DO YOU SEE WHAT I SEE EDITION XI: NEW RULES FOR NHL

Jason Gregor
August 18 2010 04:37PM

NASHVILLE, TN - OCTOBER 12:  Referee Don VanMassenhoven #21 officiates a game between the Nashville Predators and the Edmonton Oilers on October 12, 2009 at the Sommet Center in Nashville, Tennessee.  (Photo by Frederick Breedon/Getty Images)

The NHL’s research and development is going on in Toronto and they are looking at ways to improve the game, and in some cases alter it. No one tabled getting rid of the instigator rule, which sucks, but some of the other proposals have some merit.

Here are a few that have been tabled.

Hybrid Icing: This proposed rule allows the linesman to make a ruling on whether a play will be called icing based on which player (defender or forechecker) reaches the faceoff dot first.

They want to eliminate violent crashes into the end boards. Ask Kurtis Foster if he likes this rule change.

Basically the rule would be when two players are racing back for the puck and are tied or very close at the top of the circle, the linesman would whistle it down as icing. If one player is clearly ahead play continues. I don’t see much wrong with this proposal. It is currently being used in the United States Hockey League, and they say it hasn’t changed the game. For the few, and it is only a few times, that the forward actually wins the race and negates the icing, I don’t see it altering the game very much.

I’d make this change.

Not allowing a team to change lines after it commits an offside: The idea is this will keep the game flowing more and stop teams from going offside on purpose to get a whistle.

My question is how often does this occur in a game? If the studies show it was happening four or five times a game, then implement it. But if this is a once a game infraction, does it really matter? I understand they want the game to continue moving, but will not changing on a neutral zone faceoff really scare teams into not going offside? I don’t see it having much of an impact.

I’d vote against this rule change.

Have the puck lying on the ice for a faceoff. Play is started by a whistle rather than the traditional puck drop: I’m not making this up.

What is the point of this? How does this speed up the game or make it safer, other than linesman not getting smacked in the shins or on the hands. You’d have ten year veterans who have honed their faceoff skills having to learn a new skill set. This is one of the more idiotic proposals that I can recall in recent years.

An emphatic NO for this rule change.

Altering the ice surface to have three faceoff dots, one in each zone, down the centre of the rink: The thinking here is that by having faceoffs in the middle of the ice, it might create more scoring chances.

This one is definitely thinking outside the box. It would make the battle in the faceoff circles better. Now you have guys who dominate on their backhand, but not on their forehand. Normally if the faceoff is to the goaltenders left side, the defensive team likes to use a left-handed draw man who can go to his backhand, while the attacking team likes to use a right-handed centre to draw it back to the right point. A dot in the middle means drawing it back to your left or right wouldn’t be that much different.

It would change the strategy on who guys lines up on the draws. Wingers would likely stay on their wing for the faceoff, rather than line up in front of the net and go crisscross to the offensive D-man.

This would alter the look of the game a lot, but I don’t see how they can ensure it improves the game. I’d need to see it at other levels first, before I’d make that drastic of a change. But at least it is one that makes you think.

I’d vote against this rule... for now.

Having the second referee located off the playing surface: This will eliminate one body on the ice and supposedly open up more space, and the referee in the crowd/penalty box could see more of the play.

One of the best parts of sport is the human element, and the unpredictability it causes. Having a referee off the ice is too “Big Brother is watching you” for me. And that is a George Orwell reference kids, not the lame reality show. Players make mistakes during the game all the time, and ideally you’d want the refs to make no mistakes, I just don’t see that as a realistic option. If a ref is two feet away from a player on the ice, he can hear if he actually got hit by an errant stick. If the ref is in the crowd, penalty box or press box, there is no way he can accurately determine if contact was made. Having a ref off the ice might correct some calls, but he’d probably screw up some others. I don’t see this improving the game.

I’d vote against this rule.

Narrowing the shallowness of the net by four inches to create more ice behind the net and enable more wrap-around attempts: An attempt to create more scoring.

I don’t see much wrong with this proposed change. It opens up more ice behind the net, without altering anything significant. It gives the offensive team more room to create chances from behind the net, and conversely so can the defender when he starts a play. Goalies would have to be wary of more wrap around attempts, but they won’t have to alter their angles when facing shooters.

I’d implement this rule.

Overtime would consist of having three minutes of 4 on 4, followed by three minutes of 3 on 3 and finally three minutes of 2 on 2: This should eliminate the amount of games that go to a shootout.

I used to call AJHL games and they used this formula in OT and it was awesome. They didn’t go to 2 to 2, but when they got to three on three it was highly entertaining. The pace was incredible and most games ended before going to a shootout. My only concern is two on two. That is a bit to gimmicky for me. If they would play five minutes of 4 on 4 and four minutes of 3 on 3 that would be better.

I’d vote against this rule as it stands, but if they stopped at 3 on 3 it would be great.

There were a few other proposed rule changes:

  • If a player is deemed to have committed a face-off violation, he will be required to move back and keep his skates behind a "penalty line" (1' foot further back) to take the faceoff.

Too gimmicky for me.

  • The shoot would expand to five shooters instead of three. If it's tied at the end of the shootout, it goes to sudden death shooting and no one shall shoot twice until all eligible shooters have shot.

Don’t see the need to extend to five instead of three in the first round.

  • Increase the size of the crease proportionally in all directions by three inches.

Didn’t we just make the crease smaller a few years ago? The crease is fine the way it is.

Which rules do you like? Is there anything you think the NHL should do to make the game better, other than get rid of the instigator rule?

PISANI SIGNS WITH HAWKS

Former Oiler, Fernando Pisani signed a one-year, one-way, $500,000 deal with the Chicago Blackhawks this afternoon.

“Obviously I’m excited. I’m going to a team that has a great chance to win. I spoke with (Stan) Bowman and he told me they want to use me in a checking role. But he also said I’d get the chance to play in lots of different roles.”

I could hear the genuine excitement in Pisani’s voice when I spoke with him minutes after signing and faxing his contract. It has been a frustrating last few seasons on and off the ice for the former St. Albert Saint and he can’t wait to get to Chicago.

He wants to put the past few seasons behind him, and he is aching to get back to the playoffs. If he can stay healthy, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him score 12-15 goals with the Hawks.

ESKIMOS MAKE SOME MOVES

Last night Dan Kepley resigned as linebacker coach, and today the Eskimos fired O-Line coach, Jeff Bleamer. Kepley’s resignation isn’t a surprise. He was loyal to Danny Maciocia and I didn’t see him staying past the end of the season.

Kepley was one of the best linebackers to ever play the game, and he had lots of emotion as a coach, but he wasn’t the best technical coach. The Eskimos haven’t been a physical/emotional team for quite a few years, so if Kepley was the emotional coach, he wasn’t that effective at it.

With Maciocia out the of the picture management and the coaching staff want to implement some new schemes and Bleamer and Kepley weren’t on the same page as the rest of the staff.

Kepley will be replaced by Mark Nelson. Here’s what the release had to say about him.

“Nelson brings to the Eskimos 23 years of coaching experience in both the CFL and NCAA. Last season the Edmonton native was on the Winnipeg Blue Bombers coaching staff serving as the defensive coordinator and linebackers coach. Mark made his professional football coaching debut in 1992 as the special teams coordinator and linebackers coach for the Edmonton Eskimos. He spent three years with the Green and Gold (1992-’94) winning a Grey Cup with the team in 1993. The former CFL player has also won a Grey Cup as the defensive line coach with the Toronto Argonauts in 1996.”

Bleamer was replaced by former Eskimo, Tim Prinsen. I thought Prinsen should have hired last year, and while no one will confirm this I’ve long suspected he and Maciocia were never on the same page, and that’s why he wasn’t hired until today. Prinsen played centre, the most cerebral position on the O-line, so he understands every aspect of what it takes to be a solid lineman. He understands the game, but is also very emotional. He will demand this O-line protect better and stop missing assignments.

The Eskimos have a long ways to go before they become a true contender, but these moves are a good first step.

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#1 Muji 狗
August 18 2010, 05:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

I think I speak for all Oilers fans when I say, "Thank you Fernando for your years of service and commitment to the Oilers; thank you for that magical spring; and best of luck in Chi-town!"

It would be cool if the Hawks repeated and he brought the cup back home!

Avatar
#2 Nick Dynasty
August 18 2010, 05:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

One thing I'd consider is getting rid of the free point for going to OT (the "loser point"). I'd make it 2 points for winning in OT and no points for losing in OT. However if the game goes to the shootout, then I'd award a point to each team and have them shoot for a bonus point since the shootout is a coin toss most nights anyway. This way teams tied in the third wouldn't just sit back and defend for OT to guarantee themselves points.

Avatar
#3 David S
August 18 2010, 05:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
Fist wrote:

Fist

It finally happened. Fist's fist is a first.

Avatar
#4 Dave Manson
August 18 2010, 05:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

Good luck in Chicago Pies!

Avatar
#5 Wax Man Riley
August 18 2010, 06:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

One of the best if not unconventional rule changes I have heard of is to increase the size of the blue lines from 1' to 3'. This essentially gives 2 extra feet in the offensive and defensive zone, and the neutral zone. Players would have to be fully over teh lines into the white area before they are considered to be in the next zone (for offsides, zone clearing etc...) This would increase the defensive/offensive zone sizes from 75' to 76' or even 77'depending on which way the lines were extended. Without increasing the size of the rink, we just increased the playing surface.

Avatar
#6 Wax Man Riley
August 18 2010, 06:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

As far as the proposed changes, The icing sounds alright. Not a major change, but has some merit.

I'm actually all for having an official off the ice in the box. It gets a body off the ice and opens up slightly. What more big brother can you get than viodeo replays. This is a minor change that doesn't change the fundamentals.

I do NOT want to see the 2 on 2 that is for sure! I like overtime being overtime. i miss 5 on 5. Plus the Oilers have, for the last 5 or 7 years been brutal 4 on 4 as it is. Painful to watch. If they HAVE to reduce players, 3 on 3 is a streach....are we in micro mites? And it would also be nice to see 0 points for an OT loss, 1 point for a tie, and an extra awarded to the winner of the shootout.

Narrowing the net could open things up a bit. I'd be alright watching that. It does not change the fundamentals again.

Anything to open the ice surface up. I love watching international competition ont he big ice. The 2006 and 2002 Olympics were a joy to watch (except Canada's results in '06).

Avatar
#7 MattL
August 18 2010, 07:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

When will they go to a 3-2-1 points system for games? It makes zero sense that some games have more points on the line than others. This one is a no-brainer.

Definitely go to the 3 on 3 in OT. Anyone who's ever witnessed this will agree.

As for the shootout, I think they should follow the Junior model, where after the first 3 (or 5) shooters, you can re-use the same players. For every Marek Malik, you have 10 scrubs throwing wristers into the goalies' bellies. Jonathan Toews vs. Peter Mueller anyone?

Avatar
#8 Racki
August 18 2010, 08:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

Some of these rules are just plain moronic, and I have to wonder what committee of ass clowns even suggests half of these.

However, as a guy who played defense as a kid when there was touch-icing, and forwards salivated at the thought burying d-men in the boards on a dump in (previous to when they finally decided to crack down on hitting from behind), I am absolutely in favor of any improvements to icing. Hybrid icing gets a big thumbs up from me. Not a fan of no-touch completely, but hybrid seems to be a very happy medium and I hope we see it as soon as this year.

The faceoff ideas are just silly (especially the one in which you get to pick your faceoff opponent... uh.. what??).

Pretty much the other rules are either laughable or nothing that the game really needs. Aside from the hybrid icing rule, I have no interest in any rule changes they come up with unless it involves fixing the sometimes-3, sometimes-2 point games or removing the instigator.

Avatar
#9 eskimoilerfan
August 18 2010, 10:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

This is said with tongue firmly in cheek. Why not keep it five on five in OT and throw another puck on the ice after every three minutes, no worse than watching two on two. I'd like to see the TV cameras follow that.

That being said the only thing I would change is the awarding of points in OT and SO to the losing team. Perhaps that could be kept in place and then award a team winning in regulation three points instead of two. If failure is to be rewarded, why not also reward a clean cut victory. I'm sure it would make for more exciting third periods when games are all tied up, rather than teams coasting and hanging on until OT or SO for the chance to get at least a single. My first post here so please take it easy on me, I suffer enough being an Oiler fan living in Calgary.

Avatar
#10 Death Metal Nightmare
August 18 2010, 10:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

all these rules are retarded, just make the goalies get rid of their Couch Cushion Space Suit pads and make them go back to the 1970s-80s sizes and most of these lame ideas wouldnt be needed.

Ryan Miller during his post-game interview during the Olympics compared to a picture of him before the game started is absolutely ridiculous. the dudes a rail and it looks like his arm width is expanded about 8-10 times its actual thickness.

put these guys in the best "technologically" made pads of the BILLY SMITH era size and id bet Ovechkin hits 80 goals and scoring goes up overall.

"but it change the market too radically for increased production" at least there wont be stupid gimmick ideas being tried out that FAIL

Avatar
#11 dimensha
August 19 2010, 12:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
MattL wrote:

When will they go to a 3-2-1 points system for games? It makes zero sense that some games have more points on the line than others. This one is a no-brainer.

Definitely go to the 3 on 3 in OT. Anyone who's ever witnessed this will agree.

As for the shootout, I think they should follow the Junior model, where after the first 3 (or 5) shooters, you can re-use the same players. For every Marek Malik, you have 10 scrubs throwing wristers into the goalies' bellies. Jonathan Toews vs. Peter Mueller anyone?

Exactly, make every game a true 3 point game, so no matter what the outcome 3 points are always being given out.

3 for regulation win, 2 for OT or shootout win, 1 for OT or shootout loss

More incentive to try and get that extra point in regulation, rather than holding back at the end of the game knowing you are going to get at least one point, and possibly 2 because you have a team that is really good at shootouts (i.e. 07-08 Oilers)

Avatar
#12 Fist
August 18 2010, 04:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Fist

Avatar
#13 Woogie
August 18 2010, 04:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Putting more room behind the net, In Europe they have bigger ice surfaces. Do we see more wrap arounds? Even the Olympics use the bigger ice. I don't think this will create more chances.

I believe as a fan the shoot out was the best rule change. How many people out there want it to go to a shoot out when the game goes into overtime???? I know I do. Put it to 5 players for the first round. WHY THE HECK NOT?!?!

Having a whistle start the play has to be the stupidest rule ever.

However, I do agree with you, I wish they would look at getting rid of the instigator rule!

Avatar
#14 Ender
August 18 2010, 05:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

We'll miss you, Cousin 'Nando. All the success in the world with the Hawks. Unless they're playing Edmonton; then you're on your own.

Avatar
#15 Chris.
August 18 2010, 05:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Let em play three on three sudden death OT for as long as it takes and give the winner two points and the loser nothing.

Avatar
#16 Dano
August 18 2010, 05:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Nick Dynasty wrote:

One thing I'd consider is getting rid of the free point for going to OT (the "loser point"). I'd make it 2 points for winning in OT and no points for losing in OT. However if the game goes to the shootout, then I'd award a point to each team and have them shoot for a bonus point since the shootout is a coin toss most nights anyway. This way teams tied in the third wouldn't just sit back and defend for OT to guarantee themselves points.

Then they would sit back in ot and less goals would be scored.

Avatar
#17 @NateInVegas
August 18 2010, 05:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Only allow players to change on the fly!

Less coaching = more scoring

Fewer match ups AND longer shifts mean more mistakes... (I.E Goals)

Avatar
#18 SirFozz
August 18 2010, 05:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
@NateInVegas wrote:

Only allow players to change on the fly!

Less coaching = more scoring

Fewer match ups AND longer shifts mean more mistakes... (I.E Goals)

Have this rule in men's league. Hate it. Of course some of that has to do with being terribly out of shape.

Avatar
#19 Ender
August 18 2010, 05:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Jason Gregor

I agreed with most of your takes on the proposed new rules. There were three I differed on slightly, though:

1) The proposed OT format going 4x4 to 3x3 to 2x2: I like this idea. Not many times is it going to get all the way to 2x2 (heck, there's a lot of open ice and dangerous chances with 3x3) but in the event that they're still tied, why not go all the way? Can you imagine watching Ovechkin and Green VS Crosby and Malkin? That would be entertaining.*

*Edit: I've rethought this; see #30 below.

2) Moving the shootout from 3 shooters to 5: I don't mind that. While the current shootout is exciting as it is, I couldn't honestly tell you with a straight face that I believe the best team always wins. If it goes that far, the best team should win. 5 shooters would go farther toward making that happen consistently.

3) The proposed 'static' faceoff from the ice surface and the 12" penalty for jumping the whistle: It sounds really weird at first and is very non-traditional, but looking at it impartially there is something to be said for the idea. No more having the ref muff a drop. Every draw precisely, exactly the same. Faster and easier to start. Centers paying attention because jumping doesn't just waste everyone's time, it ensures that you are likely going to lose possession for your team.

I get that it's radically different. But is the ref trying to drop the puck in just the right way in exactly the right spot really the best way to do it? While there would certainly be a big adjustment period across the league, I think this might just be better for hockey in the future. Not as exciting, maybe, but certainly it puts the outcome a lot more in the hands of the players and a lot less in the hands of the refs.

Avatar
#20 Dave
August 18 2010, 05:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I know this is a business but Oilers showed no class by not even phoning Fernando to say they wouldn't be signing him. I wish him well. Thanks

Avatar
#21 Wax Man Riley
August 18 2010, 06:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ender

Good point on tht 2 on 2. That would be exciting. I didn't really think of it like that. Whou wouldn't want to see Crosby vs Ovechkin, straight up (or with Malkin and Green). Or what about Hemsky and Hall vs Seguin and Savard

Avatar
#22 Pajamah
August 18 2010, 06:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dave wrote:

I know this is a business but Oilers showed no class by not even phoning Fernando to say they wouldn't be signing him. I wish him well. Thanks

Yeah, they should call every UFA to say they won't offer them a contract. Get off your high horse, he's dime a dozen, and got paid millions of dollars to do something he loves.

He's lucky he was a UFA, or he may have been waived along with POS and Selfish Moreau

Avatar
#23 Cowbell_Feva
August 19 2010, 12:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Get rid of the instigator! No more Lapierre's or Sean Avery's embarrassing the game. I would love to see Lapierre playing 20 years ago and giving that jack-ass smile to Sement-head. The little fruit would need re-constructive surgery before his next game- and would never do it again.

The hybrid icing sounds ok, but the big issue here is that they would HAVE to paint a line across the faceoff dots on both ends. How else can a ref try and judge who is across the dot first, especially if the players are 5 feet away from the dot? Even then, I'm not sure I like the idea. I never want to see a Kurtis Foster incident, but I can only imagine the controversy that will come of it, especially with icing being such an important call.

4on4 then 3on3 I am all for. It would be like backrink hockey with the most skilled players in the world. 2on2 is rediculous-the ice is too big.

5 shooters per shootout I like. Its the most exciting play in hockey, why not throw 2 more shooters in the mix?

Narrowing the net...why not?

All the rest can be implemented in roller hockey.

Avatar
#24 PerryK
August 19 2010, 12:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

"Having the second referee located off the playing surface"

I see merit in this. The two referee system has not enhanced the game, IMHO.

The players today are bigger and faster than ever. The referees do get in the way a lot. Any thing to open up the ice is very much a benefit.

Avatar
#25 PhillipSmithson
August 19 2010, 01:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

The puck already on the ice is the best..humor-wise that is.

Instead of the Linesman having to blow the whistle why don't they just have the players tap their stick blades together 3 times over the puck. That's the way we used to do it as kids playing road hockey!

Avatar
#26 Mike Modano's Dog
August 19 2010, 02:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I would love taking one official off the ice. It is a joke now how many of them there are out there as it is, the players and pucks are running into them constantly. There isn't enough space on the ice so I would definitely be in favor of anything that helps that including putting a referee in the penalty box.

One rule I would change would be the size of the goaltender's equipment. It still needs to be drastically downsized. There is no reason for the pads to be as wide as they are for protection, and let's face it the length of the pads today are a joke, plain and simple. They've done a better job with the goalie's gloves and have improved the chest protectors but they need to address the goalie pants now, as well. The pants today have an inside belt, as well as the outer belt. That way the goalies can just fasten the inner belt and leave the outer belt totally loose, which allows the pant to take up the full width. With the size of today's oversized goalie pants they are roughly twice the width that the goalie actually is. They order them oversized for that purpose.

I played goalie and will always be a goalie at heart. It is because of my love for the position that I want to see these changes. I want to see the goalies have to move to make the save again. If you watch the old games, from the 70s and even the early 80s those goalies had to move to make every save, up high especially. Now they just tilt their equipment slightly to deflect it where they want to because they know it is going to hit their equipment somewhere. Not at all as exciting or as skilled as it was.

Avatar
#27 Dave Z
August 19 2010, 07:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I like the hybrid icing rule and the OT change, but just play five minutes of 4-on-4 then five minutes of 3-on-3 before going to the dreaded shootout. What the NHL should have done in order to open up the game was mandate all new arenas being built back in the 90's to have room for a 200x100 ice surface. Bigger ice would create more space, lessing the likelyhood of dangerous collisions between fast, oversized players.

Avatar
#28 Panda13
August 19 2010, 08:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

A proposed change that was missed so far is the icing on the PK.

I am in favor of this one. Why should a team that is short handed get an advantage to kill the clock for 20 seconds at a time? Just so they can get "fresh" players out? Come on, your team is penalized and every other rule still applies, why should you get a free pass on icing?

Not sure if it would increase overall goal scoring. I think PP% would go up but the number of penalties go down...cuz nobody wants to put their team in that situation too many times....and who knows maybe we get rid of the Carcillo-type antics because the risk is too high. Both to the team and the player....can you really see coaches letting you play if you keep costing goals with bad penalties?

Other changes I am in favor of include hybrid icing, 3 points for a reg win, 80s size pads for goalies, changing shoulder / elbow pads for players to have a somewhat padded exterior (or at least lets look at how hitting with todays shoulder pads might have increased concussions vs hitting with the ones that were worn in the 80s) and dumping the instigator rule.

Avatar
#29 Rick
August 19 2010, 09:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I like the idea of the faceoff starting with the puck already on the ice but I think instead of a blowing the whistle to start the play the centers should do the 1,2,3 stick slap.

Atleast there is some history behind that idea. Big deal if it's road hockey history.

As for the 'not changing after an offside' rule, instead of half assing these rules why don't they go full beer league and allow shift on the fly only?

Geez louise who's coming up with these ideas?

Avatar
#30 Ender
August 19 2010, 09:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Wax Man Riley wrote:

@ Ender

Good point on tht 2 on 2. That would be exciting. I didn't really think of it like that. Whou wouldn't want to see Crosby vs Ovechkin, straight up (or with Malkin and Green). Or what about Hemsky and Hall vs Seguin and Savard

As I reflect on it more today, I think I've given up on the 2x2 idea. Yeah, it would be exciting to watch, but . . .

Do you remember those old Sport Select ads where they put the polar bears behind the nets? That would be exciting to watch too, but not necessarily good for the game of hockey. The case I argued when discussing the shootout going from three shooters to five was that the best team should win. Playing 2x2 might be fun to watch, but it works exactly against the principle I just advocated. I think the 2x2 might have to wait for the All-Star Break and the Superskills Competition. It has its place, but not in the regular season. 82 games are for all the players, not just the team's two best.

Avatar
#31 Crash
August 19 2010, 09:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Mark me down for increasing the OT to 10 minutes with half of it 4 on 4 and the other half of it 3 on 3. Or 9 minutes whichever they want but I like 10.

Heck even if they just want to keep it 4 on 4, as long as they increase OT to 10 minutes before going to the shootout.

Avatar
#32 thunderbirdiv17
August 19 2010, 09:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I have a couple of problems with the hybrid rule, if they are doing it to stop injuries what happens when the forward is to the dot just before the defender and the linesman doesn't blow the whistle. The defender smashes the forward into the board. If it is a tie and the linesman doesn't blow the whistle they both go crashing into the board. I don't see how this will be any better.And I think that this may lead to many controversial calls. As for the 4 on 4 down to 3 on 3 to 2 on 2 for your 3 minutes each, how do you stop the play to get the three players or down to two players. if after three minutes the ref stops play to go to the next level and so on what if one team has a break away and three minutes are up then does he blow the whistle to stop play to go down a level?

Avatar
#33 knee deep in it
August 19 2010, 09:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I am a big fan of easy rule changes. We really don't need anything dramatic as the game is pretty good right now.

One sublte change that can be made is to eliminate the advantage home teams get in the faceoff. Give the advantage to the team in the offensive zone. This will further punish teams who have iced the puck and penalize goalies who stop the play too much.

If you look at the top 20 faceoff guys in the nhl, their home winning % is 54.1%. This drops to 47.9% on the road. The advantage of being the last player to ground your stick is real and measurable. Why give that to the home team if you are trying to increase scoring chances?

Avatar
#34 Rick
August 19 2010, 09:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@knee deep in it

Or it's because the home team get's last change they get a favourable match up on the dot.

Avatar
#35 Ender
August 19 2010, 09:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Rick wrote:

Or it's because the home team get's last change they get a favourable match up on the dot.

While I like your thinking, I don't know if that can be it. Each team only has 4 or 5 guys that take draws and they're the same guys night after night. Running those same guys through the circle all the time, it wouldn't matter if you're at home or not. Can you really have your best face-off guy take all the draws just because the rules say you can put him out there? Your best face-off men might take an extra draw or two at home, but by and large I don't think those 'good' faceoff men take significantly fewer draws on the road. Overall, there has to be another reason why home-ice leads to more face-off wins. I don't know if it's last stick on the ice, but it's something.

Avatar
#36 knee deep in it
August 19 2010, 09:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Rick

I just went to NHL.com and used the winning % for the top 20 faceoff guys. In my mind, that would be the desired matchup - you put out your best guy.

Even those guys had a huge drop off in their winning % on the road.

I really don't know how much difference this would make, probably not a lot but it is an advantage. Why give the advantage to the home team who has just iced the puck? You would end up with a tired center who would already be at a disadvantage.

Why reward a goalie for stopping the play because he knows he has a better than 50% chance of winning the ensuing face off?

This change could decrease the stoppages and incresae the flow of the game. Isn't this exactly what the nhl wants? The beauty of this change is that casual fans will only be marginally aware of the change but be able to see its effect.

Avatar
#37 Abootzky
August 19 2010, 10:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I don't know about NHL rule changes but the TEAM 1260 should put in a rule against using Gene Principe as a guest host when the regular host is on holidays. YIKES!!!

Avatar
#38 Rick
August 19 2010, 10:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Ender

I think it's logical that the point Knee Deep In It made has merit. I just think that there is more to it than simply pin pointing it on 1 factor.

In taking a quick look at the faceoff statistics it appears to me that the biggest influence is PP vs SH faceoffs.

For the most part even the best faceoff guys are losing more than winning on the SH despite kicking the hell out of the opposition on the PP.

I suspect this is because when your on the penalty kill you don't have enough guys to allow one to jump into the dot to help scramble the draw.

It would be interesting to see home VS away faceoff % for even strength only.

Avatar
#39 pillage
August 19 2010, 10:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Why is the league not discussing getting rid of the extra point, now that all games are decided whether by OT or shoot-out there is no need for it anymore make it 1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss, end of story.

Avatar
#40 Pillage
August 19 2010, 10:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Oh Yeah, just go to no touch icing or get rid of the trapezoid, either of these will help reduce high speed contact into the end boards.

Avatar
#41 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
August 19 2010, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Aren't you on holidays?

I'd like to see these rules tried out in a some real games either in the AHL or maybe even the NHL pre-season.

Some are pretty stupid, not sure how exactly you are going to win a draw from 1 foot further back. I do however like if you make a foul that the other guy gets to pick who he goes up against.

The net one is interesting, just as long as the smaller depth of net doesn't lead to pucks bounces out without the refs noticing.

I also didn't mind the idea of the second goal line.

Avatar
#42 madjam
August 19 2010, 11:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Watched an Irish hurling match yesterday and seen no injuries develop from the sport . As intense and physical as it can get, believe it or not , they all had respect for their opposition and their own health . Biggest difference was in hurling they have next to no protective gear of any sort , while hockey suffers from injuries due mainly and in correlation to the equipment they wear . In hurling they don't even have gloves and, many players jump in front of an oversized baseball bats and hardball with reckless abandon , yet still no injuries , etc.. Only last few years some actually wera a hockey helment with a small face shield on it . The goalies wore no additional equipment as well surprisingly .

So wheres all this necessity to equip hockey players with all this armour ? They want respect start taking some of the armour back off !

Maybe they should build an upright above goal net and award points for slitting the uprights like football and hurling ? Might get a few goalies off their knees ? How about 3 or more points for a goal and 1 for splitting the uprights. That way we could see offence from more than just center of ice .

Also liked how hurling only punished flagrant excess hooking , tripping , holding , slashing , cross checking , while allowing contact of stick on ball above the shoulders , etc .. They made a point of letting mild infractions go unpunished and part of regular play . Rough game that hurling , but NHL could learn a few things from it . Only fighting and tripping seem to be severly frowned upon and drew yellow cards or expulsion .

Avatar
#43 Ender
August 19 2010, 12:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
madjam wrote:

Watched an Irish hurling match yesterday and seen no injuries develop from the sport . As intense and physical as it can get, believe it or not , they all had respect for their opposition and their own health . Biggest difference was in hurling they have next to no protective gear of any sort , while hockey suffers from injuries due mainly and in correlation to the equipment they wear . In hurling they don't even have gloves and, many players jump in front of an oversized baseball bats and hardball with reckless abandon , yet still no injuries , etc.. Only last few years some actually wera a hockey helment with a small face shield on it . The goalies wore no additional equipment as well surprisingly .

So wheres all this necessity to equip hockey players with all this armour ? They want respect start taking some of the armour back off !

Maybe they should build an upright above goal net and award points for slitting the uprights like football and hurling ? Might get a few goalies off their knees ? How about 3 or more points for a goal and 1 for splitting the uprights. That way we could see offence from more than just center of ice .

Also liked how hurling only punished flagrant excess hooking , tripping , holding , slashing , cross checking , while allowing contact of stick on ball above the shoulders , etc .. They made a point of letting mild infractions go unpunished and part of regular play . Rough game that hurling , but NHL could learn a few things from it . Only fighting and tripping seem to be severly frowned upon and drew yellow cards or expulsion .

We already have something like that. Go see the Rush sometime.

Avatar
#44 ubermiguel
August 19 2010, 12:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Shortening the net is a great idea. Easy to do and doesn't change the traditional 4x6 shooting zone. The cameras + guys in Toronto are pretty good at getting goal calls right if it bounces out.

Just go with no-touch icing. Call it the Kurtis-Foster rule.

Watching old games it always amazes me how less "protected" or "armoured" they were 20+ years ago. Ideally someone could develop upper-body padding that protects the player but also won't give opponents concussions.

Avatar
#45 RossCreekNation
August 19 2010, 01:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Just curious, as I've seen it put out there by an anonymous source (so who knows if any validity at all - Jason, Robin?), that Paul Romaniuk could be in the mix for the Oil's PBP man. Any substance there? Cause I hadn't heard his name in the mix before.

Also, Dustin Nielson is saying Dennis Beyak will NOT be the new PBP man. True?

Avatar
#46 dawgbone
August 19 2010, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

In terms of the face-offs, guys are still going to be strong to their own backhand, this will just encourage it all the time. The necessity of having a quality LH face-off guy and a quality RH face-off guy would be eliminated (just having 2 decent drawmen, regardless of handidness would be fine).

You'd still want to stack your wingers on the side you are strong on, especially if you've got a guy who can win them cleanly. Not sure I like this rule too much though, the middle of the ice would be completely crowded which would negate most good shots you could get off the draw.

Avatar
#48 Black Gold
August 19 2010, 07:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I'm going to go a little outside the box here.

Some of the things the NHL wants to do: -Open the game up to add more excitement. -Limit play stoppages for better flow.

Eliminate offsides. I'm serious. IMO, Offsides add less than they take away from the game. Offensive rushes are exciting.

Avatar
#49 cheapjerseycn
August 23 2010, 02:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Wholesale many kinds of brand jerseys, such as nfl jerseys,nba

jerseyss,mlb jerseys and so on. welcome to visit our store :

http://www.dhgate.com/store/instyle . and if you are interested in any of

the items, pls feel free to contact us. we will be glad to service for

you. email: cheapjerseycn@hotmail.com

Avatar
#50 Bombstradamus
August 31 2010, 05:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

bold

Comments are closed for this article.