The New Rules - Pretty interesting

[Tommy Hawk]

AHL approved some new rules. The overtime has changed quite a bit as has the shootout.

I really like the new rule about the helmet. Mirrors the European leagues.

http://theahl.com/ahl-board-approves-rules-changes-p192792

Click to read more...

 

[No Fun Shogun]

OT rules are more intriguing to me:

During the regular season, the sudden-death overtime period will be seven minutes (7:00) in length, preceded by a “dry scrape” of the entire ice surface.

Teams will change ends at the start of overtime.

Full playing strength will be 4-on-4 until the first whistle following three minutes of play (4:00 remaining), at which time full strength will be reduced to 3-on-3 for the duration of the overtime period.

If the game is still tied following overtime, a winner will be determined by a three-player shootout.

Just seems odd to me. I can understand it, but three minutes of four on four seems too limited to me. Five of one then five of the other makes more sense to me.

 

[adsfan]

AHL approved some new rules. The overtime has changed quite a bit as has the shootout.

I really like the new rule about the helmet. Mirrors the European leagues.

http://theahl.com/ahl-board-approves-rules-changes-p192792

I would rather see 5 minutes of 4 on 4, then 5 more of 3 on 3, if necessary.

The helmet rule is puzzling. The only game that I have seen in recent years where more than one player lost a helmet during play, happened because the visiting team kept punching Admirals players in the back of the helmet. They did this four or five times and were never called for roughing. One time, the Admiral player (his second time to be a victim) turned around and punched the other guy in the face. The coward didn't want to fight. I won't mention which team did this Tommy, but they are located 90 miles south of Milwaukee.

That is not an improvement in the rules! Like Congress, it cures a problem that doesn't really need to be cured. Most guys just go back to the bench immediately. The other team is careful not to injure the helmetless player. They don't shoot the puck at him, they don't check him into the boards. I have seen that in Milwaukee and Rochester.

This brings me to the 2 fight rule. You get jumped and get 5 minutes even if you threw one punch trying to defend yourself from an aggressor . If you try to get the guy back later in the game you get ejected. This is garbage!!! You will see goons going after stars because there is less chance of any retaliation, especially if the ref doesn't call an instigator penalty, which they only do about 1/3 of the times that they should do so.

This is what we will see in the future. Player A gets jumped. Later in the game, instead of challenging or starting a fight with Player B, Player A just breaks his stick over Player B's head, leaving him with a concussion in the middle of the ice. No fight must mean no problem.

 

[TXNYI]

The helmet rule is puzzling. The only game that I have seen in recent years where more than one player lost a helmet during play, happened because the visiting team kept punching Admirals players in the back of the helmet.

In one of the Texas Stars playoff games this year a player (Henderson, I think) had his helmet knocked off and played without one for a little while, traveling to the other end of the ice and then getting checked into the boards by someone before finally heading over to the bench.

He didn't get injured or anything, but maybe that rule is a response to some scenarios like that, given that all of the head injury stuff has been in the news recently due the NFL player lawsuits.

 

[Swat Ultra]

This brings me to the 2 fight rule. You get jumped and get 5 minutes even if you threw one punch trying to defend yourself from an aggressor . If you try to get the guy back later in the game you get ejected. This is garbage!!! You will see goons going after stars because there is less chance of any retaliation, especially if the ref doesn't call an instigator penalty, which they only do about 1/3 of the times that they should do so.

This is what we will see in the future. Player A gets jumped. Later in the game, instead of challenging or starting a fight with Player B, Player A just breaks his stick over Player B's head, leaving him with a concussion in the middle of the ice. No fight must mean no problem.

The 2 fight rule is crazy and i agree this is how it will play out.

AHL needs to understand that the small markets needs edgy hockey and this furthers nurtures the game. Not allowing players to be able to respond after the first fight will greatly soften the game.

 

[Crunchrulz]

The two fight rule is most definately bull droppings. If they are trying to mirror Euro hockey and take away the North American edge, this is a step in the right direction. What the league offices forget is while goal scoring may put fannies in the seats, the aggressiveness of the game keeps them there. Lost interest in the NHL game because of the kinder and gentler style, the AHL may be next.

 

[Banana Sandwiches]

I don't like any of these rules.

For OT, why can't it be 5 mins of 4 on 4, and then 5 mins of 3 on 3? Seems weird to split up like they have done.

I'm pro-fighting, so by default I don't like anything that reduces the number of fights. I also want to hear more clarification on these rules as well. If someone gets into a fight, and then later in the game gets jumped, will they be tossed?

The helmet rule, while I understand why it's being put in place, doesn't seem practical. If I'm a defenseman and I lose my helmet in the offensive zone, and the other team picks up the puck, am I supposed to just go to the bench so the other team can have a potential odd man rush?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I would rather see 5 minutes of 4 on 4, then 5 more of 3 on 3, if necessary.

The helmet rule is puzzling. The only game that I have seen in recent years where more than one player lost a helmet during play, happened because the visiting team kept punching Admirals players in the back of the helmet. They did this four or five times and were never called for roughing. One time, the Admiral player (his second time to be a victim) turned around and punched the other guy in the face. The coward didn't want to fight. I won't mention which team did this Tommy, but they are located 90 miles south of Milwaukee.

That is not an improvement in the rules! Like Congress, it cures a problem that doesn't really need to be cured. Most guys just go back to the bench immediately. The other team is careful not to injure the helmetless player. They don't shoot the puck at him, they don't check him into the boards. I have seen that in Milwaukee and Rochester.

This brings me to the 2 fight rule. You get jumped and get 5 minutes even if you threw one punch trying to defend yourself from an aggressor . If you try to get the guy back later in the game you get ejected. This is garbage!!! You will see goons going after stars because there is less chance of any retaliation, especially if the ref doesn't call an instigator penalty, which they only do about 1/3 of the times that they should do so.

This is what we will see in the future. Player A gets jumped. Later in the game, instead of challenging or starting a fight with Player B, Player A just breaks his stick over Player B's head, leaving him with a concussion in the middle of the ice. No fight must mean no problem.

the instigator isn't a major, though, the rule was 3 fighting majors in any game warranted an ejection, but when was the last on ice brawl or rivalry game that necessitated, the question is 3 majors in any game now necessitates a game misconduct, according to how its layed out now. Certain major penalties already warrant a game misconduct anyway.

the OT rule and Helmet rules I have no issues with.

 

[RFA]

These are obviously ideas the NHL wants to test, and AHL is rolling over as seems to be the norm the past 10 years or so.

The fighting one is stupid. I wouldn't have a problem with it if they just tossed the guy after the 2nd fight, but the fines and suspensions after getting a couple of these soft game misconducts is the big problem. Or give him an extra ten, that would probably lead to more fighting as the guys would look for the 2nd bout to pad the PIM totals. Bad idea, especially for the AHL because the AHL needs fighting more than any other league. The half the guys who are on NHL/AHL deals don't really want to be there, so the games often times won't have the intensify that a college or ECHL game would have where the players have chosen to play for that team- they weren't assigned there by and NHL team.

Overtime will be interesting. Personally, at this point I'd just assume they ended the game in after 60 because I have little kids. I also wonder why they don't try adding a 7th man to the ice (6+ a goalie). I'd rather see that I think. The ice isn't too crowded when there's 6 on 5 in the one end.

The helmet one is too much. Who cares if a guy skates without a helmet for 30 seconds?? It would probably lead to more injuries because the player is focused on his helmet and not the puck and the opposition.

 

[axecrew]

The fighting rule is ignorant as outlined by others on here. The OT rules are stupid and could be better, also as outlined on here by others. Both need to be clarified more by the powers that be.....BUT believe it or not in my opinion....the biggest rule clarification or change needed is the helmet rule!
How long will it take before some player knocks the helmet off of an opposing player on purpose thus negating a possible scoring chance? 1 shift into game 1 of opening night for the AHL? This rule as outlined will cause nothing but problems.
Player A is playing for Chicago...he's a scorer or sniper....Player B plays for Milwaukee(sorry ads....rivals and all )....he's a goon....play starts to head toward the milwaukee zone on an odd man break with 2 minutes left in tied game....as player A is going by, player B intentionally knocks player A's helmet off. So what do you do now....keep going and risk incurring a 2 min minor, or peal off and go to your bench negating possible game winning goal??? And no boys and girls...a 2 min unsportsmanlike and or a game doesn't erase the risk of it happening....1 team loses a prime scoring chance and 1 loses their goon....not really an even trade now is it? To add intrigue let's also say a playoff berth or even advancement in the playoffs is at stake??? Now what????
Rule needs some big time clarification in my opinion.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

I agree that the OT should be 5 of 4s then 5 of 3s. I am OK with the helmet rule. The purposeful knocking of the helmet off can bee addressed by making sure 2 refs are at EVERY game and by giving the player knocking the helmet off a 2 minute unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. They have the leeway to do that now. Also, players need to make sure their helmet is fastened properly.

In Europe I have never seen the penalty for remaining on the ice and I only recall one game where I saw a helmet come off during the game.

 

[Tyler Biggs*]

I’m so tired of this helmet crap.

The helmet rule could bring a whole new set of problems. I can already see at least 1 occurrence happening where a player deliberately rips off another players helmet when the ref isn’t looking. You know, in the corner after the puck moves out of the area, and someone fell, players always give a jab at the one getting up. Now said jabs will be directed at the head.

 

[Tyler Biggs*]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/kudos-to-ahl-for-getting-radical-with-fighting-shootouts/

And The Hockey News continues their crusade to ban what has always been a part of the sport.

Let them fight. Stop trying to ruin hockey.

 

[210]

OT is just warming up at the 3 min mark. Go 4-4 for at least 5 minutes, then I really don’t care if it’s 3-3 for 5 mins more, or go straight to a shootout.

Otherwise, just play a ten-minute 5-on-5 overtime. A sudden-death goal means two points for the winner and none for the loser. No goals means a tie and one point for each team. The gimmicks in order to come up with a “winner†are tacky. I’ll grudgingly go along with a ten minute 4-on-4 if the league seeks my approval.

You just guaranteed that most OT games will end in a tie.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

If the AHL is going to be the test ground for the NHL then I think they should go to a 3 point for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win and 1 point for a shootout or OT loss.

 

[RFA]

The media and Buttman, in a year or two, will be pushing the 2 fights is a game misconduct deal. The big reason will be "even the AHL has switched to this rule".

I think the AHL/NHL will keep the points the way they are because it makes the standings closer. It's clearly not fair and gives the worse teams the advantage, but it makes the bad teams look better with more points. Keeps them in the hunt longer........

 

[ZekeA]

My view for what it is worth on a shootout win...................

To me a goal in overtime is worth the bonus point.

If the game has to go to the shootout and whoever wins the shootout should only get 1/2 of a point................

Goal in OT is hockey the shootout winner is not hockey in my view should be worth less........................

 

[Tyler Biggs*]

The 2 fight rule is crazy and i agree this is how it will play out.

AHL needs to understand that the small markets needs edgy hockey and this furthers nurtures the game. Not allowing players to be able to respond after the first fight will greatly soften the game.

Hockey = fighting. Hockey without fighting = Soccer

 

[MM658]

Regulation W - 4 points
Regulation L - 0 points

Overtime W - 3 points
Overtime L - 1 point

Shootout W - 2 points
Shootout L - 1 point

Provides constant incentive to "win the game NOW," rather than skate around for 5 minutes of OT, accomplishing nothing.

 

[adsfan]

If the AHL is going to be the test ground for the NHL then I think they should go to a 3 point for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win and 1 point for a shootout or OT loss.

I agree with you Tommy!

It would make teams go for the win in OT instead of skating off the clock.

 

[adsfan]

I am shocked by how many people agree with me on the AHL rule changes.

It makes me wonder why the rules are being changed.

Andrews? The BOG? The NHL? The CIA or NSA? I really don't get it.

 

[Tyler Biggs*]

You want to reduce shootouts? Here's a radical idea: get rid of them!

 

[Flukeshot]

The helmet rule is just as much about liability protection as it is about player safety. With all these concussion lawsuits floating around it is just a necessity.

I'm sure the OT rule could be modified in a year or two to increase to two separate 5 min periods. They likely didn't want to increase the game time too much and didn't want to stop the flow of play during 4 on 4.

 

[Psuedo Omega]

If the AHL is going to be the test ground for the NHL then I think they should go to a 3 point for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win and 1 point for a shootout or OT loss.

Agree 100%

I don't like any of the rule changes, except for the switching ends rule. I never liked 4 on 4 OT, and find it doesn't make the game more exciting. Now it's going to go to 3 on 3 halfway through OT? To me it almost "cheapens" the game and makes it more of a gimmick.

Just make it a 10 minute 5 on 5 OT, and then go to a shootout.

 

[Govment Cheese]

When they brought in hybrid icing was sure it i would like it. But after seeing it in action not a big deal. Feel the same way with the new OT need to see it before deciding. Helmet rule is for protection of the player and the league after the concussion lawsuits. Fighting: was never a fan of the staged fights in the AHL.

One change I would like to see is widening the trapezoid. It won't be going away but give goalie more room to work, say even with the face off dots.