• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
drumnj

Rule Changes in the AHL (what the NHL has considered)

Rate this topic

76 posts in this topic

I'd tweak the rule concerning fighting, for when the other person receives the instigator it should not count as the second major. How bad would it be for guys like lucic perry iginla etc after the first one? Is just annoy him with a fourth liner until he snaps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I didn't read all the comments in the thread, so sorry if this has been said, but I will say that the OHL has used the helmet rule for a few seasons & it's not as bad as it sounds. It's not really a situation that presents itself THAT much.


I would be all for the "rock-paper-scissors" method, if they in fact used an actual rock, paper & scissors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then go with 4 on 4 then 3 on 3. Someone has to score you'd think especially if it's 3 on 3. Besides I don't know why people think hockey is too long. Just look at baseball and football now those sports are way too long.

Now you said a shoutout defeats the point of a team game what does 3 on 3 do LOL. Superstar verse superstar as your forwards come on.

If we want a team game do 6 on 5 for 2:30 then switch and see who scores the most. There's a team game.

I admit I didn't read all the comments in the thread, so sorry if this has been said, but I will say that the OHL has used the helmet rule for a few seasons & it's not as bad as it sounds. It's not really a situation that presents itself THAT much.

I would be all for the "rock-paper-scissors" method, if they in fact used an actual rock, paper & scissors!

I understand the helmet rule and kind of agree with it but it should be tweaked a bit. Cause like someone said if you're short handed in your zone...u can't just leave the ice. If anything maybe a stoppage of play would be better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you said a shoutout defeats the point of a team game what does 3 on 3 do LOL. Superstar verse superstar as your forwards come on.

If we want a team game do 6 on 5 for 2:30 then switch and see who scores the most. There's a team game.

I understand the helmet rule and kind of agree with it but it should be tweaked a bit. Cause like someone said if you're short handed in your zone...u can't just leave the ice. If anything maybe a stoppage of play would be better?

I agree about the helmet rule, I don't like how it sits now. A stoppage of play however would lead to people abusing it and overall too many controversial plays. Even with the few times it happens with goalies it's frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I love the OT rules. The other two rules I am not a big fan of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want a team game do 6 on 5 for 2:30 then switch and see who scores the most. There's a team game.

This is actually an interesting idea. Why not just give each team a power play, say a double minor, and have it be an 8 minute period? Something along those lines. I like the power play OT. Cool idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is stop tweaking the game too much. Some of these rules are just stupid.

As for the Shootout I don't care either way if it stays it stays if not that's fine also (speaking about the regular season obviously).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To respond to the earlier question around the shootout, I personally hate it because it has nothing to do with the game itself. It's like they finished the game and now we are going to do this thingy over here to decide the winner (skills comp).

In terms of comparison to soccer, showing stupidity in one sport is not a good argument as to why it should be implemented in another. It's not a great argument for me as I can't stand soccer. I played as a kid up until hockey commitments were too great to do much of anything else, but in terms of watching, no thanks. The big reason they have a shootout is because the number of goals scored is generally very, very low. The possibility of a game going for hours without a goal is fairly high. My opinion for it being the world's most popular sport is because it requires the least amount of money to get into, therefore, almost every country around the world can participate. Popularity in "richer" countries isn't as high.....this is my assumption anyway, not backed up by any research at all.

Back on topic, I don't think the NHL will look to remove the shootout, I think they simply want to try and limit the number of games that go to a shootout. I'm okay with that as I'm reasonable in thinking that they simply can't let games go on for too long waiting for someone to score. Even though that would be rare, they wouldn't want any going too long. And they don't want to get too goofy to avoid it (i.e. going to 3 on 3). This is, of course, if you really can't live with ties...which I personally have no problem with. The only problem the NHL has with ties is not that they don't have a winner, they can live with ties fine, the problem is that teams start to play not to lose so they can at least get the single point and offense basically dries up.

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you said a shoutout defeats the point of a team game what does 3 on 3 do LOL. Superstar verse superstar as your forwards come on.

If we want a team game do 6 on 5 for 2:30 then switch and see who scores the most. There's a team game.

I understand the helmet rule and kind of agree with it but it should be tweaked a bit. Cause like someone said if you're short handed in your zone...u can't just leave the ice. If anything maybe a stoppage of play would be better?

3 on 3 is still using the "concept" of team, a shoot out does not. It is not s skills competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 on 3 is still using the "concept" of team, a shoot

out does not. It is not s skills competition.

Actually it really kind of is. Instead of using a full bench of players(using your WHOLE TEAM) now you're using just a handful. The skillful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with a tie? Just because there is not a winner and a loser in the game does not mean there is not a winner and loser in the standings. Look at the USA Portugal game Portugal scores in the last 30 seconds to force a tie. On paper it went down as a tie, but in reality that was a huge "loss" for the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with a tie? Just because there is not a winner and a loser in the game does not mean there is not a winner and loser in the standings. Look at the USA Portugal game Portugal scores in the last 30 seconds to force a tie. On paper it went down as a tie, but in reality that was a huge "loss" for the USA.

What's wrong with havinga winner ? Different sports are having different metrics and just because a stupid sport like soccer is having a tie, doesn't mean hockey should do so too.

The most important part in all of this is how are the players thinking about the shootout ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with havinga winner ? Different sports are having different metrics and just because a stupid sport like soccer is having a tie, doesn't mean hockey should do so too.

The most important part in all of this is how are the players thinking about the shootout ?

That thar stupid sport hur hur hur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the helmet rule, I believe this happened in the last Olympics, where a player was in his defensive corner battling another player and his helmet was knocked off. He had to go get his helmet and couldn't keep fighting for the puck, as a result with no one defending the player he walked right in and scored. I've tried to find this video but can't remember the 2 countries playing, but it was the first time I saw anything like it, but this is the worst case scenario of this new rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with havinga winner ? Different sports are having different metrics and just because a stupid sport like soccer is having a tie, doesn't mean hockey should do so too.

The most important part in all of this is how are the players thinking about the shootout ?

Ya I can't believe how stupid soccer is. I mean why do All the rules have to make sense?

Just look at that smart sport like hockey, 2 points for a regulation win, but somehow it becomes 3 points if it's in overtime!!

evilmrt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya I can't believe how stupid soccer is. I mean why do All the rules have to make sense?

Just look at that smart sport like hockey, 2 points for a regulation win, but somehow it becomes 3 points if it's in overtime!!

Well, you're thinking about this the wong way... think of it as a +2/+1 thing. Win in regulation and you get two points over your opponent... OT = 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you're thinking about this the wong way... think of it as a +2/+1 thing. Win in regulation and you get two points over your opponent... OT = 1.

You get 3 points in an overtime game and 2 in regulation. It makes no sense because they literally throw a free point in for the losing team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the league is really concerned there are too many shootouts, here's what I think would be an interesting idea.

Play the full 60 minutes as normal, if it's a tie, each team gets 1 point heading into OT.

Play 4 on 4 OT but with a dry scrape and long changes

But, if the game remains tied after OT and goes to a shootout, remove the single point from both teams and go winner takes all.

Makes it a gamble to go all conservative in OT praying for a shootout. Not sure if my intended purpose would work though.

Having thought about all of those rules, them helmet one is the worst damn thing. If they were really that concerned with players getting head injuries because they've lost their helmets, then just blow the damn whistle!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't make a lot of sense....if you lose in OT, you get 1 pt, but if you make it through OT and lose in the SO, you get no points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't make a lot of sense....if you lose in OT, you get 1 pt, but if you make it through OT and lose in the SO, you get no points?

Yea. Having re-thought this, I think it'd be better just to scrap the loser point altogether and go with winner takes all in OT and shootout. But there has to be something done about reducing the amount of shootouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the shoot out. Thought it was awesome when it first started being used at the frequency it is now. But it's just not fair to decide as many games as we do with it. I like the 4 on 4 then 3 on 3 then SO idea.

Loser point should be scrapped entirely. 1 point for a win in any situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is even considering my idea of rock paper scissors

Bettman consulted his Ouija board and the spirits told him your idea sucks. :)

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