Ways I’d Change the NHL: On the Ice
4 years ago
With the NHL currently on hiatus, and it appears as though it will be staying that way for a while, I figured now would be a great time to look at some interesting ways that the NHL could change and in my opinion, improve.
Some of them are mild, some are wild, and some are straight-up weird, but what else are we going to talk about over the next few weeks?
To make sure I get the most out of this, I’m going to break this up into three parts. This is part one and it will focus only on ways the NHL could improve their on-ice product. Part two will be office ideas and part three will feature some more cosmetic ideas for the league. It’ll be fun and I hope you enjoy my ideas and if you don’t, well that’s what the comment section is for! LET’S DEBATE!
MORE 3v3 OVERTIME
I feel as though most of you will agree with me on this. 3v3 OT is the best and anyone who prefers the shootout over it should be arrested. Simple as that. Why are we cutting this thing off after just five minutes? I say let’s sound the buzzer after five minutes, have the two teams switch ends, and do it again for another five minutes.
The longer 3v3 goes on, the more chances there are for exciting plays and end-to-end rushes. Some players might be a little ticked that they need to play more but I think that most star players in the league would rather be given a chance to play more 3v3 then have an extra point decided by a shootout. At least 3v3 looks a little bit more like hockey.
DON’T CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE IN 3v3
Oct 24, 2019; Edmonton, Alberta, CAN; Edmonton Oilers forward Leon Draisaitl (29) scores the overtime winning goal against Washington Capitals goaltender Braden Holtby (70) at Rogers Place. Mandatory Credit: Perry Nelson-USA TODAY Sports
I hear a lot of people saying there needs to be a shot clock or an ‘over and back rule’ and while I understand the thought process, I could not disagree more with it. The reason I love 3v3 OT is that it is wide open and the action can be non-stop. Adding extra rules is a little bit unnecessary in my opinion.
An over and back rule sounds good in theory but what would happen if a team has an errant pass go all the way back to their own end? Are they not allowed to touch the puck in their own zone? Or does the over and back rule only apply if the puck is carried over? In that case, players will just start passing it back to their own goaltender and then skating back to get the puck. There really isn’t a good way to put in a rule like that.
A shot clock gets talked about a lot as well and that doesn’t work either. What do you consider a ‘shot’ that would reset the clock? Does it have to hit the net? What if a player fires a shot wide of the net and it goes back into their own zone? Do they have to hustle back and somehow find a way to get the puck on net in ten seconds? I just don’t think that would work.
For me, they should leave 3v3 the way it is, just put more time on the clock. Adding more rules only makes things more complicated and will lead to more whistles.
REMOVE THE TRAPEZOID
This one doesn’t need a long explanation. If a goaltender wants to wander far out of their net, they’re doing it at their own risk. Simple as that. I don’t see why we restrict where the goaltenders can go. It hurts the team trying to stop a dump-in and move the puck up the ice and it could be limiting offence.
More freedom for goaltenders will lead to more mistakes and more goals.
NO ICING ON PENALTY KILLS
Dec 31, 2019; Edmonton, Alberta, CAN; Edmonton Oilers head coach Dave Tippett is seen out on the players bench talking with Referee Ian Walsh (29) as they played the New York Rangers during the second period at Rogers Place. Oilers won the game 7-5. Mandatory Credit: Walter Tychnowicz-USA TODAY Sports
This is definitely my most controversial take but it’s one I really believe in. When a team breaks the rules and takes a penalty, they are also given an advantage by being able to ice the puck. I don’t see why the offending team also gets an advantage. I believe that the team down to four skaters should actually be forced to try and play the game.
There are a lot of people who argue against this just by saying “that’s stupid” or “it’s just the way the sport is meant to be played”. People hate change but when you think about the idea of giving the offending team an advantage to go along with their punishment, it doesn’t make sense.
There is concern that it would create a lot more whistles, which would not be ideal, but I believe that over time, teams would adapt and wouldn’t want to have tired penalty killers stuck on the ice. It might result in a few more whistles but I also think it would result in a lot more goals, which is a massive positive.
PUCK OVER GLASS PENALTY
A two-minute penalty for shooting the puck over the glass was never something I agreed with. The rule was put in the deter players from shooting the puck into the stands to get a stoppage. I still believe there needs to be something to stop players from recklessly firing the puck into the stands though.
Really, the only reason a player would intentionally shoot the puck over the glass is that they’re tired and need a stoppage to get off the ice. So, why not treat it as an icing? A penalty is too extreme but if you don’t allow a team to change after their player shoots the puck over the glass, it will stop players from doing it intentionally. Problem solved!
Got some ideas for how the league should change its on-ice product? Let me know in the comments! Want to just tell me that I’m wrong? Do that in the comments!
Recent articles from Tyler Yaremchuk
