Time for a few rules changes

[dquann]

A couple of rule changes that are overdue or at least should be considered:
1. Increase the length of the 3 on 3 OT to 10 minutes. The OT is much more interesting and exciting than the shoot-out, in my humble opinion.
2. Change the points system to 3 points for regulation or OT win, 2 points for shoot-out win, 1 point for shoot-out loss. I still prefer the teams having to play hockey to gain points in the standings over a breakaway contest.
3. This one is a little more radical, but a 'floating blue line' rule. I have seen this used in ball hockey and I believe it would open up the NHL game more and allow more offence. Once the attacking team has crossed the blue line, for the defending team to clear the zone, they must propel the puck outside the center red line. This gives teams additional space for offensive plays. So there would be no change on entry into the offensive zone, the puck must cross the blue line first. However, once the blue line is gained, the blue line disappears and the puck must cross the center line before the offensive team must clear the offensive zone. With more space and time, I suggest more offence would result. And don't we all want more offence for our fantasy teams? Scotty Bowman proposed this, or something very similar, a few years ago.

Click to read more...

 

[Chips]

Some people may be able to come up with practical issues on the last one, but at first glance that actually sounds kinda cool.

Open up the game with “more space” without having to rebuild everyone’s arena to Olympic size.

 

[Orfieus]

This is going to be hard for me to explain, it shouldn't be the refs responsibility to make sure the right players are on the ice after an icing

What I mean is if a team ices the puck and someone on that team tries to make a illegal change it shouldn't be the refs responsibility to make sure that change doesn't happen

If a team ices the puck and that team makes an illegal change, the refs do nothing and once they are lined up for the puck drop a penalty should be assessed for delay of game and the illegal player on the ice has to go into the box

 

[CanadianPensFan1]

1. Sure. I see no issue with that.

2. Nope. People need to let this die

3. It has merit but i think its TOO fundamental a change to the game for too many people. Ots definitely an interesting an idea but i just dont see it happening

 

[DL44]

1. I have no issue with... the PA will tho.
2. Not for me. I like the current system.
3. I like the idea... but I think it would actually be manipulated and abused badly by coaches and players and could lead to a painful product to watch with a strategy utilizing the neutral zone to regroup and slow it down without players leaving the zone... with O players not needing to clear the zone the D team wouldnt move either.... and we would be watching a spread out slow game as a result. It would probably result in a 'hold your position type product rather than a pressure the puck thing cuz the zone would be so huge. Like when a team has the puck behind their own net and everyone retreats expect for one guy shadowing the puck.. I picture that, only now in the offensive half of the rink..

But I could be way off on that.

 

[DL44]

This is going to be hard for me to explain, it shouldn't be the refs responsibility to make sure the right players are on the ice after an icing

What I mean is if a team ices the puck and someone on that team tries to make a illegal change it shouldn't be the refs responsibility to make sure that change doesn't happen

If a team ices the puck and that team makes an illegal change, the refs do nothing and once they are lined up for the puck drop a penalty should be assessed for delay of game and the illegal player on the ice has to go into the box

Not hard to explain at all... not a bad idea.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Facts on #3.

There’s nothing worse than a good cycle or offensive zone possession that gets neutered by a puck squirting over the blue line, causing you to have to tag up and dump the puck in on a now broken play that leads to nothing but a line change. I’d really like to see that experimented with and what it would lead to.

Some people may be able to come up with practical issues on the last one, but at first glance that actually sounds kinda cool.

Open up the game with “more space” without having to rebuild everyone’s arena to Olympic size.

Wider rink doesn’t even open the game up or lead to more offense, but the floating/expanded offensive zone most definitely would.

 

[aufheben]

I don't even know all the new ones yet lol.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I don't even know all the new ones yet lol.

Neither do most NHL officials, it would seem.

 

[Name Nameless]

Most important change would be to say you can't challenge something that happened more than 10 seconds before the goal.

Water under the bridge. And such an easy thing to implement.

 

[Claypool]

Most important change would be to say you can't challenge something that happened more than 10 seconds before the goal.

Water under the bridge. And such an easy thing to implement.

Even easier just to get rid of it.

 

[hangman005]

2. For me I would go 3 Points RegW, 2 Points OTW, 1 Point for reaching a shootout or OT loss. A SOW is only used for tiebreak purposes. I think it would make OT even more meaningful as there is a point on the line if someone scores in OT.

 

[IndustryLeech]

OT

• 5 minutes 4-on-4
• 5 minutes 3-on-3
• shoot out

3-on-3 is so volatile that it often just feels like the team that made a tiny mistake loses.

 

[sinDer]

OT

• 5 minutes 4-on-4
• 5 minutes 3-on-3
• shoot out

3-on-3 is so volatile that it often just feels like the team that made a tiny mistake loses.

That's what hockey is all about.

It's game of mistakes. Of course, when you play 3 vs 3 even a tiny mistake could make you lose the game like you said, but it's alright. Just don't make that tiny mistake