Proposal: NHL Rule Changes

[Sharp Shooting Neely]

Have previously brought this point up in other threads.

Time to change how the officiating team is utilized. Adopt an approach that seeks to move away from the reliance/need for reviews (they deal with issues after the fact issue) and move to a more proactive role to more accurately capture issues in real time.

Adding the 4th official on the ice some time ago has led to an increase of congestion. Officials are routinely caught in plays where they simply have no where to go and avoid interfering in a play. It's a hazardous job at the best of time with lots of resulting injuries. It's all compounded by the size and speed of players as well as the pace of the game today. Many, many infractions are completely being missed every game or the vantage point and angle of view on ice is not always consistent with what happens versus what they think happened. One example, high sticks (resulting damage that may actually come from a teammate and not the opponent) that results in a team being assessed of a 2 or 4 min minors or a major unnecessarily. Too many men calls may be another.

Given the ever expanding role of the use of technology in games, place an official(s) up high above the ice with video access. Have them directly in communication with those remaining on the ice during play and immediately following plays if necessary. Allow them to work together to improve the accuracy of calls. Would in theory eliminate a need for some reviews. All officials on the ice would be permitted to call penalties in addition to the duties normally handled by a linesmen today. It's the on ice huddle approach (that now regularly will happen in games but still has some drawbacks) being extended to include those on the team working from above. They again have access to video to assist the officiating team in getting the call right. Perhaps 2 to 3 officials remaining on the ice and 1 to 2 placed above the ice would suffice. Believe that it can be done.

 

[talkinaway]

I would like the rule put in something like the following:

If the game is tied, or within 1 goal. If the team behind or tied in the score is awarded a powerplay with less than 2 minutes remaining in the game. Regular time will be extended until the completion of the powerplay.

I like this idea, and I've thought of it before, but it has some weird logistical issues.

Let's say it's 59:30 gone in the game, 3-2 Rangers, and Kreider comes crashing into Rask. Amazingly, he gets a 2 minute interference penalty. The game gets extended, in theory, to 61:30.

At 60:20, Marchand taps Nash's stick, and gets called for slashing. Marchand gets a 2 minutes...is the game now over because it's 4v4 followed by a brief Bruins PK? If so, is that ever how you want a game to end - on a penalty, with the refs LITERALLY handing a win to a team?

If it keeps going (ie the "penalty" is not only the 2 minutes in the box, but also extending the game by 1:30), what happens if the Bruins score right after Marchand gets in the box? It's 3-3, but Marchand ALSO got a penalty - the Rangers "deserve" the same small amount of PP time that the Bruins got.

In theory, you can daisy-chain these penalties to create a never-ending game. Now, I know in practice that'll never happen. But I don't think 65 minutes of regulation would be impossible. Would you then have a 5 minute 3v3 OT on top of that?

I agree that there's a fundamental problem with penalties at the end of the game not being equitable: the "two minute" penalty can be just 20 seconds.

Here's another solution: if a penalty is assessed in the final two minutes of a game, statistically, you still count it as 2 minutes for 1 player. But in terms of what happens on the ice, you give a 60 second mini-minor penalty for the player who did it, plus a 60 second mini-minor bench penalty. So, it's 5v3 for the last minute.

Now, I can't say that 1 minute of 5v3 is exactly equal to 2 minutes of 5v4. But it's probably closer than the current system. It also doesn't quite solve the problem of a penalty happening in the last 20 seconds of a game. But out of curiosity, I wonder how often those penalties happen in a close game. My gut tells me a lot of last-second penalties are end-of-game melees, and those typically happen in blowouts. Even the dumbest enforcer knows not to punch someone at the end of a close game - and even the dumbest coach doesn't put their enforcers out at the end of a tight game.

 

[EverettMike]

1) Regulation wins are 3 points. It isn't just about trying to make all games worth the same number of points (obviously a rational reason itself), it's about incentivizing more play/action/desire into the regular season. It needs it, so put a carrot out there that makes teams want to win, instead of making everyone happy to get to OT.

2) OT 8 minutes.

3) If a goal is scored on a delayed penalty the penalty is still called. Why are we making goal scoring, which the league needs more of not less, a reason not to get an earned power play? That's dumb.

4) Make embellishments/diving penalties something the league can call after a period ends. That **** would ****ing stop quickly.

EXAMPLE: Let's say :fill in the Hab you hate the most: does a swan dive to draw a penalty. Easy for the on-ice officials to miss, but not for the camera. Let Toronto call those blatant penalties, which will be served at the start of a period. If it happens in the third give the guy a one game suspension if it doesn't go to OT/there isn't another game in the playoff series.

Watch how quickly that crap is cut out of the game.

5) The goalie equipment has to get smaller. Make their jerseys tighter too. This "safety" excuse is ********, and everyone knows it. So ****ing fix it.

6) Any goal scored 10 seconds after a zone-entry OR if the other team touches the puck (minus a rebound) can't be reviewed for offside.

 

[sarge88]

What I'd like to see:

Offsides - challenge or even call. No more skate has to be on the ice. Have it like football and 'breaking the plane'. This allows for keeping the spirit as written while allowing for natural stride.

Puck over glass - This was made a penalty due to tactic when guys were gassed. So get rid of the 2 minute penalty. BUT like icing - no change up for the offending team. Even if its already shorthanded.

Slash to stick the breaks stick - Just get rid of this stupid damn thing. Honestly if it were me with the current rules I'd have a fungo/balsa wood stick ready to go if I needed a PP.

Even better .....ban composite sticks.

 

[JRull86]

1) Regulation wins are 3 points.

2) OT 8 minutes.

3) If a goal is scored on a delayed penalty the penalty is still called. Why are we making goal scoring, which the league needs more of not less, a reason not to get an earned power play? That's dumb.

4) Make embellishments/diving penalties something the league can call after a period ends. That **** would ****ing stop quickly.

5) The goalie equipment has to get smaller. Make their jerseys tighter too. This "safety" excuse is ********, and everyone knows it. So ****ing fix it.

6) Any goal scored 10 seconds after a zone-entry OR if the other team touches the puck (minus a rebound) can't be reviewed for offside.

1. YES.
2. Yes, but I'd propose 10 mins of 3v3, ideally with no shootout. If the game ends in a freaking tie after that, give each team a point and move on. That would require tweaking the points a bit more obviously.
3. Yes, I've always thought that should be a rule.
4. Initially I'm going to say no on this. I get where you're going with this, but I'm not sure a team should be penalized later in the game for something the refs missed initially.
5. YES 100%. The trend of sticking a guy who is 6'5" with massive pads and a baggy jersey needs to stop. It's less about being an athletic goalie and more about being able to take up a majority of the net.
6. Yep, been saying it all season. Frankly they need to ammend the off-sides rule in general to allow the skate off the ice. But I think the time after entry needs to be a thing too.

 

[Over the volcano]

I like a lot of these

Would add-

Bring back ties - 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 10 minute overtime 5 on 5. There is something aesthetically pleasing about two teams battling it out to a draw- and something gross about changing the basics of the game (3 on 3 and shootouts) just to claim a "winner". Lose the loser points.

Get rid of the instigator but add in a 5 fight limit for players with automatic suspensions for every fight after in the regular season. It would allow for teams to answer for themselves without a return of the goon.

Double the number of games in the division and reduce the total number of games in a season to 60ish - will build bigger fires and condense them, and would cut down on the wear and tear and tedium.

 

[BNHL]

Even better .....ban composite sticks.

Absolutely. Those things are the biggest scam going. An absolute disaster in engineering.

 

[BNHL]

I agree with all of this. It would be smart to switch to wood sticks during a PK. As we see the composite stick break so easily giving the team on the PP a bigger advantage.

Ban them at the point on PPs also.

 

[Gee Wally]

One more.
If a team is on the PK no free icing. Your are supposed to be at a defecit. Make it a real one. Would also increase scoring.

 

[Save By Thomas]

Here's one I've wanted for a long time, not just in the NHL but all sports.............if a player is suspended for an infraction against a certain team he should serve his suspension only against that team. Why should other teams benefit from the suspension?

 

[Sharp Shooting Neely]

Place the puck on the ice at the dot to start a play. Signal players to start play with a whistle. Official's are removed from starting the face off play at the dot. Potentially addresses some issues in today game including official's unintended interference in the play, unfair puck drops and official's being in harms way. A player jumping the draw in the offensive or defensive zones would back up to start the play from outside the circle (in effect losing or forfeiting the draw) and the method to start play is repeated again.

 

[Sharp Shooting Neely]

One more.
If a team is on the PK no free icing. Your are supposed to be at a defecit. Make it a real one. Would also increase scoring.

Like that idea.

 

[talkinaway]

Here's one I've wanted for a long time, not just in the NHL but all sports.............if a player is suspended for an infraction against a certain team he should serve his suspension only against that team. Why should other teams benefit from the suspension?

Interconference games only happen twice a year. Intraconference will only happen 3-4 times per year for the Bruins after Vegas joins. Rinaldo still owes five games on his suspension against the Lightning, so even if he had continued with the team, he'd still be suspended on the 3/23/17 game against them for something that happened literally 13 months prior. If it had been against a Western Conference team, it would be even worse. (That said, he's essentially suspended from the NHL for his career, but that's a whole other bag of worms. Just imagine if you replace "Rinaldo" with "Shawn Thornton" from the Orpik incident.)

I get the idea behind this, but unfortunately it's not practical. In theory, it all evens out in the long run: while a player may be suspended for a check to the head against a Bruin and we never get to "see" the suspension, at some point we'll play a team that has a player whose suspension we had nothing to do with.

In other words, you don't reap exactly what you sow. You sow and let others reap your fruit, and you reap the fruit that others have sown.

 

[BMC]

If goalies are in the crease they are off limits. The leave it to go behind the net for example they are fair game like any other player. It is the goalies choice to leave the crease.

Amen! I have said this I don't know how many times. This is no different than a quarterback leaving the pocket - once he starts running he is fair game to be hit. Goaltenders should be treated the same way.

 

[22Brad Park]

What I'd like to see:

Offsides - challenge or even call. No more skate has to be on the ice. Have it like football and 'breaking the plane'. This allows for keeping the spirit as written while allowing for natural stride.

Puck over glass - This was made a penalty due to tactic when guys were gassed. So get rid of the 2 minute penalty. BUT like icing - no change up for the offending team. Even if its already shorthanded.

Slash to stick the breaks stick - Just get rid of this stupid damn thing. Honestly if it were me with the current rules I'd have a fungo/balsa wood stick ready to go if I needed a PP.

Hahaha Last part funny.Them sticks they use today are a joke All torque for the weak.

 

[s3antana5757]

I would like to see them just play OT out. That's one of the best things about play-off hockey. The games where a goal can win it. So what if you a couple really long games during the year? Get rid of the tie all together.

Alot of the other ideas I like too.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

1) Regulation wins are 3 points. It isn't just about trying to make all games worth the same number of points (obviously a rational reason itself), it's about incentivizing more play/action/desire into the regular season. It needs it, so put a carrot out there that makes teams want to win, instead of making everyone happy to get to OT.

2) OT 8 minutes.

3) If a goal is scored on a delayed penalty the penalty is still called. Why are we making goal scoring, which the league needs more of not less, a reason not to get an earned power play? That's dumb.

4) Make embellishments/diving penalties something the league can call after a period ends. That **** would ****ing stop quickly.

EXAMPLE: Let's say :fill in the Hab you hate the most: does a swan dive to draw a penalty. Easy for the on-ice officials to miss, but not for the camera. Let Toronto call those blatant penalties, which will be served at the start of a period. If it happens in the third give the guy a one game suspension if it doesn't go to OT/there isn't another game in the playoff series.

Watch how quickly that crap is cut out of the game.

5) The goalie equipment has to get smaller. Make their jerseys tighter too. This "safety" excuse is ********, and everyone knows it. So ****ing fix it.

6) Any goal scored 10 seconds after a zone-entry OR if the other team touches the puck (minus a rebound) can't be reviewed for offside.

No surprise here, but I agree with all of this. We may see the current Bruins in different shades, but I get the feeling Mike that we watch hockey the same way.

I'll add a couple.

Make "puck over the glass" a discretion penalty to cut out the bogus purely accidental stuff.

Also, the play is dead when the whistle blows. Not when the official was thinking he maybe should be blowing a whistle here but doesn't quite have it in his... Just **** off with dead in the head BS. Puck crosses the line before the whistle blows? It's a goal.

And if goaltenders want to lean on their bulky equipment being a safety issue, then let em have it and make modest increases to net size. Equipment is bigger. The players are bigger. Stands to reason the nets should be bigger too. See if that changes their minds about their equipment being all about safety. Ultimatum and I don't care what they choose.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

One more.
If a team is on the PK no free icing. Your are supposed to be at a defecit. Make it a real one. Would also increase scoring.

This rule was the one that baffled me the most when I was first learning about the sport. And it is still nonsense to me. Why grant a penalized team special powers to legally break the rules? It's nonsense.

I actually remember bringing this up some time ago here on HF and the only response I got was someone saying it was the worst rule change idea they had ever heard.

 

[BMC]

And get rid of that damn shootout. Just play OT until someone scores

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

Then I apologize I misread the intent.

sorry Donnie. My bad.

After the hit last night there are posts all over the site that claim the goalie was 'fair game'.

No worries. That was my meaning. You sneeze on a goalie in the crease and people want suspensions. Then fine. Stay in the crease, you leave it then tough tinsel.

 

[Gee Wally]

This rule was the one that baffled me the most when I was first learning about the sport. And it is still nonsense to me. Why grant a penalized team special powers to legally break the rules? It's nonsense.

I actually remember bringing this up some time ago here on HF and the only response I got was someone saying it was the worst rule change idea they had ever heard.

That was probably me. I wasnt as smart back then.

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

This rule was the one that baffled me the most when I was first learning about the sport. And it is still nonsense to me. Why grant a penalized team special powers to legally break the rules? It's nonsense.

I actually remember bringing this up some time ago here on HF and the only response I got was someone saying it was the worst rule change idea they had ever heard.

Haha that happened to you as well? I posted the same thing on the main boards suggesting this idea and I got laughed out the door.

 

[Dr Hook]

Absolutely. Those things are the biggest scam going. An absolute disaster in engineering.

Is there anything stopping a player from using a wood stick, and if not, why don't more of them go that route? I get that they have more velocity on their shots, but certain players, especially d-men don't really need that so much.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Haha that happened to you as well? I posted the same thing on the main boards suggesting this idea and I got laughed out the door.

Yeah I mean, dislike the idea if you wish... But it's certainly not an absurd suggestion. Still haven't heard a reasonable argument from the other side. It's one of those strange things I guess that people seem to hold sacred. I don't get it.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

That was probably me. I wasnt as smart back then.

Wasn't you Wally. If you has something, you would have backed it up with some sort of rationale. Not simply reacted as though I was wearing a loincloth made of your cat.