Four (5) Changes Scotty Bowman Would Like To See

[lfd250 1]

Don't care one way or the other on these. What I would like to see:

Major: Paint a box around the players bench six guys out of the box, too many men. Tired of the guy coming off the bench when the other guy isn't even within 10 strides.

Minor: Make the protective net playable. If the puck doesn't leave the ice then it's in play. Too many times one team stops because they think it hits the net. Take the call out of the refs hands.

[Austin 5]

One change I'd wish they'd make is eliminating the shootout. It's a skills competition that belongs in the ASG, not a game that actually means anything. Why not have "hardest shot" be the new qualifier for who wins if there's a tie after OT? I mean, it's just as dumb.

This is the points system I'd like to see instituted: 3 pts = regulation win, 1 pt. = overtime win or tie, 0 pts. = any loss. It'll never happen, but a gal can dream.

Your example is ridiculous and not at all supportive of your argument.

In a shootout, it's player vs goalie, whoever scores the most wins. Seems like a pretty fair way to decide it unless you do continuous overtime, which could be absolutely ridiculous during the regular season. Let's say the wings are playing back to back games, requiring travel. If the first game goes to three overtimes, how is that worth it? Not only will the fans either have to leave the game without seeing the end, or potentially stay in the arena until one in the morning, but the Wings would be exhausted for the game the next day.

And using your point system, if you're the Red Wings, and you play what is essentially two full games (120 minutes of hockey), and give it 100%, grind out a tough win and be absolutely exhausted the next day.. you get one point out of it? I'd rather put the puck in my own net and come out fresher the next night and hope you can get three.

I couldn't disagree with your post more. Regular season, shootout makes sense. Games end at a reasonable time, and it's actually skaters trying to score on goalies, nothing like a hardest shot competition.

In the playoffs, obviously a shootout wouldn't be the best way to do it, but when you compare a single point in the regular season standings, and a playoff victory, obviously the continuous OT makes a lot more sense in the playoffs than it does in the regular season.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

Interesting, though other than the trapezoid I don't really agree with any of them.

I like the current tag-up and 2-line pass rules. Don't think they need any changing.

The current automatic delay of game rule is stupid, but I can't see giving the refs more discretionary power as being anything but worse. Should just get rid of the rule. It's not like shooting the puck over the glass delays the game any more than shooting it into the benches, or even a regular icing. Nor is it really any easier to do. Just make it like icing, faceoff down low in the offending team's zone. Fans love souvenirs anyway.

The smaller offensive zone is intriguing. Maybe a bit counter-intuitive to think a smaller zone could spread the play out more; but then again, if the zone now is too big for defenders to cover adequately, collapsing inward to best protect the most important area makes sense. Making the points easier to defend could theoretically draw defenders outward. And I do think there should be more room behind the net. Still, I can't help but think the ice is a little too small already.

I agree. Eliminating the trapezoid is the only thing I agree with. Everything else is fine, and I think changing rules hurts the casual fan. I'm all for improvement, but I don't think more goals is improvement, and there are few (if any) changes I would agree with.

[Finnish Wing 110]

Major: Paint a box around the players bench six guys out of the box, too many men. Tired of the guy coming off the bench when the other guy isn't even within 10 strides.

Does this mean you could always have rest of the team inside that box trying to get to the loose pucks and blocking the other side of the rink?

edit: spelling

Edited January 25, 2011 by Finnish Wing

[Electrophile 3,554]

Your example is ridiculous and not at all supportive of your argument.

In a shootout, it's player vs goalie, whoever scores the most wins. Seems like a pretty fair way to decide it unless you do continuous overtime, which could be absolutely ridiculous during the regular season. Let's say the wings are playing back to back games, requiring travel. If the first game goes to three overtimes, how is that worth it? Not only will the fans either have to leave the game without seeing the end, or potentially stay in the arena until one in the morning, but the Wings would be exhausted for the game the next day.

And using your point system, if you're the Red Wings, and you play what is essentially two full games (120 minutes of hockey), and give it 100%, grind out a tough win and be absolutely exhausted the next day.. you get one point out of it? I'd rather put the puck in my own net and come out fresher the next night and hope you can get three.

I couldn't disagree with your post more. Regular season, shootout makes sense. Games end at a reasonable time, and it's actually skaters trying to score on goalies, nothing like a hardest shot competition.

In the playoffs, obviously a shootout wouldn't be the best way to do it, but when you compare a single point in the regular season standings, and a playoff victory, obviously the continuous OT makes a lot more sense in the playoffs than it does in the regular season.

I'm glad you think so.

Shootouts still suck. I've hated them since day 1. I am for any rule change that outright eliminates them. As for the points system, I don't think teams should be rewarded for a loss. A tie isn't a win, but at least it's not a loss. Is my memory failing in my old age of 28, or isn't that how it used to be? 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, 1 point for a tie. No points for losing. If you want to reward winning in OT more than just tying, then go back to how it used to be.

The point is, I ******* hate shootouts. The league did just fine without them. They can do fine without them again.

[Finnish Wing 110]

Shootouts still suck. I've hated them since day 1. I am for any rule change that outright eliminates them. As for the points system, I don't think teams should be rewarded for a loss. A tie isn't a win, but at least it's not a loss. Is my memory failing in my old age of 28, or isn't that how it used to be? 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, 1 point for a tie. No points for losing.

It isn't so black and white. OT/SO loss is more valuable than a regular time loss. Also, your system has the same flaw the current system has: some games are "valuabel" than others. The bottom line is that in every game the same amount of points should be given, regardless if it's ends after regular time, overtime or shootout.

Your system would reward 3 points for the teams if the game ends after regular and only 2 point total if it goes to the OT. This basically means 1 point magically disappears after 60 minutes. It also means that OT:s would basically be useless as many teams would just play for the tie.

I still say the "European" system (win 3, OT win 2, OT loss 1, loss 0) is the best. But the soccer system (win 3, tie 1, loss 0) wouldn't be bad either if you want to encourage teams to play more offensive hockey, hate the shootouts and don't mind seeing ties. Though that also has the same flaw of having games of different point value, but maybe that's the point of the whole system; to make teams want the W more.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

I'm surprised getting rid of the salary cap wasn't one of the changes he listed.

Edited January 26, 2011 by GMRwings1983

[Electrophile 3,554]

It isn't so black and white. OT/SO loss is more valuable than a regular time loss. Also, your system has the same flaw the current system has: some games are "valuabel" than others. The bottom line is that in every game the same amount of points should be given, regardless if it's ends after regular time, overtime or shootout.

Your system would reward 3 points for the teams if the game ends after regular and only 2 point total if it goes to the OT. This basically means 1 point magically disappears after 60 minutes. It also means that OT:s would basically be useless as many teams would just play for the tie.

I still say the "European" system (win 3, OT win 2, OT loss 1, loss 0) is the best. But the soccer system (win 3, tie 1, loss 0) wouldn't be bad either if you want to encourage teams to play more offensive hockey, hate the shootouts and don't mind seeing ties. Though that also has the same flaw of having games of different point value, but maybe that's the point of the whole system; to make teams want the W more.

I never had issues with ties, and I hate shootouts. So I guess the soccer system (or football for our European Wings fans) is what I would support.

[Broken 16 381]

Apparently Scotty wants to throw all NHL defensemen under the bus for the sake of creating offense. I don't approve.

[eva unit zero 271]

Your offsides rule is interesting but it would be extremely... and I mean EXTREMELY difficult to correctly officiate.

Two linesmen.

When there is a player in the defensive zone, the linesman at that end has his hand up. This signals to the other linesman the offsides status. Once all skaters clear, the linesman drops his arm and offsides is no longer a danger.

This is the kind of thing linesmen are, you know, FOR.

Does this mean you could always have rest of the team inside that box trying to get to the loose pucks and blocking the other side of the rink?

edit: spelling

No, because if they interfered with the play by contact with the puck, or by affecting a player's movement, they would count as 'in the play' and therefore the team would have too many players on ice.