Four (5) Changes Scotty Bowman Would Like To See

[Louisville 112]

I only agree with the trapezoid rule change, its stupid, adds nothing to the game, and as Scotty says it just leaves a defenceman open to get destroyed. Don't we have enough of that with touch icing?

I really disagree with him on "the delay of game penalty on a player who shoots the puck out" left to the discretion of the ref. You are leaving yourself pretty open to angry fans in an already inconsistent league.

Thoughts?

Bob McKenzie TSN

"There are only four changes I would make," he said, and here they are:

1. Put the redline back in for two-line pass offside until the puck carrier reaches the top of the face-off circle in his own end.

"I don't like that," Bowman said, pointing to a defenceman on his own goalline firing the puck hard up the boards to a teammate at the far blueline, who tips the puck into the offensive zone. "I want to see defencemen make a play. Force him to get the puck to the top of the circles in his own end before you open up the whole netural zone for a pass."

Bowman also thinks that might encourage more forechecking to prevent a player from getting to the top of the circles and putting the whole neutral zone in play.

2. Take out the trapezoid and allow goaltenders to handle the puck anywhere on the ice.

Bowman said it would help protect defencemen from being pulverized on the forecheck and while a good puckhandling goalie could neutralize an opposing team's forecheck, a bad puckhandling goalie could result in turnovers and more offence.

3. Eliminate the automatic delay of game penalty for a player in the defensive zone, who shoots the puck out of play.

"I would like to see it be at the referee's discretion," Bowman said. "The refs know if it's an accident or intentional. Let the ref make the call."

4. Return to traditional offside -- get rid of the tag-up.

"Again, I want to see defencemen make a play with the puck, not just slap it into the offensive zone and just stand there waiting (for teammates to clear the zone)," Bowman said. "Hold onto the puck, try to make something happen, maybe he makes a play, maybe he turns it over. But force him to make a play."

5. Return to 10 feet between the goalline and end boards at each end and have three equal zones of 60-feet apiece, as opposed to the smaller neutral zone/larger offensive zones we now have.

"The offensive zone is too big now," Bowman said. "That's why you see all five guys collapse to the front of the net and you have forwards playing goalie. If the zone were smaller, they (the defensive players) might spread out a bit and go after pucks up top. There would also be more forechecking."

Wait a minute, Bowman originally said he had only four changes he would make. Yeah, well, you tell the greatest coach of all time he doesn't get last change

Edited January 25, 2011 by Louisville

[titanium2 867]

He's really trying to drive up the price of defensemen huh?

[Buppy 1,720]

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.

[edicius 3,269]

I do not like the idea of leaving delay of game up to the discretion of the refs. Especially this incompetent batch of NHL refs.

[nate94gt 134]

scotty must be on drugs. Those are horrible.

Except for the trapezoid. that needs to go.

[HankthaTank 1,100]

Put the redline back in for two-line pass offside until the puck carrier reaches the top of the face-off circle in his own end.

Horrible idea Scotty. This was your #1???

[Theophany 110]

The only one I agree with is the trapezoid. I like how hockey is played today.

[CenterIce 83]

Horrible idea Scotty. This was your #1???

He has been wanting that change for years.

I don't mind 1 & 5. Love 2. Not so big on the other 2.

[13dangledangle 965]

I was hoping to see new ideas from Scotty instead he's trying to bring back old time hockey, I agree with a lot of what he said (especially the trapezoid one) but Im pretty sure Bettman wont go back to an old rule. It is the new NHL you know, and besides that would almost be like him saying he was wrong...

[evilzyme 769]

They want a faster game but they want to add in the 2 line pass again? Doesn't make sense, it falls on the defense to not be out of position and allow the forward to grab that huge of a outlet pass.

Having the refs choose if its intentional or not delay of game? Please no... they already have a hard time at their job.

Taking out the trapezoid, totally agree... goaltenders should be allowed to play the puck if they want to take the risk.

Offsides.. ehhh mixed emotions.

[HankthaTank 1,100]

He has been wanting that change for years.

I don't mind 1 & 5. Love 2. Not so big on the other 2.

Yeah, I just can't see the 2-line pass coming back and I know he is old-time hockey but the game has "evolved" or whatever (Defense?)

#2 however, should happen today.

[VM1138 1,921]

I'm with the rest of you all. The trapezoid can go but the rest of those ideas just don't sound good to me. Sorry, Scotty.

[drwscc 212]

I'm with the rest of you all. The trapezoid can go but the rest of those ideas just don't sound good to me. Sorry, Scotty.

Ditto.

[Nev 1,085]

Thing is everyone forgets why the trapezoid was put in - because it was so difficult to go after the puck on the forecheck. Goalies would just collect the dump ins and ring them round the boards and out, whilst the defencemen, subtly or not so subtly, would stand up at the blue line and slow down the forecheckers attempts to get after the puck.

[eva unit zero 271]

Agree on trapezoid, delay of game, and making zones the same size.

You guys keep saying "I don't want to give the refs more power"

What Scotty wants to do is take away the current rule which results in a lot of undeserved mandatory penalties, and return it to the way it used to be.

Red line for two-line pass? Hell no.

Traditional offsides, I'm actually not completely opposed to. It creates a different type of offensive atmosphere; dump and chase offense vs. puck carrying offense.

Although one idea I have thought would be interesting is a different kind of offsides. Use the normal blue lines, but follow these rules:

When any player from the attacking team is in his own defensive zone, offsides shall be called if the puck crosses the defending team's blue line while an attacking player is in the zone.

When all attacking players are in the neutral zone, offsides is not called.

As a tie in to my offsides rule, I have an adjustment to the icing rule; icing shall be called based on the attacking blue line rather than the center line.

So shorten the distance for icing, keeping the no-change rule, and allow goalies to play the puck anywhere. There would be no reason to dump the puck in from that distance because the new offsides rule would mean that, unless your team still had someone back in your defensive zone, you didn't have offsides to worry about and could move in as you pleased.

[egroen 384]

Bowman is also in favor of doing away with free-icings from teams on the PK - "why give a penalized team an advantage?"

I see his point, but am not sure I can go with it - especially with how penalties are called nowadays.

[Doggy 130]

Agree on trapezoid, delay of game, and making zones the same size.

You guys keep saying "I don't want to give the refs more power"

What Scotty wants to do is take away the current rule which results in a lot of undeserved mandatory penalties, and return it to the way it used to be.

Red line for two-line pass? Hell no.

Traditional offsides, I'm actually not completely opposed to. It creates a different type of offensive atmosphere; dump and chase offense vs. puck carrying offense.

Although one idea I have thought would be interesting is a different kind of offsides. Use the normal blue lines, but follow these rules:

When any player from the attacking team is in his own defensive zone, offsides shall be called if the puck crosses the defending team's blue line while an attacking player is in the zone.

When all attacking players are in the neutral zone, offsides is not called.

As a tie in to my offsides rule, I have an adjustment to the icing rule; icing shall be called based on the attacking blue line rather than the center line.

So shorten the distance for icing, keeping the no-change rule, and allow goalies to play the puck anywhere. There would be no reason to dump the puck in from that distance because the new offsides rule would mean that, unless your team still had someone back in your defensive zone, you didn't have offsides to worry about and could move in as you pleased.

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

[Louisville 112]

Agree on trapezoid, delay of game, and making zones the same size.

You guys keep saying "I don't want to give the refs more power"

What Scotty wants to do is take away the current rule which results in a lot of undeserved mandatory penalties, and return it to the way it used to be.

Care to explain?

The last thing this league needs is more rules that involve the ref making a subjective call, especially when it has to do with penalizing a team. How would it be any different than the intent to blow rule that people hate, and a refs call on how much contact is allowed on the goalie? You are opening a door to people screaming "bias".

When it's mandatory nobody argues it and I think it happens enough to not be an issue at all.

edit: sp

Edited January 25, 2011 by Louisville

[stevkrause 1,247]

wow, I expected more of Scotty... as so many others have already touched on, the only one that's any good is the removal of the trapezoid, but that one has been an abortion from day one...

How about these 5 instead:

1. Removal of trapezoid - speaks for itself(safety of defensemen, more offense, lets goalies generate outlet passes, etc)

2. Goalies outside of their crease are fair game - if a player collides with a goalie outside of his crease, there is no goaltender interference or penalty, same if he leaves the crease to play the puck (just be prepared to get jumped by the opposing team if someone throws a hit, or takes the goalie out on purpose)

3. 10 min 4v4 OT, followed by 5 man shootout - point total of games adjusted accordingly (3 for reg/ot win, 2 for SO win, 1 for SO loss, 0 for reg/ot win - ALL GAMES WORTH SAME TOTAL) - PLAYOFFS STILL SUDDEN DEATH OT UNTIL WINNER

4. Puck leaving the zone for whistle on delayed penalty - puck must clear the offensive zone after a penalty on a delayed call (generates more offense and extends PP essentially)

5. Removal of instigator rule in final minute - call it in cases it applies ALL game, not just final minute and suspensions then handed out after 3 instigators, not automatically just because one was "in the final minute of the game" (repeat offenders get additional games)

Done and done.

[Dano33 41]

wow, I expected more of Scotty... as so many others have already touched on, the only one that's any good is the removal of the trapezoid, but that one has been an abortion from day one...

How about these 5 instead:

1. Removal of trapezoid - speaks for itself(safety of defensemen, more offense, lets goalies generate outlet passes, etc)

2. Goalies outside of their crease are fair game - if a player collides with a goalie outside of his crease, there is no goaltender interference or penalty, same if he leaves the crease to play the puck (just be prepared to get jumped by the opposing team if someone throws a hit, or takes the goalie out on purpose)

3. 10 min 4v4 OT, followed by 5 man shootout - point total of games adjusted accordingly (3 for reg/ot win, 2 for SO win, 1 for SO loss, 0 for reg/ot win - ALL GAMES WORTH SAME TOTAL) - PLAYOFFS STILL SUDDEN DEATH OT UNTIL WINNER

4. Puck leaving the zone for whistle on delayed penalty - puck must clear the offensive zone after a penalty on a delayed call (generates more offense and extends PP essentially)

5. Removal of instigator rule in final minute - call it in cases it applies ALL game, not just final minute and suspensions then handed out after 3 instigators, not automatically just because one was "in the final minute of the game" (repeat offenders get additional games)

Done and done.

I've pretty much had the same line of thinking as you on #3. Every game is worth the same # of points and only when it gets to a shootout (which probably will happen much less often w/10 mins in OT) do they divide up the points.

However #2 doesn't make sense to me. Goalies need to be protected, period. It's too difficult to replace them. No one wants to see a goalie get run when he is outside of the blue cutting off an angle.

I'd say most people would be in favor of #1. #4 and 5 I'm indifferent about.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Dano33

[Finnish Wing 110]

I'd only change the point system. The current system doesn't value all games the same amount of points, which is wrong IMO. The current system in most(?) European league is good: 3 for win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss and 0 for loss. If you hate shootouts, then maybe they should change the OT the way Holland (or was it Babcock?) wanted; 5 min 4vs4 and 5 min 3vs3 or something like that.

Maybe I'd go for the no-touch icing as well. The touch icing just gives too much weight on skating and less on skill (=actually passing the puck and playing the game), it also causes more injuries to d-men.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Finnish Wing

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

I would think that his first suggestion would be to add more teams to the playoffs; a little bit of insurance, if you will.

[Electrophile 3,554]

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.

[Electrophile 3,554]

I would think that his first suggestion would be to add more teams to the playoffs; a little bit of insurance, if you will.

There are enough teams in the playoffs. I'd say there are too many. MLB only has 4 teams in the playoffs per league, and there's nearly the same number of teams per league as there are teams per conference in the NHL. No, as much as I hate the Wild Card (oh yes do I hate it), I'd rather see the NHL institute something similar to pare down the number of playoff teams by half for each conference than add more. Top 4 teams per conference --> 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3. Winners go to the Conference finals, winners of that series play for the Cup. Simple.

How many more mediocre teams do you want to reward with a playoff spot?

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

There are enough teams in the playoffs. I'd say there are too many.

How many more mediocre teams do you want to reward with a playoff spot?

I think he was just taking a shot at the Blackhawks with that comment.

As long as we're on the subject though, while I think the fact that over half the league makes the playoffs is a little silly, dropping from 16 to 8 playoff teams seems like a big leap. Eliminating a whole round of the playoffs and a lot of playoff hockey isn't what I'd want to see.

If there were to reduce it an NFL style format would be best, in my opinion. It would give teams that excel during the regular season a real, tangible, and huge advantage in a first round bye; and it would also reduce the number of playoff games during the first round only, when there are already so many games being played that you can't watch them all anyways.