Just a tiny insignificant rule change idea

[SympathyForTheDevils]

Don't lump me in that group. I'm not one to complain about the referees. Do they miss calls? Sure, and I expect them to. Just like I expect shooters to sometimes miss open sections of nets and defensemen to misplay pucks. I also think they generally do a better job of officiating than I see in other sports and a better job of preventative officiating by giving direction to players during the game than in any other sport.

I'm also not in favor of making power plays shooting galleries. I've seen the suggestions for not allowing free icing for penalty killers and making minor penalties two minutes regardless of whether a goal is scored. At best, a penalty prevents a single goal from being scored (save the guy who knocks somebody out of the game), and the goal shouldn't be to do any more than even that score. I don't want to see an interference call well away from the puck result in two or three goals.

Speaking of penalty shots, I am about to see one (Canadiens vs. Blues). Legitimate call. Not successful...and not really a great attempt, either.

Yeah, my post wasn't really directed at you. I'm just frustrated that every time there's a problem with the game, people want to fix it with more penalties, longer penalties, stronger penalties...

I think NHL refs do a very difficult, thankless job, within the constraints of a disciplinary system that was never really well-conceived in the first place. And every time the league comes up with a new rule change, it seems to make their job a little harder. Then people complain that they don't do their job perfectly. I'd rather we work to make their job easier, and don't give them too much power to change games (a power they don't want in the first place).

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Yeah, my post wasn't really directed at you. I'm just frustrated that every time there's a problem with the game, people want to fix it with more penalties, longer penalties, stronger penalties...

I think NHL refs do a very difficult, thankless job, within the constraints of a disciplinary system that was never really well-conceived in the first place. And every time the league comes up with a new rule change, it seems to make their job a little harder. Then people complain that they don't do their job perfectly. I'd rather we work to make their job easier, and don't give them too much power to change games (a power they don't want in the first place).

We are in violent agreement on the trend to fix every problem, whether real or perceived, with more rules (and penalties). It is not limited to hockey-other sports have been doing it for decades....unsuccessfully. It has virtually driven me away from watching NFL football completely. Not sure why people want the NHL to join that circus as a full-time participant.

Worse is when a league issues "instructions" to officials on how to interpret a rule. That sounds like a positive thing, trying to ensure consistency, right up until the instruction essentially negates or greatly modifies a rule without formally getting rid of it or officially changing it. I think the NHL has been the least guilty of that, baseball has been historically the worst offender, usually with the strike zone. When the question becomes something like "why can't any of the officials ever get <insert injustice here> right" the answer is usually the league office
.
Back to the original idea: it seems harmless, as it is a change for how the official score keeping is done rather than anything on the ice. But it also seems hardly worth worrying about.

 

[MrGold]

Some would probably label these tertiary assists.

 

[gtrower]

I say the player(s) that would have gotten the assist(s) get(s) to participate in the penalty shot. They were also wronged.

 

[drktmplr12]

okay, but instead make it 66.7% of one assist.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I've always wondered why it cancels the PP. It really shouldn't.

After all, the player's not even in the penalty box yet.

Because the basic purpose of the penalty is to restore a scoring chance.

Philosophically, it never made sense to allow a team to score 2-3-4 goals as punishment for preventing 1 goal.

 

[DJyellow]

how about enforcing icing rule even during the PK? Why allow for a free dump?

 

[SotasicA]

how about enforcing icing rule even during the PK? Why allow for a free dump?

Because the PK'ing team would still do it a lot, and on purpose. Would just cause an incredible amount of stoppages if the play is whistled dead every time the defending team gets a hold of the puck.

 

[DL44]

One minor rule change that I've seen people discuss is that if a team scores during a delayed penalty, they still get the PP after. It wouldn't cancel out the PP.

Another good one I think is that if you score on the PP, the PP doesn't end.

I've liked the idea of 2 min majors for a long time.

Have your 2 min minors - delay of game, too many men, tripping, hooking
Then have 2 min majors, more dangerous penalties that are currently minors... elbowing, roughing, slashing, high sticks, some of the interference ones, boarding.
Then 5 min majors as is.