• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Hockeytown0001

NHL testing new rules and rink modifications

Rate this topic

56 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* 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
Zeowingsfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* 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.

Z and D for the C and zata40 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

hahaha WTF

Can he pick the goalie? lol

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should turn it into red rover.

red rover red rover send Eric Staal on over. i choose you to do the face off.

This painted a crystal-clear scene in my head, which in turn made me LOL IRL. +1 for you, sir.

:thumbs-up:

Edited by SeeinRed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a "long line change" in this context? On the fly only? The teams switch sides for OT so the benches are farther away from their defensive zones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate the idea of no icing while shorthanded. A typical full two minute power play has about a 20% chance of being successful. Is a 1-in-5 chance of being scored on not punishment enough? I really think power play success rates would at least double with that rule, and there's no need to change hockey into a game where 6-4 scores are typical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a "long line change" in this context? On the fly only? The teams switch sides for OT so the benches are farther away from their defensive zones?

Long as in the teams will be attacking the same directions they did in the 2nd period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0