• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
BottleOfSmoke

Rule Changes for 2014-2015 Season

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

@SiriusXMNHL: BREAKING NEWS- @NHL announces new rule changes. Here's the details. http://t.co/JOsUKJMrPI Do you like the changes http://t.co/lfBca3cvb0

Edit to add rules:

From the link above-

Rule 1.8 Rink - Goalkeeper's Restricted Area

The trapezoid will be expanded by two feet from the goal post on both sides of the net.

Rule 23 Game Misconduct Penalties

A new Game Misconduct category will be created. Clipping, charging, elbowing, interference, kneeing, head-butting and butt-ending move from the general category into the same category as boarding and checking from behind ("Physical Fouls"), whereby a player who incurs two such game misconducts in this category would now be automatically suspended for one game.

Rule 24 Penalty Shot

The 'Spin-O-Rama' move, as described in Section 24.2 of the 2013-14 NHL Rule Book, will no longer be permitted either in Penalty Shot situations or in the Shootout.

Rule 38 Video Goal Judge

Video review will be expanded in the following areas:

* Rule 38.4 (viii) has been modified to allow broader discretion to Hockey Operations to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g., to ensure they are "good hockey goals"). The revised Rule will allow Hockey Operations to correct a broader array of situations where video review clearly establishes that a "goal" or "no goal" call on the ice has been made in error. The new expanded rule will also allow Hockey Operations to provide guidance to referees on goal and potential goal plays where the referee has blown his whistle (or intended to blow his whistle) after having lost sight of the puck.

* In reviewing "Kicked in Goals," Hockey Operations will require more demonstrable video evidence of a "distinct kicking motion" in order to overrule a "goal" call on the ice, or to uphold a "no goal" call on the ice.

Rule 57 Tripping

The rule relating to "Tripping" will be revised to specifically provide that a two minute minor penalty will be assessed when a defending player "dives" and trips an attacking player with his body/arm/shoulder, regardless of whether the defending player is able to make initial contact with the puck.

But, in situations where a penalty shot might otherwise be appropriate, if the defending player "dives" and touches the puck first (before the trip), no penalty shot will be awarded. (In such cases, the resulting penalty will be limited to a two-minute minor penalty for tripping.)

Rule 64 Diving / Embellishment

The supplementary discipline penalties associated with Rule 64.3 (Diving/Embellishment) will be revised to bring attention to and more seriously penalize players (and teams) who repeatedly dive and embellish in an attempt to draw penalties. Fines will be assessed to players and head coaches on a graduated scale outlined below.

Incident # Player Fine(s) Head Coach Fine(s)

1 Warning N/A

2 $2,000 N/A

3 $3,000 N/A

4 $4,000 $2,000

5 $5,000 $3,000

6 $5,000 $4,000

7 $5,000 $5,000

8 $5,000 $5,000

Rule 76 Face-offs

To curb delay tactics on face-offs after icing infractions, in situations where the defending team is guilty of a face-off violation, following an icing, the defending player who is initially lined up for the face-off will be given a warning, but will be required to remain in the circle to take the face-off. A second face-off violation by the defending team in such situation will result in a two minute minor bench penalty.

Rule 84 Overtime

* Teams will switch ends prior to the start of overtime in the regular season.

* The entire ice surface will undergo a "dry scrape" prior to the start of overtime in the regular season.

* The procedure requiring the head coach to submit a list of the first three shooters in the shoot-out has been eliminated.

Rule 85 Puck Out of Bounds

There have been further rule changes made relating to face-off location to avoid penalizing teams for plays intended to create bona fide scoring opportunities. Specifically, the following are "categories of plays" where face-offs will remain in the attacking zone despite the fact that the attacking team was technically responsible for the stoppage in play: Shots at the net by a player on the attacking team where: (i) the shot breaks the glass; (ii) the shot goes off the side of the net and deflects out of play; (iii) the shot goes off the dasher boards or glass and deflects out of play; (iv) the shot is tipped or deflected out of play by a teammate; and (v) the shot becomes wedged in or on the exterior of the goal net.

In addition, the following rule change will be enacted for the 2014 preseason and may be continued for the 2014/15 regular season if approved by the League and the NHLPA.

Rule 1.9 Rink Face-off Spots and Circles Ice Markings/Hash Marks

The hash marks at the end zone circles will be moved from three feet apart to five feet, seven inches apart (international markings).

Edited by BottleOfSmoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really get the elimination of the 'Spin-O-Rama' move...

They're obviously keeping the shootout for entertainment purposes but getting rid of one of the more entertaining moves?

Is it gimmicky? Yes. But so is the whole concept of a shootout to decide a hockey game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that they can suspend you for interference now is dumb. The rest I'm ok with I think.

Charging too. Some of those charging calls are very borderline.

Trapezoid should just be discarded all together.

Elimination of the spin o rama = The Todd Bertuzzi Rule

Glad they are trying to more seriously curb playoff divefest and faceoff delays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are really stretching at trying to create offense with some of the changes (e.g. having the faceoff staying in the zone almost all the time). Same with diving to poke a puck away that results in a trip as well....looks to want to create offense by awarding PP time even if the puck is hit first. That said, I wonder how often this will be called, for some reason, I'm thinking that the offensive player normally gets tripped by the stick, not the arm, shoulder of the defender. In that case, there will be no change if the puck is hit first.

In terms of being suspended for interference....it's not as bad as that might sound. My guess is that this would be for those instances where a player is absolutely destroyed by a hit that would otherwise be legal except he is nowhere near the puck, isn't looking, etc. You really can't call that anything other than interference. My guess is that there will be very few game misconduct penalties for interference.

I think the diving fines are pretty silly. Is that really a deterrent? On your 8th offense you still just pay $5K. I think diving is a tough problem to cure because there are 2 different reasons for diving. 1 - players will dive when no real infraction occurs just to get calls....this type of diving will be hard to get rid of....then again, I really don't think many players partake in this. 2 - players dive when refs don't call hooking and holding. It's my pet peeve when I play too....since I have better balance and don't fall down, there is no penalty even though a defender is holding me back.....what does it take to get a call? Falling down....so that's what players end up doing...the way you get rid of that is to actually call penalties when you see them...problem there is that it might cause more of the #1 type diving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Proteautype: NHL bans spin-o-ramas in shootouts and penalty shots. You're next, dipsy-doodlers.

@Proteautype: The problem was never with spinning, understand. But when it got to o-rama levels, something clearly had to be done.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are really stretching at trying to create offense with some of the changes (e.g. having the faceoff staying in the zone almost all the time). Same with diving to poke a puck away that results in a trip as well....looks to want to create offense by awarding PP time even if the puck is hit first. That said, I wonder how often this will be called, for some reason, I'm thinking that the offensive player normally gets tripped by the stick, not the arm, shoulder of the defender. In that case, there will be no change if the puck is hit first.

In terms of being suspended for interference....it's not as bad as that might sound. My guess is that this would be for those instances where a player is absolutely destroyed by a hit that would otherwise be legal except he is nowhere near the puck, isn't looking, etc. You really can't call that anything other than interference. My guess is that there will be very few game misconduct penalties for interference.

I think the diving fines are pretty silly. Is that really a deterrent? On your 8th offense you still just pay $5K. I think diving is a tough problem to cure because there are 2 different reasons for diving. 1 - players will dive when no real infraction occurs just to get calls....this type of diving will be hard to get rid of....then again, I really don't think many players partake in this. 2 - players dive when refs don't call hooking and holding. It's my pet peeve when I play too....since I have better balance and don't fall down, there is no penalty even though a defender is holding me back.....what does it take to get a call? Falling down....so that's what players end up doing...the way you get rid of that is to actually call penalties when you see them...problem there is that it might cause more of the #1 type diving.

I think that the diving fines are more of a method of public shaming. I hope that being a player who's been fined will just be incredibly embarrassing and that will be enough of a deterrent. You know fans and commentators will mock those who are fined and it will surely be the subject matter of on ice agitators.

Since diving isn't dangerous like head shots or spearing, the fines shouldn't be that big. Anyway, with the player's union involved you couldn't implement huge fines the first year this is around. Maybe if diving remains a problem they can raise the fines. Anyway, I think it's good for them to do something to get rid of the diving problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to believe that the diving rule will reduce the amount that we see it in the game, but its not like it wasn't illegal before. Ultimately the refs have to call a dive when he sees it, and until they get more consistent with that I don't think any amount of rule tweaking will yield any short of change.

The spinorama should remain in the game, and frankly I'm disappointed that goalies haven't been better to adapt to that move.

They're going in the right direction with the trapezoid, but I agree with the poster above that it should be eliminated entirely.

I don't understand this whole "game misconduct" category for interference, elbowing, etc... So if Kyle Quincey has two interference penalties he can be suspended for the rest of the game?? Can someone clarify what they're getting at with this rule, because I can't possibly have interpreted it correctly....

I like the puck out of bounds rule, and I like the overtime rules. I'm kinda bummed about the tripping rule because it used to be a really awesome defensive play to see a defender dive out and chop the puck away on a forward on a breakaway. There's no way that happens without a forward skating over the stick and falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to believe that the diving rule will reduce the amount that we see it in the game, but its not like it wasn't illegal before. Ultimately the refs have to call a dive when he sees it, and until they get more consistent with that I don't think any amount of rule tweaking will yield any short of change.

The spinorama should remain in the game, and frankly I'm disappointed that goalies haven't been better to adapt to that move.

They're going in the right direction with the trapezoid, but I agree with the poster above that it should be eliminated entirely.

I don't understand this whole "game misconduct" category for interference, elbowing, etc... So if Kyle Quincey has two interference penalties he can be suspended for the rest of the game?? Can someone clarify what they're getting at with this rule, because I can't possibly have interpreted it correctly....

I like the puck out of bounds rule, and I like the overtime rules. I'm kinda bummed about the tripping rule because it used to be a really awesome defensive play to see a defender dive out and chop the puck away on a forward on a breakaway. There's no way that happens without a forward skating over the stick and falling.

Agreed on the diving rule. I always liked how it was fair game if you got the puck first. Plus, it left it up to the refs for some open interpretation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a tripping penalty even if you touch the puck first is garbage. There's athleticism and skill involved in taking a chance in acquiring the puck from an attacking player on the fly like that. What, now every breakaway will result in a penalty if the attacking player happens to fall down while the defenseman is trying to make a play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I see the face off rule getting out of hand.

How many times last year did we see our first center get thrown then have 30 seconds go by as the ref deked center men out before dropping the puck.

I think its going to get crazy and there will be wayyyy too many penalties because of it.

And most of the time its the refs.

And the tripping call thing was coming...

Too many botched/iffy calls had been occurring on plays like that, plus the want for higher scoring games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of these rule changes every year but I really want to see some sort of coaches challenge rule. Leave all the rules the same and leave every call to the discretion of the referees, the only difference being that the coach has the option to challenge certain calls. Some of which would include a missed high sticking penalty (drawing blood), or if a player inadvertently high sticks his own player and the opposition gets called for it. The player that is getting penalized can tell the coach that it wasn't his stick and the coach can then challenge, the play has to be reviewed and can be overturned. Other such rules that could be challenged would be disallowed goals on things such as goaltender interference (we really could have used this one, the thousand times Holmstrom got a good goal disallowed...). Also, "good goals" that should have been disallowed such as the puck going out of play, off the netting, back down, hitting the goalie (Quick) in the back and into the net... or if a play is blatantly offside and a goal is scored on that rush, the coach can challenge the offside non-call.

This is something that could definitely work but it could also get out of hand, so there would have to be something in place so that the challenge rule is not abused. Maybe something along the lines of each team gets one per game but they can challenge multiply plays as long as they don't get one wrong. If they do challenge a play and it was not valid then the team is assessed a bench minor penalty and they cannot challenge any more plays for the remainder of the game.

This would be a massive change to the game, which is why I doubt it would happen any time soon but there has to be something done to improve the calls and non calls in the game. We have the technology to review every play from a hundred different angles, so why not use it to improve the game? I think the biggest sticking point with introducing this to the NHL would be exposing the referees. No ref wants to be thrown under the bus for a bad call but in the end it's better to get it right and force the refs to maybe be more accountable... Just an idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the diving rule, I'm assuming there wouldn't need to be an actual call from a ref on it (I'm actually about 95% confident on that). On the public shaming side, I'm not so sure as I don't know if the incidents will be made public.

Luongo's thoughts on the shootout:

Can we keep the spin-o-rama and ban the shootout instead @NHL ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of these rule changes every year but I really want to see some sort of coaches challenge rule. Leave all the rules the same and leave every call to the discretion of the referees, the only difference being that the coach has the option to challenge certain calls. Some of which would include a missed high sticking penalty (drawing blood), or if a player inadvertently high sticks his own player and the opposition gets called for it. The player that is getting penalized can tell the coach that it wasn't his stick and the coach can then challenge, the play has to be reviewed and can be overturned. Other such rules that could be challenged would be disallowed goals on things such as goaltender interference (we really could have used this one, the thousand times Holmstrom got a good goal disallowed...). Also, "good goals" that should have been disallowed such as the puck going out of play, off the netting, back down, hitting the goalie (Quick) in the back and into the net... or if a play is blatantly offside and a goal is scored on that rush, the coach can challenge the offside non-call.

This is something that could definitely work but it could also get out of hand, so there would have to be something in place so that the challenge rule is not abused. Maybe something along the lines of each team gets one per game but they can challenge multiply plays as long as they don't get one wrong. If they do challenge a play and it was not valid then the team is assessed a bench minor penalty and they cannot challenge any more plays for the remainder of the game.

This would be a massive change to the game, which is why I doubt it would happen any time soon but there has to be something done to improve the calls and non calls in the game. We have the technology to review every play from a hundred different angles, so why not use it to improve the game? I think the biggest sticking point with introducing this to the NHL would be exposing the referees. No ref wants to be thrown under the bus for a bad call but in the end it's better to get it right and force the refs to maybe be more accountable... Just an idea...

Good idea, but could be abused. Baseball have implemented the coach's challenge quite well this year IMO.

I guess you could use a bench minor as a deterrent if the coach is wrong, ala what happened when Bob Hartley tried to get Hasek's stick measured in 02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While some of the rule changes are idiotic, my biggest concern doesn't involve the rule changes per se. It stems from the fact that the NHL seems to think that it's a good idea giving refs who have struggled to properly interpret rules in the past, even more rules that are open to interpretation. Get ready for more confusion on the ice, especially with the tripping rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea, but could be abused. Baseball have implemented the coach's challenge quite well this year IMO.

I guess you could use a bench minor as a deterrent if the coach is wrong, ala what happened when Bob Hartley tried to get Hasek's stick measured in 02.

I don't want to get off topic but the coaches challenge in baseball has been atrociously used. It was supposed to speed up the game--while getting the call right. Instead we have managers coming onto the field -slowly- while looking into the dugout at the bench coach (who is on the phone with the replay coach) to get the thumbs up or down on whether to challenge or not. The umpire has to make the call quickly, so the mangers should decide whether they want to challenge just as quick.

My point being that I don't mind the coaches challenge being implemented in the NHL, I just don't want to see the same process being used as in baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get off topic but the coaches challenge in baseball has been atrociously used. It was supposed to speed up the game--while getting the call right. Instead we have managers coming onto the field -slowly- while looking into the dugout at the bench coach (who is on the phone with the replay coach) to get the thumbs up or down on whether to challenge or not. The umpire has to make the call quickly, so the mangers should decide whether they want to challenge just as quick.

My point being that I don't mind the coaches challenge being implemented in the NHL, I just don't want to see the same process being used as in baseball.

I agree to an extent about the baseball challenge. I can't stand the slow walk/delay to get the thumbs up, and I hope they manage to remedy it and speed things up. I do like them getting the calls right though. Nothing used to make me more angry than a blown call (even though I know it's a hard job and nobody is perfect). So while the current situation isn't perfect I'd rather see it remedied than done away with and would like to see something similar in the NHL.

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