News Article: Cult of Hockey Rule Change Suggestions

[K1984]

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.

The blueline is a fundamental part of the game. To the point where if you took it out the type of players that you need would instantly change and the tactics that players and coaches have spent their lives studying would become redundant. The game has been more than fine over multiple eras with offsides in place, that isn't the problem.

I absolutely hate radical rule change suggestions that are designed to "grow the game, make it more exciting." Making the nets bigger, taking out offsides, changing PP rules, etc. The game has been fine for a long time with these rules in place, you don't need to change the entire sport to rectify a momentary blip in offensive profuction.

 

[Young Lions*]

The blueline is a fundamental part of the game. To the point where if you took it out the type of players that you need would instantly change and the tactics that players and coaches have spent their lives studying would become redundant.

So?

The game has been more than fine over multiple eras with offsides in place, that isn't the problem.

The problem is we're in a period of offensive decline unseen since the dead puck era.

I absolutely hate radical rule change suggestions that are designed to "grow the game, make it more exciting." Making the nets bigger, taking out offsides, changing PP rules, etc. The game has been fine for a long time with these rules in place, you don't need to change the entire sport to rectify a momentary blip in offensive profuction.

Imagine if the pioneers of the game had that attitude. We'd be arguing about the forward pass right now.

The game has always changed and adapted to circumstances. As it should. Rules change, players and coaches adapt, eventually leading to more rule changes. Such is the way things.

 

[K1984]

So?



The problem is we're in a period of offensive decline unseen since the dead puck era.



Imagine if the pioneers of the game had that attitude. We'd be arguing about the forward pass right now.

The game has always changed and adapted to circumstances. As it should. Rules change, players and coaches adapt, eventually leading to more rule changes. Such is the way things.

No, we've had one, maybe two seasons of it. Five years ago everything was fine. The NHL has to review how they enforce the rules and call penalties, not completely change the way the game is played.

 

[Young Lions*]

No, we've had one, maybe two seasons of it. Five years ago everything was fine.

Offense has been trending down since 2008-09. How long do you want to wait before you start to think there's a problem.

The NHL has to review how they enforce the rules and call penalties, not completely change the way the game is played.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Not to mention that enforcing the rules consistently (if such a thing were possible, which it is likely not) would result in diminishing returns: once players adjust, fewer penalties will be called, then the offense would dry up again.

Not all tweaks need to be drastic. Increasing the nets an inch or two both ways? Revising the offside rule so it works more like soccer's? These aren't wholesale changes to fear.

 

[OneMoreAstronaut]

A defender "unintentionally" knocking the net off after a 2-on-1 rush needs to become a penalty for delay of game. This happens constantly and never gets called out, and it is at least as egregious as putting the puck over the glass.

 

[K1984]

Offense has been trending down since 2008-09. How long do you want to wait before you start to think there's a problem.



I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Not to mention that enforcing the rules consistently (if such a thing were possible, which it is likely not) would result in diminishing returns: once players adjust, fewer penalties will be called, then the offense would dry up again.

Not all tweaks need to be drastic. Increasing the nets an inch or two both ways? Revising the offside rule so it works more like soccer's? These aren't wholesale changes to fear.

On one hand you want more exciting breakaways, but on another you want to call offsides like soccer. That would completely kill the game. As in destroy the game.

 

[Young Lions*]

On one hand you want more exciting breakaways, but on another you want to call offsides like soccer. That would completely kill the game. As in destroy the game.

I articulated this idea earlier in the thread. Explain how it would bring about Armageddon.

 

[K1984]

I articulated this idea earlier in the thread. Explain how it would bring about Armageddon.

If you think the number of whistles and missed offense is a problem now, it would pale in comparison to what the game would look like with soccer offsides.

Scoring in hockey is easiest when you are alone. How does it make sense to always have a defender near or in front of you if you want more offense? Finding open space to score is what hockey is all about. Take that away and you have double the whistles and half the scoring.

Delayed offsides allow the game to keep flowing and gives free possession to the other team to create an opportunity. Soccer offsides blow the game down every time. This has to be one of the silliest rule suggestions I've ever heard. Especially if you want more scoring and improved game flow.

 

[ohheyhemsky]

I like the game how it is now.

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

If you think the number of whistles and missed offense is a problem now, it would pale in comparison to what the game would look like with soccer offsides.

Scoring in hockey is easiest when you are alone. How does it make sense to always have a defender near or in front of you if you want more offense? Finding open space to score is what hockey is all about. Take that away and you have double the whistles and half the scoring.

Delayed offsides allow the game to keep flowing and gives free possession to the other team to create an opportunity. Soccer offsides blow the game down every time. This has to be one of the silliest rule suggestions I've ever heard. Especially if you want more scoring and improved game flow.

It works in soccer cause the field is so big.

 

[Young Lions*]

If you think the number of whistles and missed offense is a problem now, it would pale in comparison to what the game would look like with soccer offsides.

Scoring in hockey is easiest when you are alone. How does it make sense to always have a defender near or in front of you if you want more offense? Finding open space to score is what hockey is all about. Take that away and you have double the whistles and half the scoring.

Delayed offsides allow the game to keep flowing and gives free possession to the other team to create an opportunity. Soccer offsides blow the game down every time. This has to be one of the silliest rule suggestions I've ever heard. Especially if you want more scoring and improved game flow

So you didn't actually read what I suggested earlier. I was referring only to the fact you can have a player in an offside position in soccer if they are not involved with the play. As I said before: my revised offside rule for the NHL is no passing to players in an offside position (that is, in the o-zone), but if a player is in an offside position and you carry the puck in, the play continues. Would eliminate cherry picking concerns while still creating more space and options for attackers.

 

[K1984]

So you didn't actually read what I suggested earlier. I was referring only to the fact you can have a player in an offside position in soccer if they are not involved with the play. As I said before: my revised offside rule for the NHL is no passing to players in an offside position (that is, in the o-zone), but if a player is in an offside position and you carry the puck in, the play continues. Would eliminate cherry picking concerns while still creating more space and options for attackers.

I don't see how that at all changes the concerns I outlined in my previous post.

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

I don't see how that at all changes the concerns I outlined in my previous post.

Your concern basically is that because offsides are basically no longer a thing, teams will almost always keep a d back and offensive One time will be 4 on 5 from the worry of a weird breakaway

 

[Young Lions*]

I don't see how that at all changes the concerns I outlined in my previous post.

It nullifies every concern you have. If players don't have to worry about slowing down to avoid beating the puck carrier over the blueline, they will have more speed and opportunities to create chances. Defenses will be forced to choose between denying the puck carrier zone entry or denying the other attacker(s) space in the zone (trading off with space for the guy with the puck). You'd have fewer whistles as well because play wouldn't be constantly being blown dead when a player has a skate blade over the line, nullifying a promising rush.

 

[Captain Pilsner]

Most comments against rule changes appear to be in fear of drastic changes to the game.

Calling icing against short-handed teams is a minor change that does not disturb flow or game strategies, with the net effect being more effective power plays. Can someone find a serious downside?

It would be a minor tweak that could result in a few more goals per team over the season. A step in the right direction without altering the visible product.

 

[Young Lions*]

Most comments against rule changes appear to be in fear of drastic changes to the game.

Calling icing against short-handed teams is a minor change that does not disturb flow or game strategies, with the net effect being more effective power plays. Can someone find a serious downside?

It would be a minor tweak that could result in a few more goals per team over the season. A step in the right direction without altering the visible product.

Only issue I have is teams killing a penalty are still better off taking the icing than not, so you'd probably see a helluva lot more stoppages.

 

[TheBusDriver]

I prefer the icing rule. It doesnt make sense that a team can now break an even strength rule while being penalized.

 

[TheBusDriver]

Only issue I have is teams killing a penalty are still better off taking the icing than not, so you'd probably see a helluva lot more stoppages.

But then they cant change and the pp could which is incentive not to ice it.

 

[Blacktape]

A defender "unintentionally" knocking the net off after a 2-on-1 rush needs to become a penalty for delay of game. This happens constantly and never gets called out, and it is at least as egregious as putting the puck over the glass.

Every time I see it I wonder "how is this not a penalty?"

 

[OneMoreAstronaut]

Every time I see it I wonder "how is this not a penalty?"

Exactly. The defending team is in chaos and even if the 2-on-1 chance misses, the ensuing chaos is just as likely to result in a goal... unless they knock the net off. Which they always do. When you start watching for it, you realize how often it happens, and you realize that it has become an accepted strategy by NHL teams: as a trailing defender, you just fall down (usually for literally no reason) and slide into your own net. Free whistle.

If you want to increase scoring, this is an EASY step that doesn't require a single change to the core of the game, and is in fact enforcing a rule that is already in place. It either is a power play, or deterrence of an unnecessary whistle right when more offense would have happened.

 

[AUAIOMRN]

Most comments against rule changes appear to be in fear of drastic changes to the game.

Calling icing against short-handed teams is a minor change that does not disturb flow or game strategies, with the net effect being more effective power plays. Can someone find a serious downside?

It would be a minor tweak that could result in a few more goals per team over the season. A step in the right direction without altering the visible product.

There's a difference between "increasing goals" and "increasing offense".

PP effectiveness already went up when they made it so the first faceoff was always in the attacking zone. I don't think making it easier and easier to score on the PP makes the game any better.

 

[Young Lions*]

There's a difference between "increasing goals" and "increasing offense".

PP effectiveness already went up when they made it so the first faceoff was always in the attacking zone. I don't think making it easier and easier to score on the PP makes the game any better.

I don't think more PP opportunities makes the game any better overall. Yeah it juices scoring, but it doesn't do much for the flow of the game that everyone who is against more dramatic changes like bigger nets are so concerned with protecting.

 

[Ogopogo*]

There are two things that would solve the problem:

1. Change hockey to a 4 on 4 game.
2. Goaltending equipment back to 80s sizes

Game is fixed.

 

[Bank Shot]

There are two things that would solve the problem:

1. Change hockey to a 4 on 4 game.
2. Goaltending equipment back to 80s sizes

Game is fixed.

3.Change goalies back to 80's sizes and outlaw the butterfly save.

 

[Ogopogo*]

3.Change goalies back to 80's sizes and outlaw the butterfly save.

Let them have the butterfly, they will just realize quickly why 80s goalies played a stand-up style. With that equipment, the butterfly wasn't very effective.