Adrian Pereira’s Top 10 New NHL Rule Ideas
Attention: League GMs, NHL Competition Committee, players, media, and anyone else that has influence in the NHL. Consider this blog post an e-memo to the NHL containing insightful rule suggestions that should be seriously considered.
When I say “seriously considered”, I’m not talking about silly rules involving trapezoids. These are concrete recommendations that WILL make the game even better and more exciting than it is now!
In addition to my top 10 new rules found below, I’d like other fans to submit their ideas. To help spur on this discussion, we’re going to be running a little contest here. Submit a new NHL rule idea and you could win a pair of tickets to a men’s Olympic hockey game! All eligible entries must be unique - Variations of ideas that have already been submitted are welcome but are NOT eligible to win. There will be multiple winners as voted on by your team here at HockeyDraft.ca. Good luck and have fun!
Now without further adieu, here are my Top 10 NHL Rule Recommendations :
1. If two teams are tied for the final playoff spot (8th in the conference) at the end of the regular season, they will square off in a 1 game playoff-like elimination to determine who makes the post-season. How exciting would that be? If four teams are tied for the final spot, then there will be two one-game eliminators played. If there is an odd number, then the leading team (according to the currently rules) will get a bye. I also propose that these elimination games be played at a neutral, non-NHL city (such as Winnipeg or Victoria). This would be a treat for fans of non-NHL cities.
2. During a delayed penalty, currently the play stops when the penalized team gains possession. This is a gray area as sometimes a team touches the puck and the play is called while other times it’s not. I propose changing the rule so that the play is not called until the penalized team gets the puck past the opposition’s icing line. This will force the team getting the penalty to really gain possession and fire it down to stop the play.
3. If a player clears the puck directly over the boards in the defensive zone, instead of a 2-minute penalty for delay of game, their team will instead lose their timeout (which is kind of like a delay to the game). If the team has already used/lost their timeout, then it is a 2-minute penalty.
4. All goals off the skate or deliberately kicked count as a legal goal. Why not?! You are allowed to score goals with your head in soccer… and those are usually the most beautiful goals too! Allowing goals to be scored by kicking it in would eliminate any gray area and also allow for some pretty slick plays.
5. I don’t think having 3 shooters in a shootout is enough. I’d like to see it increased to 5. Also, I think it would be fun to see new players on a team shoot rather than the typical group. Therefore a player can’t shoot if they took a shot in the team’s previous shootout. This would add some coaching strategy as well.
6. Players may not like this next rule change as it involves more travel. I think that we should increase the number of games against teams outside of your division and reduce the number of games against teams inside your division. Currently, you play 6 games against teams in your division, 4 games against teams in your conference but outside of your division, and 1 game against teams from the other conference (and three of those teams you play twice). I’d prefer to see teams play 5 divisional games, 3 intra-conference games and 2 against teams outside your conference. This will allow fans to see guys like Ovie and Sid the Kid more often in the West. This will also reduce the NHL schedule down to 80 games per team - a good round number.
7. If a goal is shot in right when the net is being nudged off, and the net being dislodged had no impact on the goal being scored (in the opinion of the ref), then the goal should stand. There are so many times when a goal has been waived off because the net slightly lifted off its moorings even though this movement didn’t play a factor in the goal.
8. Get rid of the blood = 4 minute penalty rule. The fact of the matter is some people bleed easier than others. Next thing you know guys will be hiding razor blades to cut themselves like in WWE (ok, maybe that’s a stretch and I probably shouldn’t be putting ideas into Avery’s head)… but I think a double minor should be up to the ref, not the skin.
9. I’ve seen a few occasions in which a player takes a penalty in the dying seconds of overtime, with no subsequent consequence, because the game is going into a shootout. Currently, you can slash, trip or do anything (other than something that would warrant a suspension) without really paying the consequences within that game. I think it would make more sense that if you took a penalty in overtime, and there is less time left on the clock than in your penalty, you should not be allowed to take a penalty shot (because technically, you’d still be in the penalty box!).
10. The kid inside me requests this next rule change. Bring back the octopus in Detroit! Bring back the rats in Florida! I like these traditions – they add some fun to the game. I can understand why these types of actions can be considered dangerous, but I’m sure teams can develop processes / quick clean up procedures in order to minimize any risks. Fining or awarding delay of game penalties doesn’t really make sense. Montreal and Toronto fans are everywhere – they can walk into another city and cause delay of game penalties to the home team… I’m not sure if it has happened, but I’m sure it could! I think the NHL can “control” it and have 5 or so charity nights per team where they are sold harmless things to throw on the ice. All proceeds from these “rats” or “whales” or whatever you’d like go to the team’s official charity.
… and there you have it! If you like these or any of the submitted comments, digg and tweet away! We need all the exposure we can get. Suggest your own rule idea now and you can win men’s Olympic hockey tickets! Good luck and have fun!
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:51 am
If a game goes to overtime and nothing is decided then no points should be handed out. Let the shoot out decide who gets the 2 points. Spliting a point each after the ot period makes no sense to me the game ,does not end in a tie. 2 points are still handed to the team that wins the shoot out and 1 to the losing team. Who ever thought this up was stoned .
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:04 am
I’d like to see the instigator penalty given to a player starting a fight after a clean hit. I’m all for physical hockey, but nobody is above being hit. You get caught looking the other way, too bad. The fights after the fact are just a waste of time. Fighting should be spur of the moment, not retribution.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:13 am
If the goalie leaves his crease to play the puck, then he should be fair game,
the goalies have far more padding than others thus making them less likely to be hurt.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:31 am
3 Points for a win
1 point for a tie
1 point for winning OT or shootout
Right now three points get handed out in every “tie” game if you going to hand out three points in some games it should be in all games
Three points = 2 points for “W” 1 point for “OTL”
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:57 am
All teams should be required to have hot chicks as cheerleaders! No tire biters need apply!
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:17 am
Each win should be awarded 3 points, then if it goes to OT winning team should get 2 point, losing team gets one.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:20 am
Modify the Shootout.
The end of regulation starts a 4v4 OT period.
After 4v4 OT comes 3v3 OT.
2v2 OT.
1v1 OT.
1v1 would be the equivalent of a shootout, with a defender. If one guy simply has better legs, his team will get a break-away and a shot. If he messes it up, it goes the other way. Line changes would be amazing opportunities to win the game. It re-involves the entire team in the final process of a game.
If it’s not sorted out after 1v1 OT, the game is an official tie.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:24 am
I dont mind the point system as it is right now, except for one detail. If both teams go into overtime with the score being 0-0, and it goes to a shootout, there is no way the losing team deserves a point. Last night Nashville lost to Phoenix in the shootout with the final score being 1-0. There is no way a team deserves a point when they couldnt score a goal in regulation or overtime, and lose the shootout.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:34 am
Wow this kind of make things interesting, creating a new rule for the greatest game on earth.
Well my suggestion isn’t new, but it would be new to the NHL.
And I will tinker with it so that it could make sense in the NHL.
It is time for this to be an option as it will prevent many of the complications on ice that currently exist.
How about in hockey a coach could call a challenge on a goal, a non goal call ( as long as there was a whistle after the play ) , or a penalty ( in this case there is always a whistle after the penalized team gets possession of the puck.
Just like they do in the NFL but really I think 3 challenges we be too many, the game can be slow enough at times as is.
Considering all the the times they are in the replay booth talking to Toronto
It needs to be one challenge per game.
I have seen too many plays this year where goals should have counted and they didn’t.
What is worse,
The Zebras didn’t even ask for a review.
There are four officials out there and I think they can get confused sometimes.
Recently The Philadelphia Flyers thought they had scored a goal Vs Long Island.
They were leading 2-0 and a shot comes from the point, and goes in, Scott hartnall the Net Hound barely touches the goalie. ( clearly no intention to hit Dwayne Rolonson ) Hartnall can be a little over zealous at times but he just was trying to create some traffic this time.
The worst thing was the Flyers did not get credit for the goal and Hartnall got a penalty as well, Kerry Frasor the Zebra ( a seasoned veteran official) who was right there said the play was legit, but the other Zebra standing up by the blue line over ruled it.
Sounds pretty brutal, The Flyers coach Peter Lavliolette was mad and rightfully so
Why didn’t The Zebra’s not ask for help, as they both differed on the ruling.
This was not an offside dispute it was a goal for crying out loud.
Where this challenge could come useful is on penalty’s ( they can change the game completely ) sometimes I am seeing calls being made because the player was injured on the hit, so as a result the Zebras give 2 minutes and sometimes 5 minute major’s I call these impact hit penalty’s. A coach needs to be able to challenge those and any other questionable penalties.
In the end a coach will get the option to challenge , if he loses his challenge there is no more challenges that he can make, if he right and the call is over turned then well he keeps that challenge flag.
The game will be better for this everyone was human, everyone makes mistakes, why can’t they be corrected more often?
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:18 am
To increase scoring, the team that is killing the penalty should not allowed be to ice the puck with no whistle. Icing should be called as normal and the team that iced the puck is not allowed to change players, just like the current rule. This would give the team on the pp more opportunity to score goals and make the games more exciting.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:24 am
If someone takes a penalty in the last two minutes of overtime, the overtime period should be extended so the team on the pp has a full two minute powerplay to work with.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
At the start of overtime, each team gets a full two minute power play. So the home team decides if they want to start with a power play or by killing the penalty. If the first team scores on the pp, the second team still has a full 2 minute power play to try and tie the game again. If both teams score or niether team scores during their power play, then each team has a one minute 5 on 3 power play. If it’s still tied after that, the game is decided by a shootout.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:44 am
When engaging in a fight, both players must remove helmuts or there is an extra penalty. No need for broken hands and cowards hiding behind a helmut and visor. If you’re gonna fight, fight like a man.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:45 am
Any team who finishes outside of the playoffs should all be entered at even percentage to get the #1 pick. This would help make things more even as teams would not longer be tanking quite as hard. Look at the Oilers, they have no problem right now losing over and over in hopes of getting the best percentage at Taylor Hall.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:46 am
Rule Suggestion #1: Point system should be changed to a standard of 3 points awarded in each game. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT/shootout win, 1 point for an OT/shootout loss. Other teams in playoff races are penalized by two teams going into extra time, it doesn’t make sense.
Rule Suggestion #2: Hand passes by the defending team, why are these legal? There should be a stoppage of play, and any defending player without their stick shold be forced to start the next play without one as well.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:02 am
This is not so much a rule change, as it is a change in the equipment, and a change to the way the game is officiated. Many times I have seen a clear goal be waived off because they can’t see exactly where the puck is, or the goalie or defense moves the puck ever so sneakily out of the net. All you would have to do to get rid of the need for “the war room” in toronto, or blown offside calls is to make it all electronic. a metal band inside the puck and a metal strip across the blue line and goal line would be an easy way to eliminate human error. Once the puck is fully over the line, the goal light will come on. If it doesn’t….NO GOAL. Simple. I’m almost certain there are already nets like this, but i’m not sure how accurate they are. A little money thrown at that problem and I’m sure it’d get solved quickly.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:55 am
A couple of ideas:
When a penalty is called, let the team that would normally go on the power play decide between taking the standard PP or taking a penalty shot with a player of their choice. This can lead to all sorts of strategy that could make for some really interesting moments in the average game.
More automatic suspensions without pay. Hits to the head result in instantaneous match penalty and a two game suspension. Hits from behind face more severe penalties.
Eliminate the trapezoid, the “delay of game” puck over the glass penalty and the instigator rule.
And please, NO friggin’ cheerleaders.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:17 am
They want more scoring so here goes…charge icing against a penalized team.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I would like to see the Shootout abolished.
Play a 10 Min overtime period. If Game still tied after 5 min of 4 on 4.
Then The next 5 minutes should be played at 3 on 3.
I have seen enough of guys coasting to get to the shootout.
Also don’t hand out points for losing.
Win = 2 Pts
Lose = 0 Pts
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:46 pm
1) No touch icing - This will prevent injuries. Rarely does a player get beat to the puck anyways.
2) Delay of game (non-goalie) - A player shooting the puck over the glass from his own end should not penalized the same as “roughing”, “tripping”, “boarding”. Change this rule to have same effect as icing (faceoff in own end, can’t change players).
That is all for now…
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
When a goalie gets a penalty, he is not put in the penalty box. The goalie should serve the penalty and a back-up goalie can be used as one of the team’s players during the course of the penalty.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
In regards to the trapezoid behind the net where the goalie is alowed to play the puck, I believe the rule should be inverted. What I mean is that the goalie cannot play the puck inside this area, but can play it outside of the area. Almost every goalie in the league can skate behind their net and stop a rim around/dump. But only a few have the skill and ability to be able to skate into the corners or area outside this zone and make a play. This rule would in effect do what it was supposed to in the first place, in making sure that goalies could not just stop the puck when dumped in and fire it out. All goalie right now still can go behind the net and dump it out. Also, it would prevent injuries to defenceman. The goalies who have the skill to play the puck outside the trapezoid area would be able to save their defenceman much more frequently.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Rule proposition:
If a team ices the puck two consecutive times, it results in a 2 minute minor as a delay of game. In the recent past Ive seen teams (ahem…ATL) ice the puck THREE times in a row to give their team mates a break. There is no current rule limiting the amount of consecutive icings a team can “use”. We will see this as a strategy by coaches if it is not dealt with soon.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
on a powerplay….the team killing the penalty is not allowed to ice the puck….emphasizes puck control and wil create more offensive zone attack on the powerplay….think twice about interfering/hauling someone down.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Eliminate the trapezoid, the “delay of game” puck over the glass penalty and the instigator rule. Unnecessary!
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
3 points for a win in regulation, 2 points for a win in OT and SO, 1point for a OTL and 0 points for a loss in a shootout
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I think both team should not skate for the puck, For an icing call. not worth taking a good player out of the game.
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:17 pm
1 - Instead of calling a delay of game penalty when the puck goes over the glass…treat this the same way as a icing. (the team which shot the puck over the glass cannot make any line changes and the face-off is within their zone).
2 - Penalties - the team that receives a penalty cannot change players and the face-off is within their zone. When off-setting penalties occur…no player changes and the face-off is at center ice.
3 - Create a zone in front of the net, where players can challenge/move each other, not including the goalie. (an obstruction free zone)
Those are my thoughts……
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
I like the use of skates for scoring proposal. It means a goal is a goal. Of course the obvious comparison for soccer is not headers but handball - which is illegal always, not just for “hand-of-god” goals.
I wasn’t even aware that checking goalies was illegal, once they’re out of their crease. Very unpopular with the other team, naturally.
My suggestion would be not a rule change as such unless you phrase it as a penalty on the clubs: Eliminate interference with the timing of the game from outside the sport during play periods. Yes, I mean television advertising that stops the game.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:49 pm
My rule change would be to modify the delay of game rule. if the puck is shot over the glass in the neutral zone instead of the team being penalized there would just be a faceoff in their defensive zone.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:19 pm
1. i would like to see automatic 1 game supensions for checking from behind, boarding, and charging. Thus, players think twice for doing stupid things on the ice. Obviously more games for more severe cases. This will eliminate more of the head shots being taken by players
2. Change the rule on hitting. Players must have elbows in when hitting if there is any motion of the elbow going up it should be a penalty ie mike richards hit on david booth
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I loved hockey when the players played like Guy lafleur and Eddy Shack and all the best old guys they played hockey the way it should be played all you see now is players that try to limb each other for a the knock out and permanent damage
to players.Guy Lafleur knew how to go with the puck and not kill anyone in the process..or Lanny Mcdonald..so just play hockey and leave the heads on each other…go habs go!!rule is play hockey not avatar!!
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Utilize the “usporstsman conduct penalty”. If anybody saw the cheap shot of Hartnell at the end of the game(AT edmonton) this is what I am talking about. The crap that goes on in games is getting ridiculous this penalty should be called several times a game but you never hear it any more.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:06 pm
I think goalies should be able to play the puck in the currant ” No play zones ” behind the net . But when they do , they are LIVE . They are like any other player . And can be hit and checked within the rules . Goalies think they can’t be touched or they flop around and look up to see the reaction from the ref.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:17 pm
I believe that the rule of allowing goals that are kicked in should not be allowed. I suggest that if the puck goes off the offensive player body it should not count. The game of hockey is played with a stick and puck. It only seams right that if the goal does not go off a stick then it shouldn’t count. If the puck goes off the defender, no matter what part of the player it will count. The reason soccer allowes goals off the body is because they use only a ball.
To help out with strategy with the coaches, I suggest that for all penalities, the team being penaltize has the option of not putting in a player in the box but to automattically give up 1/2 goal . If the other team scores then it would be a full goal. Then that would help teams that are maybe down 1 goal and end up getting a penality. They can say 1/2 and when play starts pull the goalie to try and get either 2 goals to win or 1 goal and hope the pressure will cause the other team to take a penality. That would still give the chance of OT.
I suggest that just like NFL football, each team should be allowed 1 challange on the refs call per period. Just like NFL, if you can’t have the call overturned then you loose your time out. Each team would be allowed 3 per game. If you use all your timeouts before you use your challanges, then if you loose a challange, it would cost you a penality. Then the coach can think of previous suggestion to either give up 1/2 goal right away or take a chance that the other team won’t score.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Call alot more diving/embellishing/holding the stick to make it look like you’re being hooked penalties, and no offsetting penalty to go with it. Not a new rule, but definitely put the existing ones to better use. In every game I see at least 3 instances of people drawing penalties because they’re good actors, NOT good hockey players. And call the players that are repeat offenders more often. Single them out, make them stand out from the crowd and look stupid….not to mention stand out to the coach after the team loses from their stupidity - instead of WINS because of it.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:44 pm
I’d like to see the exact opposite of what IT MAN proposes: allow ALL goals off of the body of any player. Allow goals that are kicked in, directed in, headed in, kneed in, elbowed in, etc.
If you can actually make contact with a speeding puck with a part of your body and purposely can guide that sucker in the net, it should count.
Goalies should be able to play the puck ANYWHERE on the ice surface.
Also, I think some of these are a little hard to enforce. The 1/2 goal thing seems needlessly complicated, for instance, as does the zone in front of the goalie to allow for “obstruction.” The last thing the NHL needs is to start enforcing new zones or complicated rules.
I’m also not all that against drawing penalties. I think there’s a skill to doing that correctly. Instead of calling more diving calls, don’t call any. If there’s an obvious dive or embellishment, play on. Don’t call the originating penalty in those cases.
In terms of NHL rules, I think less is more.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:15 am
Put a chip in the puck and the net so we know where both objects are at all times. An instant 3D model could be pulled up showing if the puck went in the net or if the net was off the moorings before the puck went in. We already do this with instant replay review so why not take this into the 21st century already.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:33 am
A regulation win should be 3 points ot or shootout win 2 points and ot or shootout lose should be 1 point. They must put more value on a regulation win . to many teams try to get that free point in ot instead of trying to win in regulation a lose should be valued alot less be in or out of rgulation.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:30 am
Id like to see the current playoff structure adjusted so that regardless of what division a team is in points will decide your seed, 1st place will host 16th place.. and so on. This will allow the best two teams a chance to fight for the stanley cup, which is what all fans want!. Peace.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:13 am
The all star game in other sports has a purpose that extends into the regular season or the playoffs. I’d like to see the East or the West win home team advantage for the final series of stanley cup playoffs. It would make the all star game far more exciting and talked about by both fans and players alike.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:26 am
The only major sport in which the All Star Game has any meaning is baseball and I’m not sure anybody talks about the MLB All Star Game for any other reason than the Home Run Derby. I’m not even sure that they’ve extended the rule of home field advantage for the World Series, but I could be wrong.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:37 am
In order to reduce the neutral Zone trap and free up time and space, disallow forwards from skating backwards in the neutral zone, institute an illegal defense penalty should any forward do so.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:38 am
I also like the 1st to 16th seeding, of course the travel could be AWFUL in the first couple of rounds NY NY fly to vancouver play 2 there and back to NY OUCH then by the way …..NJ won thier matchup vancouver you might wanna take this in 5 ….save you a trip. And before the uproar starts ….i know they are professional and get paid to play and blah blah blah…..but seriously on a plane for 6-8 hours every couple days for upwards of a month or so……you would get some pretty slow hockey after a few of those trips
February 4th, 2010 at 10:06 am
How about a 2-man shootout if the first round of shootouts don’t work? In other words if the regular OT shootut does not decide the winner, the coach sends out pairs of players against the single goalie in a shootout scenario. Adds another playmaking dimension to the SO. You could even add a defenceman to help the goalie on to make it more interesting.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:22 am
I would like to see the defensive zone blue lines used for icing instead of the red line. It would open the game up even more for the offensive players to create scoring chances. How many times do you see a long stretch pass from just outside the defensive zone blue line just missed at the offensive blue line that is called back for an icing call. It would also reduce the amount of injuries to the players racing to touch the pucks in the fact they know they will have to play the puck and expect to get hit. Speed would become an even bigger factor. I think this would add more scoring more so than changing the traditional net size which would be horrible for the goalies and traditional records.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Allow slashing to the stick. Who does it hurt? It would be a risk to play with a composite stick and you might see some strategy around using good old fashioned wood sticks and the fancy composites.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:46 am
I think when a delayed penalty is being called and is whistled dead, the penalized team is not allowed to change players, such as with the icing rule.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Institute a delay of game penalty for a hand pass
February 4th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
The last thing I want to see is pucks being directed into the net by anything other than sticks. If this were allowed we would start seeing specialized pads for rebounding and directing pucks. Players would be drilling pucks chest high at the front of the net with the hope that they will get hand redirected in somehow. You think there are a lot of head injuries now! Also as a goalie who spends a lot of time grabbing pucks on the ice surface, I have enough bruises caused by sticks taking one last shot at the puck. I dont want to finish a play with my fingers lying on the ice surface because someones poorly aimed kick just cut them off. I say keep the skills in stick handeling.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I like Sean Johal suggestions;
1) No touch icing - This will prevent injuries. Rarely does a player get beat to the puck anyways.
2) Delay of game (non-goalie) - A player shooting the puck over the glass from his own end should not penalized the same as “roughing”, “tripping”, “boarding”. Change this rule to have same effect as icing (faceoff in own end, can’t change players).
February 4th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
My two changes would be:
1. If a team is trying to clear their zone and the puck touches the Ref or linesman, which causes a turnover and creates a scoring chance the play is blown dead.
2. The rule of players in the crease needs to be called more often. (not to the extream it was a few years ago where if a player had a toe nail in the crease play was stopped) It seems the goalies have too much traffic in the blue paint these day’s, so the rule needs to be if a goal is scored and there’s a opposing player’s foot or more in the blue paint it’s no goal.
February 4th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
For every penalty that isn’t expired at the end of OT, the offending team gets one less SO attempt.
For example, the Oilers take a penalty at the 4 minute mark of OT and the score is still tied and has to go into the shoot out, then the oilers would only have two attempts, while the other team has their full complement of of three. If teams are tied after the SO, it goes to sudden death SO like it is now.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Assess an automatic Delay of Game penalty to any player who tries to get away with making a change on an icing call. If he makes it onto the bench - it’s a penalty. The spirit of the no-change icing rule is to keep the defensive players from getting a rest - dragging out the faceoff simply eliminates the effectiveness of the rule.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
For the playoffs I’d like to see the #1 seed have the choice who they play (out of the teams that make it) This could also work with Ken’s idea of 1 through 16 or just keep it 1 through 8 in each conferance. Each team would pick by seed untill all match-ups are determined. This would definitely spark rivalries and would also give more meaning to finishing higher. I bet San Jose and Chicago would love not to have to play Detroit in the first round this year. Give them the choice of Nashville/Phoenix/Colorado as a reward for their regualr season wins.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
now that teams can not change after comiting an icing i have noticed some teams have started to ice the puck again if they win the deffencive zone faceoff. most of the time when this happens the deffencive team doesnt even try to skate down the ice, often they head to the bench to grab a drink before the linesman returns with the puck. i think that a team should have a signal to give the linesman if they want the icing waved off so that they could make a rush unexpectitaly when the other team isnt ready. say a defenceman goes to touch the puck and sees that a forward is open at the blue line with know one watching him, he can yell or signal the linesman to wave off icing and make a quick outlet pass. this isnt a huge change but once a and a while it might work out.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Rule change #1:
Expand the width of the blue lines (making it easier to keep the puck in the offensive zone) by 6 inches.
Rule change #2:
On the powerplay, the offensive zone expands beyond the blue line to a newly created “Power Zone” with an additional line on the ice between the blue line and the red line.
Rule change #3:
Make the nets bigger, goalies are bigger now, so the nets need to be bigger too.
Rule change #4:
Put a camera in the crossbar of the net pointing down over the goal line and in each post at ice level along the goal line. Take goal reviews to the next level.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
i’ve been saying this for years….4v4 all game every-game.
A.) Rosters WOULD NOT get smaller….more room=more skating
B.) Players will be required to be more well-rounded
C.) Will get rid of goons who don’t belong in the NHL
D.) Increase SCORING CHANCES (not just goals) by a great amount
E.) Not taking away the who tradition thing…didn’t the league start with 7 players per team on the ice?
1.) unrelated to the 4v4 thing, get rid of three point games…to me you win or you lose
That’s all i can think of right now…Didn’t Lemieux lobby for the 4v4 years ago?
Adrian…I can buy your rule changes except for the allowing players to deliberately kick the puck in….i think that would lead to even more “lacerations” then we already have…also, for some reason your 2. seems a little awkward…refs just need to do use better judgement
February 4th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Players do drill pucks hoping to knock it in off of somebody’s body because that’s a perfectly legal play, though. And I think it should stay that way. Allowing pucks in off of skates and body parts wouldn’t change a thing in regards to the safety of the game, I don’t think, as the goal crease is already a hotbed of activity that could wind up cutting off fingers or whatever.
I don’t imagine players getting into the business of “specialized pads” or the like, either. I would think hockey will always be a stick-and-puck oriented game, even if other ways of scoring goals are allowed, and I think adding the element of directing pucks in with skates or body parts could add a whole new flavour to the game that would far outweigh any presumed “risk” to goaltenders.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I think there should only be one Coach behind the bench, this would make the game more wide open. I think the game is getting over coached.
February 4th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Lots of great suggestions so far.
I’m a little surprised at how many people want to institute more rules, like delay of penalties for hand passes (?!), that would make the game, IMO, more sluggish than it already is.
Also, Chris Moore, are you suggesting that teams shouldn’t have an assistant coach or defensive coach behind the bench?
February 4th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
I believe that there should absolutely be a rule that states even if a ref says no goal or a bogus penalty that a captain or a coach can and should be able to challenge it. Recently with the burrows situation, for example I watched that replay over and over (thank god for pvr’s). I feel nomatter what happened pre-game with the ref there should have been an opportunity for a review . I do not believe that all refs are right all the time and even tho they could say this would just allow delays in game all the time I do believe that they need to have some way of dispute.. so the new rule i suggest is this: Any coach who wants to challenge a referee call should be allowed to delay game to have the call reviewed. If after reviewed it is still deemed that the referee call stands and they feel that the coach used it unjustly as a delay of game they take a penalty then, that would at least make it so no calls are unfair to any team…. just an idea.
Not that i think this would be a rule they would use but i just sometimes believe that those refs seem to believe they have the POWER to do what they want and not worry wether it is a good call or not…
February 4th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
If you want to make a rule to change the game, then make a rule that WILL change the game. Changing something by 2 inches or 3 ounces , yata, yata, yata is not doing much so why bother? To quite a rowdy critic for 5 minutes? Not my style.
I say do something real. Put glass in front of the team bench. It keeps the puck in play a bit more and creates a nice aquarium environment. Penalize anyone that shot the puck out of play, and there’s another challenge to deal with. And line changes would be real screwy. You’ll have to have real discipline or risk odd man rushes the other way. That sounds fun.
Its not an old idea, just a new one, so what does everyone think?
February 4th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
If a team takes a penalty in a tie game with 60 seconds or less remaining in the 3rd period, that team should loose one shooter in the shootout if the game gets there. The reason is that basically the last minute of tie game is a free for all and there is little consequence for a penalty taken when a good scoring chance is occuring and there is 20 seconds left in the game. Its a no brainer, take the penalty.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
If a game is t called off due to anything (lighting problems and that) both teams gain one point and they game is counted as an OT loss for both teams.
If your rink aint up to snuff, get it fixed.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Cora’s suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. Coaching staff should have one challenge per game that they can use on any call, whether it’s a penalty or a goal call. The play should be sent to Toronto and scrutinized using a clearly defined process that is transparent for everyone and a decision should be made based on that. I like the idea a lot.
Ammo, not sure how things would work with glass in front of the team benches. How would people change lines? Everyone would have to use the door? No more hopping over the boards? No more quick changes? Wouldn’t that stall things to an incredible degree and slow the game down to a crawl?
And Shane, wow. That’s a pretty harsh position and I can see a lot of people unrelated to the game of hockey losing their jobs for that one. Arenas aren’t just for hockey, as other sports and events take place in them. Why should a hockey team have to pay for the maintenance or power issues of a corporation owning a building? Doesn’t make sense to me.
One of the themes I disagree with here is that of more penalties in the game of hockey. Things are overblown enough. Do we really think Colin Campbell and Gary Bettman can handle even more complications thrown in the NHL rulebook? I think the best way to change the game is to streamline things to open things up for the players to be more creative out there.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
I’d also like to continue to challenge the notion that pucks being kicked in the net would lead to more lacerations. This simply makes no sense. And, just for fun, let’s add a qualifier to the rule that keeps players out of the blue paint.
Goalies stand just as much risk getting cut or lacerated in a crowded crease with sticks and skates flying everywhere now as they would if kicked-in goals were allowed. There’s simply no logical reason to think otherwise.
The rule on the issue now still allows for a lot of levity in regards to skate-puck contact. There are a lot of strange calls about whether a puck was “directed in” or whether someone “turned his skate.” I think eliminating that sort of lame guesswork could be really good for the pace and feel of the game. And, again, I don’t think any “risk” associated with implemented the change is going to be all that significant.
Another qualifier to add to this rule is that a player cannot intentionally drop his stick. In light of this, imagine the excitement of a skilled player having lost his stick up ice but maintaining puck control with his feet as he streaks in on a breakaway. As it is now, this situation is utterly hopeless for the player. Implementing the proposed change about kicked-in goals unlocks a whole new realm of creative hockey that could really bring out some fun plays to watch.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Teams should be allowed one challenge per game in regards to penalty calls. Any call (missed call or phantom call) and anytime during the game. Decision should be made in NHL war room like the goal reviews. This should keep the refs somewhat accountable.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:44 am
No touch icing must be implemented. No brainer…
Would also like to see 3 on 3 in overtime.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:34 am
Oh, I like the rule change that exists in my mind! I would revise the rule concerning COINCIDENTAL MAJOR PENALTIES (RULE 19.2)
Currently if coincidental major penalties or coincidental penalties of equal duration, (including a major and/or a match penalty) are imposed against players of both teams, the penalties become offsetting and both teams will resume the game at full strength, five skaters against five.
In my NHL, COINCIDENTAL MAJOR PENALTIES RESULT IN BOTH TEAMS PLAYING FOUR SKATERS AGAINST FOUR SKATERS FOR THE DURATION OF THE MAJOR PENALTIES.
Four on four is fast paced, exciting and allows the more skilled players of the game more space to strut their stuff. For those that enjoy hard hitting and fighting (that is fighting for a purpose) in hockey, I would anticipate that those teams that excel playing four against four would be compelled to play more aggressive in an attempt to provoke retaliatory fights. I don’t anticipate the NHL would ever revoke the instigator penalty so those teams that don’t fair so well four on four may be less inclined to attack players for clean hits while those that do would be appropriately penalized for it (FOUR against THREE for a portion of the five minutes resulting of course). “Staged Fights” be gone, I think they would become non existent while the role of the “enforcer” (a valuable member of any team in my opinion) does not.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:40 am
A well-reasoned, well-argued answer. Nice work, Tanna!
February 5th, 2010 at 1:48 am
Thanks Jordan!
In regards to your previous post…
>>> Another qualifier to add to this rule is that a player cannot intentionally drop his stick. In light of this, imagine the excitement of a skilled player having lost his stick up ice but maintaining puck control with his feet as he streaks in on a breakaway. As it is now, this situation is utterly hopeless for the player. Implementing the proposed change about kicked-in goals unlocks a whole new realm of creative hockey that could really bring out some fun plays to watch.
>>>
Here is your example :o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EyJDXnZrYU
February 5th, 2010 at 2:38 am
Haha! Leave it to Jarkko Ruutu, huh? Fans loved it, too.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:21 am
A penalty killing team should not be allowed to ice the puck. Why give a team penalized team leniancy on a rule that is in force the rest of the game!?!?!
This would lead to more power play goals - and also, subsequently, more short handed goals - as penalty killers will have to take risks to get the puck out of the zone while maintaining possession.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:34 am
I really like the defensive zone blue lines to be used as the new icing line. I agree it would open the game up huge for the offense along with minimizing racing for icing injuries.
I also like the challenge rule where the team gets a penalty if the challenge is no good, but it may low the game down quite a bit.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:57 am
I wouldn’t change too much in the game, other than this:
- No touch icing (like they have in amateur hockey)
- Ban blindside headshots with a shoulder or an elbow (note, headshots should be allowed, but you can’t blindside someone with an elbow)
I would also change:
- Suspension decisions shouldn’t include the decision of the person hit (ie. If I hit you and you get hurt, I will get a bigger suspension than if you don’t get hurt) – some really bad stuff gets minimal suspensions cause a guy doesn’t get injured
- Even the schedule so west coast teams do a full east coast schedule each year – it sucks only seeing Ovechkin out here in Vancouver every 3 years
- no cheerleaders, its enough having some drunk guy beside me yelling profanities at the team, the ref and linesmen, I don’t need to hear him yelling obscenities at bunch of frozen women singing cheer songs, adding nothing to the actual game. I prefer the intermitted Guns and Roses or ACDC to get the crowd going.
-
February 5th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Penalized teams should not be able to make line changes for the 2 mins. They could ice the puck but have to leave the same players on the ice. This would make teams think twice before taking a stupid penalty and teams that did this would surely pay!
February 6th, 2010 at 7:44 am
After the 1st 5 min OT, 4 on 4, have a 2nd overtime 3 on 3 for 5 minutes. This rule gives each team another chance to win a hockey game as a team. Then after the 2nd 5 minute 3 on 3 OT then go to the shoot-out. I am not a huge fan of the shoot-out because the potential outcome is solely placed on 2 players-the shooter and the goalie and not the team and no points are allocated for the shooter.
February 6th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Have a 1 minute penalty for icing the puck and the player that iced it has to go to the penalty box. I think it would keep the game moving and give the tired team something to think about and not just blindly dumping the puck with no real consequence.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:46 am
think fighting majors should result in a five minute four on four. These would result in more goals and crazy, wide open end to end action more often during the game. For a fan, how could it get better? A great scrap and then five minutes of midgame mayhem! It would create true consequences for a fight, if you drop you gloves, both teams are going to have way more skating room for the next five, so you better make sure you put up a good fight and get your team pumped! Otherwise, your guys are gonna get murdered out there. It would benefit more elite teams with fast skaters, which is something I think Bettman is all about, and make players think twice before starting a fight, which is something else Bettman is all about.
I have a second proposal, that the final (eighth) playoff spot in each conference be decided by a round robin, NCAA style playoff, 8th against 15th, 9 against 14th, 10th against 13th, and 11 and 12 facing off against each other. It would only be four rounds, one game each, winner take all, stretching out over a course of eight nights. It would be insane, super intense playoff hockey, with last place teams doing their damndest to earn a playoff spot. This would mean that no team is ever truly eliminated from playoff contention, and everyone in the bottom 8 would be scrambling for home ice advantage, essentially creating an across the board end of season battle to get in the top seven, and failing that, top 11. It would also give the top seven teams in each conference a week off to lick their wounds, once again giving elite teams, especially the number one seed, an easy first round. But imagine the potential upset of some fifteenth place team, bloodied, but with a fire in their belly from winning four games in a row in the round robin, coming up and destroying the first place team in five or six games, what a story that would be! It would also generate a little revenue for bottom eight teams, allowing them to cash in on a few of the playoff dollars and maybe generate some fan interest too.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Players should be forced to serve the full 2 minute minor, just like a 5 minute major. The only reason they instituted this rule, as far as I know, was because the Habs had such a strong pp years ago. Lets get rid of that rule. Also tied into that, icing the puck should not be allowed when you’re shorthanded. This would force the team playing shorthanded to be more creative ie. flipping the puck out of the zone or maybe even skating to the redline and dumping it in. Let’s continue to bring the skill back into the game. Not only would this change demonstrate the skill of the pp, but the pk as well. Please note that I’m not suggesting, as some have here, that more goals is more exciting, because I don’t necessarily believe that. I’m stating that more skill is more exciting. If that skill leads to more goals, so be it.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Here’s one that will kill two birds with one stone. Change the offsides rule.
Make it so that any player can be in the zone ahead of the puck so long as the puck is not passed forward over the blue line. This will force defencemen to back up out of the neutral zone to defend against players behind them.
This change would increase scoring and allow for a broader American audience since offside is by far the most confusing rule to newcomers.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
how about if the ref calls a penalty shot the team awarded the penalty shot should be able to choose a 2 min penalty or the penalty shot, it could be a good momentum change for the team
February 6th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I think we need several rule changes to gameplay and off ice transactions.
1) No touch icing - too many players are getting badly injured in the race for the puck
2) Fighting - Helmets off! The player that doesn’t remove it gets an extra minute in the box
3)Video review - like the NFL let the ref see the video replay also, let him be the judge
4) Visors - mandatory, grandfather them like they did with helmets
5) Sticks to the face - 5 minute major, twice in one game a misconduct, ejection and a one game suspension for the offender
and this one for the GM’s who like to stack the odds - If you trade a UFA you get what you get but the traded player cannot re-sign with the team who traded him until the following free agency opens up (example Kovalchuk trade in 2009-2010 could not resign with Atlanta until July 1st 2011, if he’s a UFA at that time) this prevents teams from unfairly stocking the shelves (St-Louis traded Tkachuk to Atlanta 4 years ago for roster players, prospects AND draft picks and then he resigned with the Blues after the season, leaving Atlanta pretty depleted and nothing to show for it.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
1- keep the trapezoid behind the net, but allow the goalie to handle the puck anywhere. inside the trapezoid, safe. outside of it, treated like a 3rd defenceman that can be hit.
2. only the ref closest to the play can call a penalty. help cut down on phantom calls.
3. reinstitute the full serving of a penalty. if you get 2 minutes, you serve 2 minutes, no matter what.
4. no more regulation on stick curves.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
i think it should be 4 points for wining the game 3 points for each team in over time and 2 points each in a shout out and no touch icing
February 6th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Alright I still don’t understand how a shootout victory is worth the same amount of points for the winning team as beating a team 5 - 0.
Rule change;
Award 1 point for a regulation tie or overtime/shootout loss
2 points for a regulation or overtime win
1.5 points for shootout win.
February 7th, 2010 at 6:09 am
The number one rule change that has to be implemented is NO TOUCH ICING - it is insanity to continue with the current situation - valuable assets being risked for serious injury and thereby denying the fans of watching them while injured or worse if their career is ended.
Secondly, when a player receives a suspension, the team is NOT allowed to replace him during the period of the suspension. If some of these recent head shots and hitting from behind result in a team having to play with less than the standard number of players, then perhaps the TEAM will start exerting more influence to eliminate these cheap shots.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Bring back the Avery rule…Let’s face it (pun intended), he’s a genius for thinking of it.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:18 am
A glove hand pass should be allowed anywhere on the ice, not just the defensive zone.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:19 am
If a defender shoots the puck over the glass in his own defensive end, rather than receiving a 2 minute penalty, his team would not be allowed to change players or take a time out before the ensuing faceoff. This infraction should be treated the same as icing
February 7th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Rule Suggestion:
Take sliding shot blocks out of the game.
It would add offense and be safer for the players. It would make defending on the penalty kill a lot more difficult and overall I think skilled teams would benefit and boring, unskilled trapping teams that no one likes to watch would suffer. Sliding shot blocks are not really a traditional part of the game so I don’t see any point in protecting them. The goalie is supposed to be the one stopping the puck, not the other players.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Eliminate offside, too many times the linesmen make the wrong call. With PVR’s you can find at least one blown call every game, just eliminate it. The coaching strategy would be increased tremendously if you had a “goal suck” skating in the oppositions end when his team was behind, hoping for a breakaway goal. It would be higher scoring like lacrosse is.
February 7th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
I suggest a modification to the goal posts and cross bar to promote more goal scoring - The League’s primary objective. The tradional round posts would be engineered to an irregular shape with a modified interior post angle; this would promote a wider radius of shots being deflected into the net. Depending on the angle of interior post and crossbar, goal production per game would increase by converting post deflections to actual goals. There could also be a time and safety benefit. i.e less errant deflections and stoppages in play.
February 7th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
For teams in the SAME division (i.e. Vancouver & Calgary), have a 2 game home stand in Vancouver (not consecutive nights) followed by the same in Calgary at a later date in the season. This would promote the following: increase rivalry (playoff atmosphere), travel time reduction, exciting for fans, cost savings to team, and improve League scheduling logistics. Ultimately, the players would likely welcome the opportunity to have a break from their hectic travel schedule, which should translate into more energetic and exciting hockey.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
At the end of a season, the teams in each conference ranking 1-4 should be able to choose their opponents from the 5-8 seeds. The team who placed first in each division has first choice, second place team has second choice ect. This would be exciting to watch, strategic for every team and could fuel rivalries.
February 7th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
to make hockey more exciting taking a penalty should be more costly. eliminate the possiblity of icing the puck on a penalty kill and make it no touch icing. this would give the powerplay team more time in the offensive zone and get rested players on while the penalty killers can’t change if they ice the puck. fear of taking a penalty will make 5 on 5 play more free flowing as well. after all why should a team being penalized get to ice the puck while the opposition can’t and during no other time in the game can anybody ice the puck.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:33 am
I think the league should have 3 points for a outright win it works if there’s a tie at the end of regulation each team gets 1 point the there should be 10 minuets of 4 on 4 not just 5 or even a full period, then the shout out if needed giving the extra point to the winner of either. More minuets in overtime will end the game in a better way. And every team should play a home at home every 2 years.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:09 am
Hockey is a team game and I think it should be won or loss as such. The shootout puts everything on the goalie and a select few who get to shoot. I think the shoot out should be eliminated and the team with the fewest penalty minutes wins the game in the event of a tie. This way you win or lose as a team, and it might get rid of some of the stupid penalties.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Or you can blame the player who took the one penalty that cost your team the game, Greg. Or you can blame the ref for making a dumb call. Just what we need - more penalties costing teams games. Your suggestion doesn’t really make the winning or losing of a hockey game more about the “team” concept, as it’s an individual player who gets called for a penalty.
I honestly would never consider getting rid of the shootout. It’s an exciting, fun way to settle things and it lets the fans see the best players going up against the best goalies.
Nobody should be simply awarded a win or given a loss based on some sort of arbitrary ruling. Can you imagine all the problems that would come out of that? Penalties could wind up costing TEAMS a trip to the playoffs? What if a Burrows-Auger situation cost a team a trip to the posts-season because the other team won a critical game due to having fewer penalty minutes? Can you imagine the outrage?
February 8th, 2010 at 10:31 am
I’m not sure why so many people are suggesting harsher features for taking penalties. What about calls that are just outright awful? Why should penalties decide more of the game than they already do?
If anything, call less of them and just be consistent with the game’s officiating. Things should be cut and dry as much as possible so that teams aren’t winning or losing games and Cups based on the fact that a ref didn’t see a penalty or that a ref called a bad one.
Putting more of the game in the hands of the referees is a bad decision, as is including any more rules to make the game more complicated than it already is.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
If a team scores during a delayed penalty, the team should still be assessed a penalty.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I would like to see in the stanley cup playoffs one thing changed. I would want the first seed team from the west to play the 8th seed from the east 2nd seed from west play 7th seed from east and so on. The reason i would like to see this played this way is so that you could end up playing your division rival in the stanley cup playoffs. Division rivals are well known for being one of the best games around for example who would not love to see the ottawa senators play the toronto maple leafs in the best of seven, and then watching your most hated enemy lift the stanley cup right infront of you. I believe that would make the game so much more interesting. Plus i would like to see it this way due to the fact if the east wins the stanley cup everyone always say the east is stronger or vice versa, well why not let that be determind right from the begging of the playoffs??
February 8th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
NO TOUCH ICING
-The icing rule should be the same as international rules. Will save some unnecessary injuries and keep the game moving quicker.
STANLEY CUP FINAL - 1 GAME
-The Stanley Cup final should come down to a 1 game final. That way they can put together more of show…superbowlish type show. The post season is long enough…the players are worn out from fatigue and injury.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
In the playoffs, I think instead of having 1 seed play 8, 2 play 7, 3 play 6, 4 play 5, have number 1 seed pick the team they want to play. Then seed 2 pick, then 3. This will make regular season games more meaningful. The number 1 seed will probably not pick number 8 seed because that team is usually one of the hottest teams in the playoff.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I have read the initial article and most of the answers (who, other than the judges will say they read them all and not be lying… I might even question the sanity of the judges for reading some of the responses all the way through).
Anyways, I have seen many ideas, most not tremendously unique to previous hockey discussions, and most a change that would need the board of governors to okay prior to being incorporated at the junior or minor league level before it ever became a reality. I know everyone really wants to win these tickets, I do too - I live in Vancouver and am hosting this party, but cannot afford the invitation - go figure..
I do like many of the ideas, am actually a proponent for some… What I do think we can affect in terms of rule changes is possibly in the way shootouts are scored:
Right now, the NHL assigns the GWG tag to the shooter that effectively wins the shootout for his team. This GWG however does not appear on the scoresheet for fantasy hockey players, unless they are in the very rare leagues that manage to capture this stat. In fact, no goal scored in the shootout will be seen on fantasy rosters, or in standard hockey pools - its like they never happened… Well guess what Count Gary, they happened. They really did!!
So I propose that if we are going to continue using the shootout as a way to give everyone points, er, decide games, then the goals scored in that round should count universally too… Oh yea, and both goalies can NOT get shutouts in a 1-0 shootout game… You either let NO goals in to win, or you allowed one puck past you to lose, there is no in between.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
So in short, Ben, you’re suggesting the wildly revolutionary idea that shootout stats should count as a part of the regular season stats?
Sounds pretty straightforward to me and I’ve always wondered why the NHL hasn’t done that yet. I presume because they don’t really count the shootout as a part of the “game,” meaning that the game clock isn’t running and therefore it becomes a different animal when tabulating standings. Would you count the shootout shots as shots on goal, for instance? If a goalie then faces 7 shootout shots and lets in 3, for instance, would that diminish the goaltender’s GAA to the extent that a goalie can be a completely amazing player in the regular game but can totally suck in the shootout and still have his stats reflect his poor ability to stop the breakaway?
Personally I like the idea. But would you include a sort of statistical asterisk or something to infer that the stats were shootout stats? Or would they all be recorded as one and the same?
February 8th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Marcus, I absolutely HATE football for the very reason that there’s only one game to decide it all. I think that’s an awful idea to implement to hockey, especially after teams spend the first rounds playing Best of Seven tournaments. Would you suggest a scrapping of the entire Best of Seven round playoffs or just a single game in the Finals? If so, why not do it the other way around? Or schedule it where the first round is a Best of Five or something?
Honestly, there’s nothing better in hockey than the grueling, demanding series for the Cup. Why remove what is arguably the most dramatic portion of the year for hockey fans? Why rob the Cup finalists of the playoff revenue they’d inevitably generate?
February 9th, 2010 at 1:09 am
I am a realist more than a dreamer, Jordan… I fully support the discussion of no-touch icing, modified point schemes to better reflect regulation wins versus those won in OT or in the shootout, but that’s all they are until Count Gary and the BoD decide to test them out on the lower ranks… It’s moot, in my humble opinion.
What I envision is a rule that the fans can change as they see fit: Yes, No, Maybe…
The shootout is one place we can have an affect on the scoring within our leagues and pools… It does take some work on behalf of the commissioner and the league/pool because these sort of stats won’t be readily available… I guess that’s why we have great sites like this (one of my pools here counts GWGs scored in the SO). This isn’t something that you will find on your standard yahoo league. I mean, I understand that there has to be a GWG, but it seems just a bit arbitrary to make that the lone stat to count when the entire outcome is based on the shootout.
I do see where you are coming from with GAA and SV%, but who wouldn’t want to have their goalie hit that save bonus with some killer stops in the bonus round… It would make a scarce position maybe a bit more open as I wouldn’t want Kipper between the pipes trying to stop breakaways… Even Bobby Lu has his shootout issues…
It’s not perfect, but it isn’t black and white - there is a lot of grey area for fantasy hockey owners and poopies to play with.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:09 am
Wildly revolutionary? I thought the purpose of this exercise was to propose rule changes not create a means to pad pool stats and point bonuses for players. It’s a cute idea but the owners wouldn’t dig it and it doesn’t change the game play in any way.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:14 am
Make that poolies, as my mobile device autocorrected to poopies for some reason…
February 9th, 2010 at 1:17 am
And Tanna… Sarcasm doesn’t translate well over the internet, but that was wildly over the top in tomfoolery…
February 9th, 2010 at 1:32 am
If a player is serving a penalty or is penalized at the end of overtime they cannot participate in the shootout. If this is considered too harsh then maybe just the first three “required” shooters to start the shootout.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:06 am
There is one big rule change i have always thought should have been implemented instead of the shootout. I find the shoot-outs so boring why play a tough 65 minute game just to have the game decided by a series of three shots. What should happen is there should be 2 over time periods. The first overtime period being a 4 on 4 over time period being a 5 minute period. If the game is still tied after the first overtime period period go to a 3 on 3 10 minute overtime period. It is highly unlikely that the game would remain tied after this due to the open ice. However if the game does remain tied after the second overtime go back to the way it used to be and declare the game a tie game. 2 points for regulation win. 2 Points for over time win. 0 points of overtime Loss. and 1 for a tie at the end of the second overtime. No team deserves a point for loosing.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:19 am
The “point” of this exercise is to discuss new NHL rule ideas as part of this little contest we’re running. More than anything, though, the point is to have fun discussing the sport we all love.
The stuff we’re discussing doesn’t necessarily have to translate to pools or fantasy hockey and we are using a broader scale to pick the winners. Innovation counts, as does the ability to logically discuss the idea and offer good reasons for why it should be implement.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Truthfully, I came upon this too late and most of the more well discussed rule changes had been presented… and I am a fantasy hockey junkie and like to see that side evolve with and sometimes past the NHL game.
I’ve really liked some of the new ideas brought up in this thread, but I also like to think outside the box (or rink as the case may be)… Rule changes are supposed to make the game better, ULTIMATELY for the fans - and there a lot of fans that follow other teams more closely because of fantasy leagues and hockey pools.
If you look at one of the more successful sports for fantasy, baseball, there are stats kept from how many pitches are thrown to how many times the pitcher spits… Now I am not saying I want that in hockey, but I would like to see more consistency in what is already being tracked (i.e. hits) and more categories being included (i.e. SO stats). Note: Hits are one of the most arbitrary categories in the league - how do I know, because the announcers of every game around the league has told me so… This is a hard category to include in fantasy leagues as certain arenas score higher than others…
My suggestion of including SO stats in some form or another can be implemented on the fans’ level and the NHL, like it alway seems to have to do, can catch up later…
February 9th, 2010 at 9:26 am
I would love to see a 5 minute 3-on-3 overtime. Eliminate the 4-on-4, but keep the shootout after 5 minutes.
The BCHL does it, and it creates a much more open game when compared to 4-on-4, and leaves the players with no room for error. In 5 minutes it can have more breakaways than the shootout.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:33 am
I think Jordan Richardson is a soccer fan rather than a hockey fan. He keeps trying to allow kicked in goals just like a soccer fan would. Is it because he can’t skate and wants a chance at the NHL … not, There is no way I can see the NHL allowing kicked in goals. I for one will be emailing them to see about disallowing all goals that go off the feet.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Instead of faceoffs to start the game, have each team line up at their own goal line and place the puck at centre. When the whistle blows the game is on. Hey it worked for the XFL…ok maybe not.
Oh, I know, how about we make the all star game mean something so that we actually get some contact in there. Let’s give the winning conference home ice for the entire Stanley cup finals!
Better yet, we can have a third game on all star weekend in which the top Penalty minute getters compete. I’m serious, that game would be more entertaining than anything else on that weekend. Sean Avery can be the Captain. It would be great!
Lastly, I think there should be a new skills competition event that involves Gary Bettman getting a pie in the face…maybe like a dunk tank type thing, but players shoot pucks at a target to release the leaver. I guarantee you that would break records for viewership in Canada.
Mike
February 9th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Alot of good ideas on here that really have some merit.
What I would like ot see as a fan is more accountability from the refs and less ‘Phantom’ or poor calls.
What I would propose is similar to football and the challenge
Player A steps on the stick blade of Player B (we’ve all done this) and falls, ref only sees player go down and calls down the play for tripping.
Team B challenges the call based on protest from their players and it is reviewd by off ice officials much like our goal reviews today.
If the off ice officials deem it to be incidental contact and no penalty, the on ice call is reversed. If the on ice call is held up, a Bench Minor for delay of game is called and the penalty is now 4 minutes in length. I would think that with the risk of an additional two, teams would not challenge just to rest their players. They would hold out for moments when both the bench and the player are positive that the call is unjust.
And of course, back to no-touch icing. Minor hockey does it, the rest of the world does it, save the players put it in.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I would love to see the bottom 16 teams play for a “second” cup. Meaning if they do not make the “Stanely cup play offs” They would play for the “McNeill Cup” (my idea!). this way the fans still get to watch their favorite team a little longer and means big revenue for the cities, teams and NHL!!!
February 9th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I think you can find websites that have kept some sort of track of shootout stats. I think, if you wanted to go through the trouble, that you could tabulate those stats (including missed opportunities, etc.) and somehow come up with the more comprehensive look at the game that you’re looking for.
I still agree with the basic idea of including the stat in the game as a whole, though, as I think it would be interesting - and telling - to include that information as part of a player’s individual statistics.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
IT MAN,
I’m not really sure what you’re mumbling about with all of this, but it seems like you have some sort of personal vendetta against new things. First of all, this contest is about designing new rule changes and new things for the game of hockey. You’ll notice that my illustrious co-star, the one and only Adrian Pereira, suggests the idea of kicked-in goals in the initial post to start this contest on our lovely website here. So your first gripe had better be with him.
Second, you’ve given no reasonable counter-argument to not allowing kicked-in goals. I’ve laid out my case clearly and by using reason, whereas you’re just dropping by with little “insults” and other such nonsense. Do you actually have an argument against allowing those sorts of goals that isn’t based on some sort of irrational fear of getting parts of your body chopped off? C’mon, work for your Olympic tickets.
And third, this is all supposed to be fun. Live a little.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
JR… You are really forcing me to think about this from an NHL point of view, and I realise the dilemna they were facing when deciding what to track officially. I can also imagine the towel being thrown in “just make it GWGs and lets go out for a drink, Count”. And yes, I can capture all the stats I want, but shouldn’t the NHL provide that to me? Hmmm…
So, the question stands on whether the stats will be applied to the entire game, shootout included? If we were to take the side of for this proposal, another argument that would have to be fought is the final score.
Scenario… A game ends in a 1-1 tie, no team scores in overtime and the shootout begins. The winning team scores twice and the losing team doesn’t score at all, but the NHL scores the game 2-1. Well, should all the stats be counted (saves, shots, GAA, SV%, goals), then the final score should reflect the goals scored - making the adjusted final 3-1 SO… It shouldn’t confuse anyone, as long as the SO accompanies the final score, and why should it matter anyways? The winning team put three pucks past the goalie and that deserves to be recognized.
No asterisk needed if all the stats are counted… And if the league is serious with this bonus format being part of the game from now until eternity (or until the Count goes back to the hardcourt), then the stats need to reflect that.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Ben, I’ve been agreeing with you about this the whole time. You’ve got no argument on any of this from me.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
No worries JR… There was just some more things that needed to come out, and I figured out I was an all or nothing type of guy on this matter.
Good luck figuring out a winner from this thread, there are a lot of good ideas that are truly feasible… Later!
February 9th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
For sure, buddy. We should take the idea right to the Count!
February 9th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
2 ideas in mind. First, when a game is decided by a SO, if it is 3 players or 5 taking shots, it should be the top 3 or 5 that played the least minutes. This way, it makes things very interesting as the SO could last longer. Secondly, when penalties are taken near the end of a game or in OT, that player should either receive a 5 min. major towards the next game or a 1 game suspension. This will make the players think twice before taking a penalty for no reason.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Angelo,
That certainly is an interesting idea about the shootout, but I think you’d run into a rather significant problem in that shootouts would very soon be repetitive because the same players would always be taking the shots. You’d also have the shootouts being taken by the enforcers and guys who play like 30 seconds a game and I’m not really sure how fun that would be for anyone.
As to your second idea, I again have to say that I’m a little surprised at how much harshness there is pertaining to penalties. Why should a player be penalized beyond the normal penalty structure? Why put MORE POWER in the hands of the referees and give them more opportunities to take over games?
I think players DO think twice before taking penalties. Nobody wants to take a penalty. But I think that what you’d start seeing with rules like that is a whole lot of games and seasons being completely handed in the toilet because of a hooking call or a holding call or because someone put his hand on the other player’s logo. I’m sorry, but I just can’t see calls like that helping the game.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Shane, interesting idea. Would you have the “second Cup” run at the same time as the Stanley Cup tournament or after? Or before? And how long would you expect the NHL season to go? And should we really be rewarding teams for having shitty seasons?
February 9th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Mike, good ideas there.
I like the Bettman dunk tank the best, I think.
What about starting the game with the road hockey N-H-L triple stick tap?
February 9th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Eric, about the 3-on-3 overtime idea: what happens when a penalty is called? 3-on-2? Could you then pull the goalie and go for a 4-on-2 attack to have twice as many players as your opponent?
February 9th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
1) I think we should see more instances where a 10 minute misconduct is tacked on to the regular 2 minute minor penalty. Adding a mandatory 10 minutes for high sticking, elbowing, kneeing, charging and boarding would make those dangerous penalties a little more costly. Although the team would only be shorthanded for the standard 2 or less, preventing a coach from having access to the offending player for that extra 10 minutes, will cause other players’ minutes to go up. This could potentially cost the team over the course of the game, and if nothing else, would ensure the rest of the team keeps it clean for a while.
Adding the extra 10 minutes for other more common penalties like holding, hooking and tripping would undoubtedly change the game. A team being blown out could theoretically keep skating and drawing penalties, causing the other team to tire out along with having the usual chances on the power play. Increasing the misconduct to 20 minutes for multiple offenders within a game, would force the player to cool off and really give them something to think about.
2) Players with a no trade clause that ask to be traded, should automatically have to give up their right to their no trade clause. It is unfair for a player to get to pick their ideal destination while the organization may be limited as to their options. A no trade clause is a sign of faith on the part of the organization and should not end up giving the player leverage because they decide they don’t want to hold up their end of the bargain.
3) Along with the 4 on 4, use a smaller puck for overtime. One would assume this would increase scoring and would surely be entertaining. It would also give the players and goalies something else to practice.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:19 am
“It is unfair for a player to get to pick their ideal destination while the organization may be limited as to their options.”
So a worker shouldn’t get to have a say in where he works, in other words? Players have families and other personal options to consider. I understand the frustration that teams face trying to move players who don’t want to just go anywhere, but I also understand that players should have a right to play for a team that they actually want to play for. Trades are difficult on families and social connections and I think we need to be mindful of that before we go forcing players to go every which way.
There has to be some sort of compromise in place that allows players a say in the arranging of trades while still keeping team needs in mind. I think the current system is fine. Incidents like the Dany Heatley situation are bound to happen, but they actually don’t occur all that often. I think the option in a case like this should be that the player who wants out of a city or team simply gets out of it. In other words, if the player doesn’t approve of any of the potential trade options, the team should have the option to simply drop the player and his salary on the free agency list. The player can then use his agent to shop his service to different cities or teams as he sees fit and the team receives compensation indirectly as a result of not paying the salary.
Also, why not use the “smaller puck” for the whole game? Sounds like an interesting idea, but hockey already has enough PR problems without being known as the “team that changes to a smaller size” for OT. Seems like a PR nightmare for five minutes or less.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:27 am
This is a really interesting discussion. I was always of the opinion that most hockey fans wanted to see less penalties and more open play, but it seems that the recent rash of hits from behind and uglier penalties is opening up a more conservative side to the hockey fan. A lot of suggestions are coming in that reflect a desire to see more penalties and longer penalties, which is interesting to me as a hockey fan because I’ve always appreciated the opposite.
I’d rather see the refs have less control over the game and I’d rather they be more consistent rather than simply more active. Punishments for serious penalties should be handled on a case-by-case basis based on the severity of the situation. An elbowing call, for instance, isn’t always a Cormier-esque situation. Refs should be fair-minded and unbiased, not given the keys to a team’s playoff chances.
Keep the answers coming, ladies and gentlemen. Adrian and I will be mulling through these entries over the next little while and coming up with our picks. Remember, entries must be unique in order to win the prize. They should also be, as Adrian outlined above, up for “serious consideration” for the NHL. This means that they should be well-considered and thoughtful entries. The better case you make for your entry, the greater the odds you have of being selected.
Good luck!
February 10th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Not really a rule, but I wish they would go back to having the home team wear white, and the road team wear the coloured jersey. I sick of only seeing the same colours every home game. It is always cool to see the colour of the visiting teams dark jersey when I go to a hockey game ( Chicago, Boston, Detroit, etc. )
February 10th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
When they go to overtime instead of having a shootout after the 5 minute mark take off one player from each team so it will be 3 on 3. If after 5 more minutes take off one more player from each team so it will be 2 on 2. I’m sure if they do this it would end in overtime.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
For determining draft positioning, currently the is a Lottery for the bottom 5 teams I believe (you can’t move up more than 4 spots?). I propose having a playoff style mini-tournament for the bottom 4 teams and they have to win to get the number 1 over all pick. It will create a couple more games and rather than having a ping pong ball determine who gets TAaylor Hall, you have to play for it!!! The little extra revenue could maybe be shared amongst all the non-playoff teams??? Anyways I know injuries and insurance would be a factor here, as well as getting the players to play for free like the playoff bound players, but let me know your thoughts???
Thanks.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Hi Guys,
Outstanding participation on this post! A lot of great ideas have been generated. Who knows, maybe the NHL will take notice and implement one of these rules… you never know!
Anyways, because of shipping time and the Olympics just around the corner, we’re going to close this contest tomorrow (Thursday at noon PST). All eligible entries must be submitted by then. Further comments are more than welcome but will not be eligible to win.
Thanks again for your participation! We hope that you will continue to share your thoughts on further posts.
Cheers,
Adrian
February 10th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
JR, Good points. I think you would have to run it at the same time as the Stanley cup playoffs. I know that would create substantail scheduling issues, but we do have mulitple games each day during the season, so we know it can be done. As far as rewarding the teams for having a shitty season, i don’t know how I feel about that. I was looking at it from a fan/business point of view. I would love to see more hockey (greedy fan side in me) and I think it would be great for the cities involved.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
There is a rule I would like to see regarding staged fights between the teams enforcers. You know, the ones where they talk to each other before the puck is dropped and decide to fight. Put a limit on the number of times in a game that this can happen, say once or twice. After that game misconducts or suspensions are handed out.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
A team losing in overtime should receive 0 points but if a team loses in a shoot out then they receive 1 point. This way teams will play hard in overtime to get the points, especially when it comes down to the playoff races and teams are going head to head with division rivals for the final playoff spots.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Any penalty in overtime should be taken as penalty shot.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
I hate hits from behind, but has anyone ever thought that the person getting hit turns his back on purpose so he cant get hit?! well i think to stop hits from behind give BOTH players a penilty, yes both. now u may wounder why should the person getting hit get a penilty, well i’ll tell you why. because if he maned up and took the hit, there isnt a chance of his head hitting the boreds and breakin his neck.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Sorry Shane… I have no interest in watching a series between the Edmonton Oilers and the Florida Panthers for Stanley’s Jockstrap…
Logistically speaking, it is a nightmare… Also, the best players from the ousted teams already go to the World Championships and I don’t see them wanting to play seven-game series with nothing on the line…
What may be considered, if the draft lottery was ever on the chopping block, is to have a three-game series between the two bottom teams to fight for that first overall selection.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Player scoring the winning goal in shootout should have that point count in the standings.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Kurtis, I kind of like your idea about playing for draft picks. My only concern would be in how it could be implemented. Like some other suggestions, tacking on another series to the season can raise some logistics issues. You’d also have to do a little work to convince players that they were playing for the good of the franchise over a draft pick that could ultimately be a bust. It’s a bit of a risk, but a creative, thoughtful idea overall.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Taylor, that’s a bit of a harsh rule. Are you suggesting the possibility of penalizing a player with a broken neck or serious injury because he didn’t “take” a hit properly? Or because he didn’t “man up?”
Hits from behind are dangerous. Period. Blaming the victim is not going to curb the problem more than punishing the perpetrator of the hit, but it is the sort of logic argued by Bill O’Reilly and other scoundrels who blame young girls for being assaulted because they dressed “provocatively.” It’s a bit of a bold example, I know, but I really think you should consider what you’re proposing.
Hits from behind are bad enough and must be eradicated from the game of hockey. In my view, that’s job one for Bettman and Co. in the off-season. But what possible good can come out of punishing the victim or assessing a penalty over what amounts to turning in the wrong direction? Moreover, not all hits from behind result from a player simply facing the wrong direction or “turning” his back at the last minute.
Think about what that suggests: a player PURPOSELY exposes himself to injury. And, in your world, should be penalized for it.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:04 am
Get rid of the slashing rule where if a stick breaks its an automatic 2 minutes. We see game in and game out how easily these new sticks break so its time to do away with the rule. Another one I agree on with other posts is 3 points for a win. No other sports league has a system where a loss is rewarded, so if we have to award the winner and loser a point then 2 for a win, 1 for a loss in OT, 3 points for a regulation win.
February 11th, 2010 at 9:18 am
My suggestion for a new NHL rule is not an on ice rule but an off ice rule for rookies entering the league.
Rule: All rookies between the ages of 18 -21 yrs. must reside with one of the veterans while on road trips and at home. This would improve the game because young players would transition much better from junior hockey to the NHL. It would give them a mentor and good guidance which should help their careers as this would provide a stable environment for them. Perhaps a player like Patrick Kane would benefit from such a rule as it may keep him out of trouble!
Example: John Tavares is residing with veteran Doug Weight at home and on the road. I believe that by the NYI doing so they have Tavares’ best interest in mind and for a young player (and his parents, coaches, etc.) this must be reassuring.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:30 am
The thing with three points for a regulation win, or differentiating a regulation win from one gotten in overtime or the shootout, is that a whole new stratgey may be formed - down the stretch, for those teams facing elimination, the three points may be absolutely required and would force a goalie pull with the game tied even.
This would be an absolutely unthought of tactic even in the current NHL scheme, but could possibly be a regular occurance if more points were awarded for a win over three periods of play. Okay - regular occurance in the last weeks of the season.
Would this be more appealing to fans? I think conservative fans would not want to see something so dramatic take place, but perhaps this would bring in more casual fan due to the manic nature of that sort of end play.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Intent To Injure Penalty
This call may seem a little over board but it would prevent bans on things in the game like fighting or induction of no-touch icing.
During a game if a player takes a run at another player, or hits another player in a way that the ref figures was with intent to injure the ref could issue the penalty, resulting in an automatic game misconduct.
Anytime the Intent to Injure penalty is issued, the play will be reviewed by the NHL commission, and if it is deemed that the play was carried out with reasonable grounds to believe that the accused player was in fact trying to harm the other player in a way that goes above and beyond the object of our game, then that player will receive an automatic suspension for the remainder of that season for his first offense.
The suspended player will lose his wage for the games he misses, but the team will still be responsible for his salary as far as the cap goes.
(as a side note the wage that is forfeited could be used by the league to help charities in the respective cities)
Further more any player charged with this offense for a second time will forfeit his right to play in the NHL.
Though this seems extreme the league as with any other “employer” is responsible for protecting health and well being of its employees, and rule like this, after it had made an example out of a few players would work to send a message to players to rethink about their actions before committing to something that could change not only the life of the player they are about to hurt, but also their own.
February 11th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Scoring from behind the blue line = 2 goals
Goalie scores an empty net goal = 3 goals
February 11th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
So Vicky, you basically want to create a sort of “nanny system” in the National Hockey League. Interesting idea, but I see no real evidence that the practical application of that sort of babysitting service would make any difference in the world.
Let’s not forget that, while veterans certainly can impart their wisdom on a young player, veterans can also impart their bad habits. If a team wants to institute a mentoring program for draft picks, good plan. But we shouldn’t be setting that up as a requirement.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Dave, the intent to injure call doesn’t seem all that extreme to me. I like the idea. I think referees can utilize that sort of discretionary call and can use it to replace some of these other ideas about automatic penalties to certain hits or these other ideas involving tacking on misconducts for elbowing calls. I think the officials could use an intent to injure penalty structure to streamline the sorts of penalties called now and could implement that sort of idea quickly and easily.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Chester,
How about scoring while skating backwards? That should count for a goal and a half. And scoring with your eyes closed should count for 2 goals. Scoring an empty netter, though, should only count as half a goal.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
I think some of these point recalibration ideas are interesting, but I also think that a lot of them offer more needless complications. Why should we fiddle with it? I think it should be simplified: one point for a win. Nothing for a loss, obviously. The end. Period. No rewarding a loss, even if it is in overtime.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Just wondering when those ticket winners will be announced… I am excited that I am still in the running to even see an event in my backyard, and just want to know either way…
Also, the wife is trying to coerce me into driving the Coquahalla to Vernon to see the in-laws on GOLD MEDAL MATCH WEEKEND - please give me a valid reason to get out of that one!!!
Thanks again for putting up such a sweet prize!! Catch you on the flipside.
February 16th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
How about a 1/2 point for the team that wins the period. For example you lose a game 3-1 but scored your goal in the second while the other team did not you still win a period and get a 1/2 point. Win all three periods you get 1-1/2 pts. Make teams go hard every period. A tied period would be no pts