NHL testing new rules and rink modifications

[sibiriak 84]

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

Thanks for the explanation.

[Echolalia 2,961]

* 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?

I agree with all of your assessments except the icing made illegal when shorthanded rule. I don't see this increasing the amount of scoring as much as it would slow down the pace of the game. I don't want to see a powerplay take 6 minutes to get through because of all the icings called.

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

* Second referee located off the playing surface;

Ok..i picture it this way. You guys remember the camera they have in the nfl right that is above the action on the wires and it follows all the action? Well i see them hanging a cage where the second ref can get in that follows the action. He would get a birds eye view of all the acotion on the ice.

"oh god...i think im gonna be...." :puke:

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

* Wider blue lines;

OK, sure, add a couple inches to the offensive zone. No big deal

If the blue lines are wider, wouldn't that subtract a few inches from the offensive zone?

[seeinred 1,488]

If the blue lines are wider, wouldn't that subtract a few inches from the offensive zone?

It would really depend on how they did it I guess (and your perspective), since the blue line is considered part of whichever zone the puck is in and the entire puck has to completely cross it to enter/exit a zone.

If they keep the blue line starting at the same point in the neutral zone and made it wider only toward the net (if that makes sense), then the offensive zone would be smaller when you're outside of it, but it would be the same size it is right now when you're in it.

If the keep the blue lines starting at the same point closest to the nets and expanded it only toward center ice, the offensive zone would be bigger while you're in it.

And if they keep the middle of the blue lines in the same place and add a little bit more each way, then each zone is bigger when you're in it and smaller from an outside perspective.

[dragonballgtz 273]

If the blue lines are wider, wouldn't that subtract a few inches from the offensive zone?

Goes both ways in a way...once you are in then it adds as you can play the puck on the line. Going in it shortens the neutral zone but you can still make a pass a little longer.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Goes both ways in a way...once you are in then it adds as you can play the puck on the line. Going in it shortens the neutral zone but you can still make a pass a little longer.

This I could live with.

[BigWillieStyle 662]

How could they leave out the "new and improved" glow puck.

And what's next, tap your sticks 3 times for a faceoff?

How about removing some rules instead of adding them. Haven't they already killed the game enough during Bettman's reign?

[blgillett 48]

I can see it now, ill take the fat bastard in second 115 row 25 seat 3!

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

hahaha WTF

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

I can see it now, ill take the fat bastard in second 115 row 25 seat 3!

hahaha or i want the d-bag in the all green outfit....no the lighter green.

(in nashville) i want the dude sitting at the glass drunk with the AC/DC shirt on.

also i have always wanted the coin toss in there somewhere.

Edited August 10, 2010 by hillbillywingsfan

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

All of these ideas are retarded. Dumb...Duh-umb!

[Tommy_Like_Wingy 25]

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.

Uh Lidstrom is slow as hell now. They'd get smoked.

Datsyuk/Zetterberg > Any other 2 players.

[Buppy 1,720]

...

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

Think dodgeball. Puck laying on the center dot, skaters all lined up on their respective blue lines, whistle blows, mayhem ensues...

It could be fun.

[edicius 3,269]

One of the ideas I like is the line change zone. Would definitely make too many men calls a little bit more cut and dry.

[wingsnut25 10]

This is my understanding of hybrid icing:

If the team is clearly going to get the puck, and the other team has no chance at it, the play stops and icing is called. But if two players are in a race for the puck, you let that play out.

I would be in favor of this rule. Seconds are not ticking off the clock for one person to go and get the puck, but it still allows the battles for the puck that I think is a big part of hockey.

Also, for the delayed penalty. The article does not really describe what they are looking at, but hopefully it is something along these lines.

If you score a goal while the other team has a delayed penalty, you still get your power play. This could be a simple way to slightly increase scoring, without making major changes.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

All of these ideas are retarded. Dumb...Duh-umb!

The good folks who run the NHL aren't exactly known for genius ideas.

[sibiriak 84]

It would really depend on how they did it I guess (and your perspective), since the blue line is considered part of whichever zone the puck is in and the entire puck has to completely cross it to enter/exit a zone.

If they keep the blue line starting at the same point in the neutral zone and made it wider only toward the net (if that makes sense), then the offensive zone would be smaller when you're outside of it, but it would be the same size it is right now when you're in it.

If the keep the blue lines starting at the same point closest to the nets and expanded it only toward center ice, the offensive zone would be bigger while you're in it.

And if they keep the middle of the blue lines in the same place and add a little bit more each way, then each zone is bigger when you're in it and smaller from an outside perspective.

Just paint the whole neutral ice blue and be done with it.

[seeinred 1,488]

This is my understanding of hybrid icing:

If the team is clearly going to get the puck, and the other team has no chance at it, the play stops and icing is called. But if two players are in a race for the puck, you let that play out.

I would be in favor of this rule. Seconds are not ticking off the clock for one person to go and get the puck, but it still allows the battles for the puck that I think is a big part of hockey.

I think that's pretty much it. I think it's basically a race to the face-off dot, and the linesman decides who would've gotten there first and either blows it dead or lets it go.

[55fan 5,133]

Make the blue lines thicker. Make the crease bigger. Lines thicker. Crease bigger. Blue paints meet. No offensive zone. Homer retires. Bad plan.

Seriously, though. Pick your poison for a face off partner sounds stupid. No puck drop is anathema. OT is complicated enough as it is. The icing stuff, I can see tinkering with.

Intent to blow needs to go- or at the very least the official must have been in the act of blowing, and an acceptable reason must be given for the intended blow.

Here's another one: competent officiating. Give it a try.

[Original-Six 254]

The NHL is also experimenting with these new rules, as well.

Bahahah.....perfect

[egroen 384]

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.

Which is fine, and I actually do agree with, however, the play is not reviewable in the case the puck was in before the net - and it should be.

Just as an on-ice incorrect call allowing a call is overturned when video review proves otherwise (puck was kicked in, high-sticked, etc.), a good goal disallowed by an incorrect call should also be overturned if video review shows the call was in error.

Now this should only be for instances where the puck was in the goal before the whistle, and thus will not cause numerous delays in a game.

Edited August 13, 2010 by egroen

[egroen 384]

Think dodgeball. Puck laying on the center dot, skaters all lined up on their respective blue lines, whistle blows, mayhem ensues...

It could be fun.

I'm seeing it! Lol

Some zingers in this thread....

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

I'm seeing it! Lol

Some zingers in this thread....

Wasn't that how they determined possession in that failed league that the WWF started, the XFL?

[seeinred 1,488]

Wasn't that how they determined possession in that failed league that the WWF started, the XFL?

Good times...

[blgillett 48]

Yes it was and it SUCKED!!!