast paced hockey, not one filled with whistles and guys skating in circles in the neutral zone because the puck carrier got held up fighting off a defenseman and the other attacking player went offside. Or the puck rolled off the defenseman's stick on the PP and now everyone needs to clear the zone.

 

[Captain Pilsner]

Much too punitive. This is how you fast track obstruction re-entering the league in a big way when officials put the whistles away to be "sure" on a call.

Changing a fundamental aspect of the game that has been in place for over 50 years only to raise scoring makes no sense.

I generally agree that any major long term rule changes are extreme, but interesting to ponder and debate.

To your first point, it's equally as likely to open up the game because players will take less chances on borderline plays and reduce said obstruction.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Create an illegal defense penalty when a team has 4 players or more lined up at the blueline.

Call any obstruction at the blueline and by any, I mean ANY. If a guy chips it in you can't touch him until you are close enough to the puck for a puck battle.

 

[T-Funk]

The one idea is all that's needed: refs need to make proper calls on the rules that already exist.

 

[AUAIOMRN]

Neither of these ideas is remotely new or innovative. This is purely an "I need to write something about hockey in the summer" article.

The one idea is all that's needed: refs need to make proper calls on the rules that already exist.

This is the correct answer.

 

[Wheathead]

Don't make changes to rules just for the sake of it. Both are stupid ideas.

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

Don't make changes to rules just for the sake of it. Both are stupid ideas.

Agreed. All that will do is cause hockey to stop being physical as everyone is afraid to take a penalty.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Implement a floating blue line like in ball hockey.

 

[Spawn]

Go back to "no tolerance"

Last year we saw the fewest number of power plays called going back more than 50 years. Maybe ever. hockeyreference.com doesn't have any stats prior to the early 60's. We're talking going back to original 6 days. And this is less than 10 years after the league instituted the no clutch and grab era. We're fully locked into another dead puck era, but no one in the hockey world seems to care.

I'm tired of the rampant interference teams run.

We don't need new rules, or bigger nets. We need the game to be called like it's meant to be called.

 

[Rawg]

Im in agreement with changing the offside rule, its ridiculous a good hockey play, or any play is offside because of an inch of space on the ice. Cherrypicking ofc not, but sometimes its like :?

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

Go back to "no tolerance"

Last year we saw the fewest number of power plays called going back more than 50 years. Maybe ever. hockeyreference.com doesn't have any stats prior to the early 60's. We're talking going back to original 6 days. And this is less than 10 years after the league instituted the no clutch and grab era. We're fully locked into another dead puck era, but no one in the hockey world seems to care.

I'm tired of the rampant interference teams run.

We don't need new rules, or bigger nets. We need the game to be called like it's meant to be called.

100% agree.

 

[thadd]

Create an illegal defense penalty when a team has 4 players or more lined up at the blueline.

Call any obstruction at the blueline and by any, I mean ANY. If a guy chips it in you can't touch him until you are close enough to the puck for a puck battle.

I nominate Bryanbryoil for commissioner of the NHL.

1: Faceoffs would be much more key
2: With the new icing rule you'd see more teams having a winger play way further up the ice to negate tie ups in the neutral zone. These wingers would have to be incredibly fast and slow-poke d-men would never catch them leading to...
3: A ton of d-men losing their jobs. If you can't skate then two different things happen. A: you don't bother entering the offensive zone and stick between the opponent's blueline and your team's redline so that you can catch those wingers, allowing your team to only have 4 players in the offensive zone or B: Your team takes the risk and lets all 5 players play in the offensive zone. Whenever the other team gets the puck past their blueline and dumps it your d-men lose the race of the puck and risk giving up quality scoring opportunities.
4: A lot less energy expended getting to the puck in the offensive zone means less fatigue, less injuries and more goals.


Yes. YES! I love it!

 

[Hynh]

No offsides is the obvious answer.

To understand why, one must first understand how the rule came into existence.



If a player decided to do that in 2015, he would get destroyed by his coaches, media, internet posters and call-in radio shows.

What does an offside look like today...


The point is that we are killing the flow of the game and eliminating good offensive opportunities because some guy went a fraction of a foot over a line 64 feet from the goal line. Seriously who the **** cares, stop blowing the play dead because of a rule created 100 years ago to stop cherry pickers.

I want a free flowing/fast paced hockey, not one filled with whistles and guys skating in circles in the neutral zone because the puck carrier got held up fighting off a defenseman and the other attacking player went offside. Or the puck rolled off the defenseman's stick on the PP and now everyone needs to clear the zone.

I like this. Offside rules in basically every sport exist solely to benefit the defence. Maybe introduce a three line pass rule to ease into it.

 

[Quinteoilers]

Play the entire game 4 on 4, if a penalty is called. The team to go on the PP, puts out an extra guy. The pealized team still gets the offending player removed.
Scoring would go up big time, and skill players would shine.

 

[Oilfan2]

No offsides is the obvious answer.

To understand why, one must first understand how the rule came into existence.



If a player decided to do that in 2015, he would get destroyed by his coaches, media, internet posters and call-in radio shows.

What does an offside look like today...

The point is that we are killing the flow of the game and eliminating good offensive opportunities because some guy went a fraction of a foot over a line 64 feet from the goal line. Seriously who the **** cares, stop blowing the play dead because of a rule created 100 years ago to stop cherry pickers.

I want a free flowing/fast paced hockey, not one filled with whistles and guys skating in circles in the neutral zone because the puck carrier got held up fighting off a defenseman and the other attacking player went offside. Or the puck rolled off the defenseman's stick on the PP and now everyone needs to clear the zone.

I disagree completely..for the exact same reason it was 100 years ago. It would be like a kids game, with zero structure and players standing in front of the goalie while the play was still developing up the ice. Remember the silly Avery in front of Brodeur? And that was with the rules.
Imagine the silliness that type of dramatic change would create for so many reasons.

It would be the equivalent of removing foul balls in baseball.

If the flow of the game is being 'killed', it isn't because of a rule that's an essential part of the structure.

The game is the same but players are bigger, faster, stronger..goalies are better positional players, with larger equipment because players can shoot harder. The only suggestion is look at increasing the size of the nets/rink to compensate.

There are enough rule 'changes' the last few years. Players need to just play the game and refs need to enforce the rules that are already in place.

 

[Mr Sakich]

these articles are important as ideas occasionally get implemented. Every summer, these ideas get discussed and we don't know if a GM might be reading.

For the past few years, I have been suggesting a change to the face off rules. There is no reason why the home team gets the advantage instead of the attacking team. I actually calculated the difference inhome ice fave offs and then, using an advanced stat article that showed the value of a winning faceoff, I calculated the increase in goals.

It was not a lot more goals but it is a simple idea that would increase goal scoring. This summer, Ron Francis championed the idea and the NHL implemented it.

I still think the blue line should be 3 feet thick as it would increase the size of the nuetral zone and attacking zone. I wouuld also change the off side to rule to say that, if the puck touches any part of the blue line, the player is not off side if he is not completely past the blue line. It would add one complete stride to the attacking winger if the blue line was 3 feet thick.

 

[Young Lions*]

Go back to "no tolerance"

Last year we saw the fewest number of power plays called going back more than 50 years. Maybe ever. hockeyreference.com doesn't have any stats prior to the early 60's. We're talking going back to original 6 days. And this is less than 10 years after the league instituted the no clutch and grab era. We're fully locked into another dead puck era, but no one in the hockey world seems to care.

I'm tired of the rampant interference teams run.

We don't need new rules, or bigger nets. We need the game to be called like it's meant to be called.

I think we need to enforce existing rules and change others to adapt the game to the new realities of the league today. I'm big time in favour of increasing the size of the nets to counter the increased size of goaltenders and their equipment. I'd also be down with tinkering with the power play rules as suggested in the OP, perhaps not the full 2 minute rule, but certainly the no-icing rule.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

I disagree completely..for the exact same reason it was 100 years ago. It would be like a kids game, with zero structure and players standing in front of the goalie while the play was still developing up the ice. Remember the silly Avery in front of Brodeur? And that was with the rules.
Imagine the silliness that type of dramatic change would create for so many reasons.

It would be the equivalent of removing foul balls in baseball.

If the flow of the game is being 'killed', it isn't because of a rule that's an essential part of the structure.

The game is the same but players are bigger, faster, stronger..goalies are better positional players, with larger equipment because players can shoot harder. The only suggestion is look at increasing the size of the nets/rink to compensate.

There are enough rule 'changes' the last few years. Players need to just play the game and refs need to enforce the rules that are already in place.

I don't think it would be that dramatic. Coaches wouldn't allow players to stay out of position in hopes of getting an easy breakaway.

The same arguments were made when the NHL took out the two line pass yet today we still rarely see any breakaways from long stretch passes. You don't see Taylor Hall or Alex Ovechkin sitting in the neutral zone waiting for a pass from a team mate. Coaches find ways to defend, that's what they get paid to do. With no offsides you eliminate unnecessary stoppages of play and allow attacking players to create more offensive opportunities without any real radical change to the overall game.

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

Nah. Just call obstruction the way it should be. And call it the same regardless of game situation.

 

[Young Lions*]

I don't think it would be that dramatic. Coaches wouldn't allow players to stay out of position in hopes of getting an easy breakaway.

The same arguments were made when the NHL took out the two line pass yet today we still rarely see any breakaways from long stretch passes. You don't see Taylor Hall or Alex Ovechkin sitting in the neutral zone waiting for a pass from a team mate. Coaches find ways to defend, that's what they get paid to do. With no offsides you eliminate unnecessary stoppages of play and allow attacking players to create more offensive opportunities without any real radical change to the overall game.

I think you're bang on here. The risk of cherry picking is mitigated by the risk of leaving your team outmanned in your own zone. If there's a real concern, they could look at a hybrid offside where you can't pass the puck to a player inside the opposing blueline, but if a teammate is inside the blueline and you carry the puck in, then play continues.

If nothing else, it'd be worth experimenting with.

 

[joestevens29]

Didn't Don Cherry suggest these years ago?

 

[joestevens29]

Go back to "no tolerance"

Last year we saw the fewest number of power plays called going back more than 50 years. Maybe ever. hockeyreference.com doesn't have any stats prior to the early 60's. We're talking going back to original 6 days. And this is less than 10 years after the league instituted the no clutch and grab era. We're fully locked into another dead puck era, but no one in the hockey world seems to care.

I'm tired of the rampant interference teams run.

We don't need new rules, or bigger nets. We need the game to be called like it's meant to be called.

This is essentially what needs to be done.

Im in agreement with changing the offside rule, its ridiculous a good hockey play, or any play is offside because of an inch of space on the ice. Cherrypicking ofc not, but sometimes its like :?

The problem is where do you draw the line? The line has to be drawn somewhere and making it a grey area seems like a horrible idea considering the current refs have issues calling the plays that are straight forward.

 

[Beerfish]

I think it is fine to end the penalty after a goal is scored but I( do agree about icing. Why do the basic rules of the game change, ie icing when a team commits a penalty?

Also, the culprit re scoring is not pp it self. It is 6'5" cookie cutter goalies that just go down and block as much space as possible.