What Rule Change would you like to see?
- Thread starter shylock104
- Start date
Players should be able to check the goalies when they come out of the crease to play the puck (like a skater). I'm tired of seeing goalies use their fat ***es to block players from getting the puck knowing they can't be touched.
Butch 19
Go cart Mozart
LOL - my point is this:
Pre-POG penalty called: puck went over the glass 10+/- times a game
Post-POG penalty called: puck goes over the glass once every 2 or 3 GAMES - if that.
Are you able to see a not-so-subtle difference there? It's not bad ice/bad luck/bad timing, LOL
Ya think players have adjusted on what to do with the puck in their D zone?
Last edited:
Couple of thoughts:
On POG: Before the POG penalty was implemented, I used to refer to games against one particular team (I won't name them) as "Free Puck Night" because of all the times they would chip the puck over the glass. I say keep the POG penalty as is.
Learn from the officiating debacles in the last playoffs:
* Video Review for major penalties.
* Video Review for offsides will consist of the linesmen viewing the entry ONCE (and only once) and at full speed.
* Mandate that each rink have calibrated camera so that a grid can be superimposed on a image when Toronto reviews high stick goals. Nothing worse than the debate of is the stick above the crossbar or not that follows high deflection goals.
* Implement a crease around the benches for line changes. I am tired of seeing a player nowhere the bench already replaced by another player. There is a time limit (e.g. three seconds) for player to stay in crease. Players in this crease are considered on the bench.
Other idea:
* Goaltenders may not wear black equipment. This will allow video review to more easily see the puck during goal review.
Change 3-2-1-0 points awarded per game to:
* 2 pts = regulation win
*1 pt = OT or shoot-out win
*0 pts = lose
There should be no way both teams can move up in the standings. Make teams play to win. Give rid of the incentive to play for OT and hope for the best.
Comment on the idea for seven teams per conference in playoffs: I like it. Unfortunately, it will never happen because it takes revenue out of the owners' pockets.
--parrotdude
On POG: Before the POG penalty was implemented, I used to refer to games against one particular team (I won't name them) as "Free Puck Night" because of all the times they would chip the puck over the glass. I say keep the POG penalty as is.
Learn from the officiating debacles in the last playoffs:
* Video Review for major penalties.
* Video Review for offsides will consist of the linesmen viewing the entry ONCE (and only once) and at full speed.
* Mandate that each rink have calibrated camera so that a grid can be superimposed on a image when Toronto reviews high stick goals. Nothing worse than the debate of is the stick above the crossbar or not that follows high deflection goals.
* Implement a crease around the benches for line changes. I am tired of seeing a player nowhere the bench already replaced by another player. There is a time limit (e.g. three seconds) for player to stay in crease. Players in this crease are considered on the bench.
Other idea:
* Goaltenders may not wear black equipment. This will allow video review to more easily see the puck during goal review.
Change 3-2-1-0 points awarded per game to:
* 2 pts = regulation win
*1 pt = OT or shoot-out win
*0 pts = lose
There should be no way both teams can move up in the standings. Make teams play to win. Give rid of the incentive to play for OT and hope for the best.
Comment on the idea for seven teams per conference in playoffs: I like it. Unfortunately, it will never happen because it takes revenue out of the owners' pockets.
--parrotdude
While I understand what you're saying here, I think you're mixing 2 ways of viewing the current point system. You can say there are 3 point and 2 point games, but there are no 1 point or 0 point games. You can also say a team can earn 2, 1 or 0 points in a game, but there's no way for a team to earn 3 points.
I think it should be changed to:
3pts for a regulation win
2pts for an OT/SO win
1pts for OT/SO loss
0pts for regulation loss
Every game would be a 3 point game. If the team's are tied at regulation they each get 1 point for being equally good for 60 minutes, and then play for the last remaining point. This would also make regulation wins more meaningful in the standings.
I'm not sure you understand. Perhaps a story will illustrate my point better.
Back in 1980 there was a soccer league called the NASL. They awarded two points for a win. To encourage offense, they also would award a point for every goal scored up to a max of 3 additional points.
During this time a goaltender named Shep Messier (I kid you not. I know the name sounds made-up. Here is a link to the Wiki page: Shep Messing - Wikipedia). He was the player that would say controversial things, essentially the Brett Hull of the NASL at the time.
Messier told the media he had a conversation with the opponent mid-game: He would let in a goal, if they let in a goal thus guaranteeing both teams making the playoffs.
This didn't happen. One of the teams finished the game out of the playoffs. It was said that Messier told this to the media to point out the stupid system of awarding points in the NASL.
The point is the standings should not allow both teams in a game to benefit. Currently in the NHL, two teams could potential coordinate going to OT to guarantee they each move up in the standings. The point system I advocate cannot be manipulated.
-parrotdude
Last edited:
txpd
Registered User
Ambisextrous
Registered User
SotasicA
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2014
- 8,489
- 6,404
I understand completely what you're saying. The thing is the NHL is currently a league with no games ending in a tie. So with the 2 point system without the extra point for OT/SO you might as well do away with the points and just use win % like the MLB. That's what the points are going to reflect anyway.
If they want to use a point system in a league with no ties then you need to hand out points for an OT/SO loss so the point system isn't pointless. I'm saying in this case the 3 point system works better than the 2 point system.
Not trying to be argumentative. I just want to understand the rationale for why you say this.
Why does there need to be a loser point?
I believe that awarding only one point for an OT/SO win will encourage teams to play to win in regulation. Seems like there are more OT games the last half of the season than the first half. It seems like every team plays to go into OT as playoffs get closer.
--parrotdude
Put solid pipes back in holding the net in place. Seeing the net being dislodged so often is ridiculous.
TheDawnOfANewTage
Dahlin, it’ll all be fine
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,241
- 17,860
LOL - my point is this:
Pre-POG penalty called: puck went over the glass 10+/- times a game
Post-POG penalty called: puck goes over the glass once every 2 or 3 GAMES - if that.
Are you able to see a not-so-subtle difference there? It's not bad ice/bad luck/bad timing, LOL
Ya think players have adjusted on what to do with the puck in their D zone?
And my point is that players no longer do it on purpose, so it's now punishing a play it was never really intended to punish. I think it's a bit more frequent that once every 2 or 3 games, and either way, it sucks for your team to lose a goal because a guy accidentally lifted a rolling puck or swatted a puck out of the air. Refs just have to make the call on the especially stupid ones, just the threat of it is enough of a deterrent to keep players from making this play on purpose.
1) Nuke offside review. But if it's not nuked, make it a plane like the goal line in NFL where if your skate is off the ice but on the plane, it's an onside play to limit the amount of goals that get called back.
2) Anything black and white like puck-over-glass delay-of-game, puck into the netting/out of play, hand pass etc. should be reviewable.
3) I'd like to see defensive players be allowed to be more physical in and around their nets to protect their goalies and clear players out. This might lead to less GI reviews.
Too dangerous. With the speed of the game now, if someone goes crashing in, they would get severely injured more easily. I agree something should be done but not at the expense of safety like that.
Maybe call more penalties for a goalie or defensive player 'accidentally' knocking the net off.
2) Anything black and white like puck-over-glass delay-of-game, puck into the netting/out of play, hand pass etc. should be reviewable.
3) I'd like to see defensive players be allowed to be more physical in and around their nets to protect their goalies and clear players out. This might lead to less GI reviews.
Too dangerous. With the speed of the game now, if someone goes crashing in, they would get severely injured more easily. I agree something should be done but not at the expense of safety like that.
Maybe call more penalties for a goalie or defensive player 'accidentally' knocking the net off.
shtorm2005
Registered User
As a Wilson's fan, I'd like players that don't keep their head up for extended time get 2min penalty.
Don't worry, I see this as a friendly debate.
You originally just said 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss. So I wasn't even thinking of the 1 point OT/SO win. You still run into the problem of each game not being worth the same amount of points. Some will give 2 points while others only give 1. With the 3 point system every game will give 3 points. The outcome of the game determines how those points are divided (3-0 or 2-1).
So I was thinking in terms of making each game worth the same amount of points.
RedMenace
Registered User
A million times, this.
Also, the mouth guard must be secured in the mouth during play. I can't stand watching people chew on their mouth guard flying up the ice.
FissionFire
Registered User
Butch 19
Go cart Mozart
TheDawnOfANewTage
Dahlin, it’ll all be fine
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,241
- 17,860
Not as intended it isn't. It isn't the biggest issue, granted, but I don't like to see penalties for bad luck. 4 outta 5 times it's just penalizing a team for having to deal with a rolling puck or something. If that's what the NHL wants, eh, I'd still disagree, but it was put in place to keep players from doing it on purpose. Just the threat of a call is enough to keep players playing the way they do now, so you only have to call it when it's an especially stupid/lazy play to keep players honest.
nofehr
Registered User
- Dec 17, 2012
- 449
- 936
- I would rather see the play stopped 20 times a game for this than to have a player seriously hurt or career ended by hitting a solid pipe
- Another vote for keeping puck over the glass as is. This call should never be referee's discretion. (maybe make it 1-minute penalty?)
- Another vote for long change in first and third periods
- instigator penalty for starting a fight after a clean hit. It's not that hard to see if the ref's arm is up or better yet, take a number and hit them harder later in the game
- 1-minute minor penalties in overtime
- Losing team gets full 2-minute penalty at the end of a game if only down by one
I like this idea alot.
I will also add that the floating blue line, like in ball hockey, would greatly reward teams that push the play and give more time and space for skilled players.
Sadly, I doubt this is even on the radar of the NHL.
Butch 19
Go cart Mozart
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: WCQF G3 | Winnipeg Jets @ Colorado Avalanche | 8pm MT | TNT/Max- Latest: littletonhockeycoach
-
