NHL Rule Change Thoughts while following Olympics

[Barrie 900]

I don't like the larger ice surface. I noticed in the 2006 Olympics, all the defense did was steer the forwards to the corners, and on the larger ice, there's more ice to make up to get back to the front of the net, decreasing scoring chances.

I like the NHL dimensions.

[eva unit zero 271]

Some Rules I would like to see:

1. No-touch Icing

2. Instead of delay of game penalty for shooting the puck over the glass, change it to a situation where the defending team can't change similar to an icing

Instead of no-touch icing, make it an automatic delay of game penalty with the faceoff coming all the way back-similar to shooting the puck over the glass.

3. Eliminate the trapezoid

4. Allow hand passes in all zones

5. Eliminate Shootouts

6. Go back to the W, L, Tie format

7. Make the puck live after it touches the netting

Agree on all those points. One thing;

8. Mandatory shields

Specifically, I would say mandatory FULL shields. f*** Don Cherry and anyone else who wants to ***** about it.

9. Add two expansion teams and make the league four eight-team divisions or eight four-team divisions.

[Zetts 236]

There's only one rule change that I really care about. Get rid of that trapezoid. It's bush league.

Hey, I know, lets paint a hexagon in the high slot where defending players can't touch the puck. That would increase offense too!! /sarcasm

Edit: And hand-passes should either be legal in every zone or legal in none. But that one can wait.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Zetts

[ComradeWasabi 109]

Instead of no-touch icing, make it an automatic delay of game penalty with the faceoff coming all the way back-similar to shooting the puck over the glass.

Agree on all those points. One thing;

Specifically, I would say mandatory FULL shields. f*** Don Cherry and anyone else who wants to ***** about it.

9. Add two expansion teams and make the league four eight-team divisions or eight four-team divisions.

Uh...

Never gonna happen.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

IIHF Rule 528.

[Wombat 26]

In regards to the discussions about loser points... I agree that logically, it does not make sense to award teams fewer points for wins in OT, or award points at all to teams that ultimately lose the game. However, as stupid as it looks, it DOES actually improve the quality of play on the ice.

I remember that before the loser point came about, bad teams would do everything they could to simply get the 1 point tie out of a better team. The overtime period was horrible to watch. Now, both teams are guaranteed a point, so it puts a premium on forcing play offensively to try to EARN the extra point for the win. OT is now a very fun and competitive 5 (or less) minutes of hockey.

[brett 1,029]

i always thought no touch icing would be a good idea til i saw it.

theres a few chances i would have loved to see a race for the puck. a great hustle to negate an icing can change a game. it also seemed to slow the game down a lot.

shootouts are ***, even worse in olympics

point system is fine

keep everything the same. kthx

Edited February 22, 2010 by brett

[Electrophile 3,554]

Shootouts are ***? I wasn't aware inanimate objects could have sexual orientations. I learn something new everyday here.

[ltgator333 3]

I like the 'Crease Violation' rule, it seems like a way to cut down on goaltender interference, whether it's real or BS. That and a neutral zone faceoff > minor penalty.

I also like the size and shape of the goal crease, but maybe that's just sentimental...

[Buppy 1,720]

In regards to the discussions about loser points... I agree that logically, it does not make sense to award teams fewer points for wins in OT, or award points at all to teams that ultimately lose the game. However, as stupid as it looks, it DOES actually improve the quality of play on the ice.

I remember that before the loser point came about, bad teams would do everything they could to simply get the 1 point tie out of a better team. The overtime period was horrible to watch. Now, both teams are guaranteed a point, so it puts a premium on forcing play offensively to try to EARN the extra point for the win. OT is now a very fun and competitive 5 (or less) minutes of hockey.

I'm sure a lot of folks would argue that some teams sit back in regulation just to get the one point, then in OT to get to the shootout.

But besides that, getting rid of the loser point would mean even MORE of a premium on forcing play offensively. You have to win to get anything...

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I like the 'Crease Violation' rule, it seems like a way to cut down on goaltender interference, whether it's real or BS. That and a neutral zone faceoff > minor penalty.

I also like the size and shape of the goal crease, but maybe that's just sentimental...

That crease violation rule would officially end Holmstrom's career as an NHL player.

[Konnan511 1,736]

I like the no touch icing as it speeds the game up, and the point system as it just makes soooo much more sense.

[wingsnut25 10]

i always thought no touch icing would be a good idea til i saw it.

theres a few chances i would have loved to see a race for the puck. a great hustle to negate an icing can change a game. it also seemed to slow the game down a lot.

One of the leagues I played in had a form of no touch icing: if the offending team had a chance at getting the puck they would not automatically rule it icing, but if it was clear that the puck would be obtained by the non-offending team, they would rule it icing. I really liked it that way, but no league I have played on since then had it that way.

Edited February 22, 2010 by wingsnut25

[55fan 5,133]

Shootouts are ***? I wasn't aware inanimate objects could have sexual orientations. I learn something new everyday here.

That's because you are quite young. We old farts remember that *** also has another, totally different meaning.

There was this old show called "the Flintstones" and the end line of the theme was "we'll have a *** old time". No one wondered if the characters were having homosexual relations. We all just thought it meant that they were fun folks full of frivolity.

Obviously, shootouts (which are events) can't have sexual orientations, so it behooves us to look for another meaning.

The OP must have meant that they are fun features full of festively feisty frivolity.

Unless it's like "sick" and "bad" where I have no idea if something is good or not.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

The problem I see with no-touch icing took place during the Russia game this weekend. They were just trying to kill time to preserve the win and ended up firing the puck down prompting an icing call. The problem though, was that a Russian was 10 feet in front of any other player and absolutely would've negated the icing. Instead, the play gets blown dead and Russia had to take a last minute face-off in their own zone while (at the time) protecting a 1-goal lead.

I wouldn't mind the hybrid version of no-touch icing that's been kicked around before, but I don't care for the cut-and-dry version the IIHF recognizes.

[Wombat 26]

I'm sure a lot of folks would argue that some teams sit back in regulation just to get the one point, then in OT to get to the shootout.

But besides that, getting rid of the loser point would mean even MORE of a premium on forcing play offensively. You have to win to get anything...

I agree that teams will sit back at the end of regulation to try to grab one point, but they did that in the old W-L-T setup as well. It's been done forever. Neither method is good at opening up play during regulation, but the current system improves OT vastly.

We've already seen what not having the loser point means... there is far less forcing on offense. Pushing the pace will mean that you are more likely to make a mistake that the other team can capitalize on. Assuming the shootout means winner takes all, I think a poor team would try to hold out for the 50/50 shootout rather than push pace against a better opponent. That's what we saw prior to the loser point in tied games... they wait for the better team to get frustrated and make the one mistake they can capitalize on.

[Guest micah]

Shootouts are ***? I wasn't aware inanimate objects could have sexual orientations. I learn something new everyday here.

Petty, holier-than-thou bitchiness should be an Olympic event. Whiney white American women would totally take the gold.

[eva unit zero 271]

I agree that teams will sit back at the end of regulation to try to grab one point, but they did that in the old W-L-T setup as well. It's been done forever. Neither method is good at opening up play during regulation, but the current system improves OT vastly.

We've already seen what not having the loser point means... there is far less forcing on offense. Pushing the pace will mean that you are more likely to make a mistake that the other team can capitalize on. Assuming the shootout means winner takes all, I think a poor team would try to hold out for the 50/50 shootout rather than push pace against a better opponent. That's what we saw prior to the loser point in tied games... they wait for the better team to get frustrated and make the one mistake they can capitalize on.

There is little evidence that the alteration of the point system opened up the offense. The point system changed at the same time as many other rules intended to open up the game's offensive flow; giving credit to the point system and saying it would be back the way it was is ludicrous because there's absolutely no evidence of such.

What realistically should happen is one of three things:

1) Kill shootouts and go back to the old point system with ties

2) Keep shootouts and go to a three point system where it's 3 for the win and none for the loss until the shootout, and a shootout takes away a point from the winner and gives it to the loser, providing a consistent number of points per game.

3) Keep shootouts and go to a straight win/loss system, eliminating points altogether.

[drwscc 212]

Petty, holier-than-thou bitchiness should be an Olympic event. Whiney white American women would totally take the gold.

I LOL'd

[Marty Barry 230]

Petty, holier-than-thou bitchiness should be an Olympic event. Whiney white American women would totally take the gold.

Change white to black and you're a racist. Anyway, something needs to be done with the NHL. This Olympics is the most exciting hockey I've seen all season. Sad.

[Broken 16 381]

I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but I think the 'no-touch' icing rule should be instituted ASAP. Especially if they are going to continue to enforce interference rules so strictly. Will help eliminate unnecessary injuries, imo. Sure, it's cool to see the occasional icing negation... but it's not worth the price, imo.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Other quick thoughts since I watched more games/know more rules.

Didn't mention the trapezoid area in my original post. That needs to die a quick death in the NHL IMO.

More on shootouts/penalty shots - Again I like them for NHL in regular season, they are fine as they are for the most part in current scenarios, I just don't like the current standings rule in conjuction with shootouts (the OT/shootout loss point). I hope they do not go to what the Olympics do to where you can pretty much let anybody shoot a penalty shot after a penalty is committed or going back to the same people over and over again. The NHL actually does better than the Olympics on shootouts/penalty shots IMO.

[beepbeep 3]

Rule changes? It's was already confusing having different a set for star players than the rest of the league and then the f***ers come up with that third set for Cindy. I'll NEVER know what the hell is going on if they start making changes....................

[Buppy 1,720]

I agree that teams will sit back at the end of regulation to try to grab one point, but they did that in the old W-L-T setup as well. It's been done forever. Neither method is good at opening up play during regulation, but the current system improves OT vastly.

We've already seen what not having the loser point means... there is far less forcing on offense. Pushing the pace will mean that you are more likely to make a mistake that the other team can capitalize on. Assuming the shootout means winner takes all, I think a poor team would try to hold out for the 50/50 shootout rather than push pace against a better opponent. That's what we saw prior to the loser point in tied games... they wait for the better team to get frustrated and make the one mistake they can capitalize on.

First, we've never had a system both without ties, and without loser points. The OTL point came in 97-98. I can't honestly say that I remember any specific OT games back then (regular season that is), but I certainly can't recall any season in the last 20 years or so being notable for boring OTs.

Interesting stats:

96-97, year before the loser point: 214 overtime games, 70 OT goals scored.

97-98, 1st year of loser point: 219 overtime games, 54 OT goals scored.

05-06, 1st year of shootout: 281 overtime games, 136 OT goals scored.

This year, through 62 games: 217 overtime games, 79 OT goals scored.

Of course, there have been many rule changes along with these, but interesting to note that currently, the % of OT games decided in the OT, is around the same as it was before the loser point was added. Also interesting that there seems to be a marked increase in OT games. (But I'm not going to check other seasons to verify...maybe it's just an anomoly.)

And of course, stats can't tell how 'exciting' the games have been, but that's sort of a personal thing anyway.

I still believe that the most fair method without ties, is simple win/loss record. Further, fairness should trump some minor 'excitement' factor, even if one could be demonstrated. And finally, for every 'poor team [vs]...better opponent' matchup, you'd see many more even matchups.

Penalizing teams for winning close games is fine in short tournaments like the Olympics, where you need to rank teams after only a few games, but in an 80+ game season it just isn't fair or necessary.

[jollymania 162]

good - trapezoid, 10 min OT before SO

bad - head hit rule, no touch icing (though that race to the dot stuff sounds alright) provided you are allowed to hit once the two players hit the dot (if im understanding the rule correctly)

Edited February 25, 2010 by jollymania