Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NHL testing new rules and rink modifications


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,367 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:30 PM

The NHL Friday revealed the various potential rule changes, rink modifications and strategic innovations that will be tested during the 2010 NHL Research, Development and Orientation Camp fueled by G Series August 18-19 .

* Hybrid icing rule;
* No line change for team committing an offside;
* Crease reset rule;
* Face-off variation (face-off controlled by whistle in place of traditional puck drop);
* Overtime: three minutes of 4-on-4; three minutes of 3-on-3; three minutes of 2-on- 2 followed by shootout (5 players per team).
* Bigger crease;
* Verification goal line (additional line situated behind the goal line);
* Wider blue lines;
* Line changes zone in front of each bench;
* Face-off variations (infringement results in the offending player moving back further, three face-off dots down the middle of the ice);
* No icing the puck while shorthanded;
* OT three minutes of 4-on-4; three minutes of 3-on-3; three minutes of 2-on-2 with long line changes; followed by three shooters per team shootout (if tied after three shots then players who have shot previously can shoot again).
* No touch icing;
* Team that commits an offside infraction cannot make a line change and face-off is in offending team zone;
* Face-off variation: after a face-off violation, opposition center may choose his face-off opponent;
* Second referee located off the playing surface;
* Delayed penalty rule
* No icing the puck while shorthanded;
* OT 4-on-4 (with long line change) followed by a shootout with five players.
* Variations of special teams play;
* OT 4-on-4 (with long line change).


Link

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#2 hillbillywingsfan

hillbillywingsfan

    Awww poor butch

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,486 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:35 PM

Link

* Face-off variation: after a face-off violation, opposition center may choose his face-off opponent;

hahaha WTF
msg-10491-1258682020.jpg


I LIVE IN TEXAS SO I DON'T DESERVE HOCKEY

#3 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,703 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:41 PM

Some of these sound intriguing, even if only hypothetically. Others are a complete joke and shouldn't need a testing center to determine that they'll suck in practice.

#4 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,367 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:44 PM

* Face-off variation: after a face-off violation, opposition center may choose his face-off opponent;

hahaha WTF


I lol'd at this.

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#5 SouthernWingsFan

SouthernWingsFan

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 24,609 posts
  • Location:Mandeville, Louisiana (Greater New Orleans area)

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:52 PM

I beg of the NHL to get rid of the intent to blow the whistle rule waving off a goal and the phantom interference b.s.

Either you blew the whistle before the puck crossed the line resulting in a no-goal, or you didn't resulting in a goal.

Interference will always be a judgmental call, I get that, what I want eliminated is if you "interfere" on a goal scored and they waive it off, give the guy a penalty for crying out loud. It has to be a black/white rule, either you interfered or not resulting in 2:00 penalty or not. And while we've seen it happen plenty with Holmstrom, this is a league wide problem. I can remember exactly a time when it helped the Wings, when they won at Chicago late in the season 5-2. Chicago was up 2-0, and it should've been 3-0 on a PP goal but Byfugelin "interfered". While I'm glad the momentum helped the Wings to 5 second period goals there, the "interference" call on Byfugelin was absolutely just terrible.

Those two rules I want changed dramatically. I'd also like the trapezoid eliminated, but I won't cry about it if it stays.

Other than that, some intersting stuff (no line changes for offsides, 5 shootout players which I've been in favor for from the beginning).

#6 Z and D for the C

Z and D for the C

    This is the TBL forum, right?

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,001 posts
  • Location:D, Michigan

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:53 PM

I didn't know it was April 1st.



Some of these are ridiculous.

Just cause you look like the gimp don't mean you play like the gimp!


#7 FunkedUp

FunkedUp

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 665 posts
  • Location:Detroit/Boston

Posted 09 August 2010 - 02:30 PM

No puck drop? Face off commence after a blown whistle???? That's ridiculous.

Also, 2 on 2? That would be quite the scenario.

Datsyuk/Lidstrom > Any other 2 players.

#8 13dangledangle

13dangledangle

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:Port Hope, Ont.

Posted 09 August 2010 - 03:27 PM

* Verification goal line (additional line situated behind the goal line);



I cant be the only one who finds this absurd can I? There already is a line there to tell you if it went over!

Edited by 13dangledangle, 09 August 2010 - 03:28 PM.

....Ladies and Gentlemen Jimmy "F%$*ing" Howard.

#9 blgillett

blgillett

    Stevie the one and only Captian

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts
  • Location:Ludington Mi

Posted 09 August 2010 - 03:41 PM

The whole thing is a joke! None of these will make the game better. Way to use the old noodle boys!
"He was standing there like a cigar store Indian" Mickey Redmond
"Holmstrom gets more attention around the net than a pretty girl around closing time!" Mickey Redmond
IPB Image

#10 CaliWingsNut

CaliWingsNut

    PeeWee Bettman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Location:Sonoma County, CA

Posted 09 August 2010 - 03:42 PM

* Verification goal line (additional line situated behind the goal line);


I cant be the only one who finds this absurd can I? There already is a line there to tell you if it went over!


You could have two lines the perfect distance as a game puck, and it would help. Mostly for video replay and confirmation due to the many angles a puck can take.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. - Mark Twain


#11 13dangledangle

13dangledangle

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:Port Hope, Ont.

Posted 09 August 2010 - 03:51 PM

You could have two lines the perfect distance as a game puck, and it would help. Mostly for video replay and confirmation due to the many angles a puck can take.





Sorry I guess I just completely disagree. I find that idea so ridiculously redundant that it hurts my brain to think about it.
....Ladies and Gentlemen Jimmy "F%$*ing" Howard.

#12 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 04:03 PM

I beg of the NHL to get rid of the intent to blow the whistle rule waving off a goal and the phantom interference b.s.

Either you blew the whistle before the puck crossed the line resulting in a no-goal, or you didn't resulting in a goal.

Interference will always be a judgmental call, I get that, what I want eliminated is if you "interfere" on a goal scored and they waive it off, give the guy a penalty for crying out loud. It has to be a black/white rule, either you interfered or not resulting in 2:00 penalty or not. And while we've seen it happen plenty with Holmstrom, this is a league wide problem. I can remember exactly a time when it helped the Wings, when they won at Chicago late in the season 5-2. Chicago was up 2-0, and it should've been 3-0 on a PP goal but Byfugelin "interfered". While I'm glad the momentum helped the Wings to 5 second period goals there, the "interference" call on Byfugelin was absolutely just terrible.

Those two rules I want changed dramatically. I'd also like the trapezoid eliminated, but I won't cry about it if it stays.

Other than that, some intersting stuff (no line changes for offsides, 5 shootout players which I've been in favor for from the beginning).

It shouldn't be black and white. There's two different rules you're confusing as one.

The rules allow a goal to be waived off if a goalie was interferred with, even if it's incidental contact that doesn't warrant a penalty. If you try to go 'black and white' either way, you're inviting either a lot more diving from goalies, or a lot more 'incidental' contact that's really intentional.

#13 Z and D for the C

Z and D for the C

    This is the TBL forum, right?

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,001 posts
  • Location:D, Michigan

Posted 09 August 2010 - 04:20 PM

Sorry I guess I just completely disagree. I find that idea so ridiculously redundant that it hurts my brain to think about it.


It would be a line only inside the net that, if the puck touched at all, would be a goal. It's not completely necessary, but it is one of the better ideas on that list.

Just cause you look like the gimp don't mean you play like the gimp!


#14 Copenhagen848

Copenhagen848

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 776 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:13 PM

It would be a line only inside the net that, if the puck touched at all, would be a goal. It's not completely necessary, but it is one of the better ideas on that list.


I agree, I think it's a great idea and would take any guesswork out of a questionable goal if there is a clear overhead view of the puck. I'm guessing that many of the people who disagree with this potential rule change don't understand the concept, lol.

#15 Barrie

Barrie

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,876 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:25 PM

I think the only one I like is no-touch icing.
Lets Go:
Red Wings
Tigers
Roughriders
Lions
Spartans
Pistons

#16 Original-Six

Original-Six

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:25 PM

* Face-off variation: after a face-off violation, opposition center may choose his face-off opponent;

hahaha WTF


Can he pick the goalie? lol

#17 seeinred

seeinred

    Teemu!

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,812 posts
  • Location:Richmond, MI

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:42 PM

* Hybrid icing rule;
Not a fan, though I would MUCH rather have the hybrid icing rule instead of no-touch.

* No line change for team committing an offside;
This would be fine if it was only for intentional offsides. Otherwise it seems a bit harsh

* Crease reset rule;
Is that like the old "Touch the paint and I blow the whistle" rule? If so, pass.

* Face-off variation (face-off controlled by whistle in place of traditional puck drop);
I'm not even going to dignify this one with a response.

* Overtime: three minutes of 4-on-4; three minutes of 3-on-3; three minutes of 2-on- 2 followed by shootout (5 players per team).
I still hate the shootout. I would much rather see 2 on 2 instead (but not both), at least that's still hockey (sort of).

* Bigger crease;
Yay, more disallowed goals! Seriously, the goalies are fine.

* Verification goal line (additional line situated behind the goal line);
If this is a line exactly a puck's diameter behind the goal line (and I don't know what else it could be), it's retarded. It would only work if the puck is completely level.

* Wider blue lines;
OK, sure, add a couple inches to the offensive zone. No big deal

* Line changes zone in front of each bench;
There's basically an imaginary one right now. I don't have a huge problem with this rule, but it seems fine the way it is.

* Face-off variations (infringement results in the offending player moving back further, three face-off dots down the middle of the ice);
Three dots down the middle is just stupid. I do like the idea of penalizing a player for an infraction instead of just throwing him out, though the way guys drift in as the puck's dropped would make this rule pointless.

* No icing the puck while shorthanded;
As much as I like to consider myself a traditionalist, I would love to see them at least give this rule a shot. At this point it's trite to say "Why should a team be rewarded for taking a penalty," but I kind of agree, at least enough to be curious enough to want to see this implemented for a few pre-season games or something

* OT three minutes of 4-on-4; three minutes of 3-on-3; three minutes of 2-on-2 with long line changes; followed by three shooters per team shootout (if tied after three shots then players who have shot previously can shoot again).
Same as before, either 2-on-2 or the shootout, not both. I have no problem with repeat shooters though. I actually kind of like the possibility, nay probability, that Pavs can embarrass a goalie multiple times in the span of a couple minutes.

* No touch icing;
I get the safety aspect of it, but hockey's a dangerous sport. I truly enjoy a balls-out footrace to touch up or negate an icing.

* Team that commits an offside infraction cannot make a line change and face-off is in offending team zone;
Again, make it intentional offside only. It happens way too many times in a game

* Face-off variation: after a face-off violation, opposition center may choose his face-off opponent;
A hilarious idea in principle, making defensemen line up for the draw, but how embarrassing will it be when you giddily select your opponent only to have him beat you clean?

* Second referee located off the playing surface;
OK, cool, whatever. What's he gonna do though?

* Delayed penalty rule
Ummm, isn't that the way it works right now?

* No icing the puck while shorthanded;
I feel like we've covered this already.

* OT 4-on-4 (with long line change) followed by a shootout with five players.
Whatever. Did I mention I hate shootouts?

* Variations of special teams play;
Make the PK unit play with their sticks upside down!

* OT 4-on-4 (with long line change)
Again?.

Agree? Disagree?

Posted Image

Crosby's Bettman Real Doll is going to get quite a workout tonight.


#18 WorkingOvertime

WorkingOvertime

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,314 posts
  • Location:Columbus, OH

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:52 PM

The whole thing is a joke! None of these will make the game better. Way to use the old noodle boys!

I agree. They don't need to adopt any major rule changes like those mentioned here. Hockey is already difficult enough for the average person to understand, and most of these only make it worse.

#19 hillbillywingsfan

hillbillywingsfan

    Awww poor butch

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,486 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:55 PM

Can he pick the goalie? lol

They should turn it into red rover.

red rover red rover send Eric Staal on over. i choose you to do the face off.
msg-10491-1258682020.jpg


I LIVE IN TEXAS SO I DON'T DESERVE HOCKEY

#20 redwingcapt

redwingcapt

    redwingcapt

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 239 posts
  • Location:Northville, MI

Posted 09 August 2010 - 07:00 PM

all those are *** except no touch icing...

what the f*** no puck drop, face off on whistle? is this like "n-h-l" street hockey scenario
To whom much is given, much is expected







Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users