Rule changes : What sounds good?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Rules will be broken
... or, at least many that make goalies happy

No one knows what rule changes the general managers might approve at their meeting at Detroit in early April, but this much is clear: Nothing is off limits. For the first time, the National Hockey League is in a wide-open mode when it comes to altering its game. It had been a leaning in that direction when the GMs met in Nevada last February, but now the trickle has become a torrent.

Most GMs want to protect the integrity of the game. But even so, just by reverting to rules that were legislated out of the game, positive steps can be made to restoring offence.

- complete article

[franko]

he league isn't run by reasonable people. It's run by lawyers, so a common-sense rule has no chance.
That about says it all to me . . . the reason why the game has become what it has, and the reason the game isn't being played and why HA isn't into convoluted scenarios about playoff possibilities.

1. Call the book.
2. No shootouts -- OT until there is a winner.
3. Make goalies decide to play goal or to play out -- not both.
4. There are retro jerseys -- let's have retor goalie equipment (pre-Roy).

That's a start, anyway.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

1. Call the book.

Yeth.

2. No shootouts -- OT until there is a winner.

Oh, yeth, yeth.

3. Make goalies decide to play goal or to play out -- not both.

Ah, let 'em take their chances.

4. There are retro jerseys -- let's have retor goalie equipment (pre-Roy).

Murder, sez I, murder!

Tag-up offsides.

I like the idea of being forced to serve the full two minutes of a minor penalty, never mind how many biscuits the power play puts in the basket. Feel the deadly emanations from your coach's eyes across the rink as you sweat it out in the sin bin and the score mounts. Endure the stony silence of team-mates as you slink back to the bench, knowing full well that you just put the game out of reach for your side. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[franko]

M. said:

I like the idea of being forced to serve the full two minutes of a minor penalty, never mind how many biscuits the power play puts in the basket. Feel the deadly emanations from your coach's eyes across the rink as you sweat it out in the sin bin and the score mounts. Endure the stony silence of team-mates as you slink back to the bench, knowing full well that you just put the game out of reach for your side. Yeah, that's the ticket.

OK, Mr. knows-the-net-so-well-he-can-find-anything, what is the average re:PP goals and average time to score onthe PP? Methinks there won't be too many more PP goals scored if they went the whole 2 minutes . . . but it will certainly give pause to the "should I retaliate? Should I? Should I?" (not that anyone thinks much anyway).

5 for hitting from behind. 5 for any shot above the shoulders (elbow, two-hander, etc).

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

OK, Mr. knows-the-net-so-well-he-can-find-anything, what is the average re:PP goals and average time to score onthe PP?

excellent question, and one I'd like to know the answer to as well. Unfortunately a search was not helpful. I think I'd need access to Scotty Bowman's attic to get that info.

Methinks there won't be too many more PP goals scored if they went the whole 2 minutes

Hmmm, the reason they went to letting the offenders out of gaol after one goal was that teams, specifically the Habs, were scoring more than once on a minor.

Granted that there are some inept PP units out there, but still...

. . . but it will certainly give pause to the "should I retaliate? Should I? Should I?" (not that anyone thinks much anyway).

...last 5 minutes of the game. Your team down 1-3. Big Bobby Clobber on the other side cross-checks one of your team-mates. A bona fide chance to tie it up, or even to win.

5 for hitting from behind. 5 for any shot above the shoulders (elbow, two-hander, etc).

Auto 5 for high-sticking as well.

No touch icing.

[franko]

M. said:

excellent question, and one I'd like to know the answer to as well. Unfortunately a search was not helpful.

So I'm not so inept after all. I only deferred to you because I couldn't find anything (though my search was admittedly cursory)

Hmmm, the reason they went to letting the offenders out of gaol after one goal was that teams, specifically the Habs, were scoring more than once on a minor.

Those were the years . . .

. . . the years before cycle cycle cycle trap trap trap and goalie equipment that filled the net.

Granted that there are some inept PP units out there, but still...

Inept 5-on-5 teams as well

...last 5 minutes of the game. Your team down 1-3. Big Bobby Clobber on the other side cross-checks one of your team-mates. A bona fide chance to tie it up, or even to win.

But Big Bobby Clobber doesn't get called. Your immediate reaction: smite him! Happens far too often. Would the threat of a full 2 minutes in the sin bin stop you? The possibility of a PK hasn't in the past.

Auto 5 for high-sticking as well.

Forgot about that one. Definitely.

I'm of the opinion that there should be 5 for a slash as well (not a full season, though).

And if we fans are going to call for obstruction-type things to be called as penalties then we'd better just shut up and put up with the whistle being blown continually for the first 3 months until the players get used to it, and the refs had better call it the whole season -- including the last 5 minutes of a close game and into OT.

[Doc Holliday]

I am against rules that can make one penalty end the game. Right now referees hesitate to give out penalties because they are afraid it could decide the outcome of a game, can you immagine how they would be if one penalty could mean being scored on 3, 4 times !!

Call the book of rules
No touch icing
No goalie behind the net.
No red line (yes no red line...)

[Doc Holliday]

M. said:

Auto 5 for high-sticking as well.

...but only if it draws blood which spills on the ice. If it doesn't draw enough blood for a good size spill it's only a 2 minute... What... these guys are no wuss fer Pete's sake... Tell ya one tink right now, if we can't put a little Sher-Wood to a guy's face and leave a few teeth on the ice without having to hear a whistle than what are we ?? Swedes !!? French ?!!

www.playcentric.com/specials/doncherry/doncherry.jpg [/img]

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Doc_Holliday said:

I am against rules that can make one penalty end the game.

Why? If a player is stupid or careless enough to put his team in that position he and his club should be made to suffer the possible consequences. No "get out of jail free cards."

Right now referees hesitate to give out penalties because they are afraid it could decide the outcome of a game, can you immagine how they would be if one penalty could mean being scored on 3, 4 times !!

Then get rid of the wimps and put the stripes on some men with the stones to do their job properly, i. e. to call the book.

[Boston_Habs]

Don't know what happened there. Here is my full post:

I will add a shootout to the list. The fact is a shootout is far more exciting than a 4-on-4 OT. As hockey purists we can't be so arrogant as to dismiss a change to the game that average fans will enjoy. In case you haven't noticed, hockey TV ratings in the US have been languishing somewhere between celebrity poker and the Bass Fisherman for the past several years.

A shootout in the regular season is a no-brainer. I would also add a wrinkle to the point system:

- 3 points for a regulation win.
- 2 points for a shootout win
- 1 point for a shootout loss.

[Polarice]

Doc_Holliday said:

...but only if it draws blood which spills on the ice. If it doesn't draw enough blood for a good size spill it's only a 2 minute... What... these guys are no wuss fer Pete's sake... Tell ya one tink right now, if we can't put a little Sher-Wood to a guy's face and leave a few teeth on the ice without having to hear a whistle than what are we ?? Swedes !!? French ?!!

No way, if the stick goes up, so dose the refs arm!!
There is way to much stick work.

As for the rest, I agree with just call the damm book.

No touch icing is a good idea, may say a few knees or ankles.

Goalies cant play the puck outside the crease is a good one.

The red line one, I'm up in the air on that one. The minors have no red line and they still trap, I dont see that one making a difference.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

I'm of the opinion that there should be 5 for a slash as well (not a full season, though).

I say 5 for anything to the hand area. Slashes to the hands cause a lot of serious injuries and usually go uncalled, not to mention it's just poor sportsmanship and laziness or deliberate attempt to injure.

I don't see the harm in taking out the red line, though I used to be against it. How many times have we seen a breakaway whistled down because of it? It's at least worth trying it out.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

I say 5 for anything to the hand area. Slashes to the hands cause a lot of serious injuries and usually go uncalled, not to mention it's just poor sportsmanship and laziness or deliberate attempt to injure.

So it is and it should be punished severely.

Two things hockey players instinctively recognize and respect are reward and punishment.

[BadCompany]

M. said:

Then get rid of the wimps and put the stripes on some men with the stones to do their job properly, i. e. to call the book.

Alas, there are no such men readily available. Where have all the good men gone, anyways?

If you've watched and/or listened to any AHL hockey on a regular basis, you'd know just how atrocious that league's refereeing is. No relief from that level, or any other level, really.

I have heard that the REAL reason the league went and stays with the two-referee system, is to prolong the careers of the refs they have, because they feel they don't have enough capable replacements coming up through the pipeline, and they have to max out the guys they have, while they have them. Its a sorry state, fer sure...

As for the rule changes...

* Leave the red line in.

* Leave touch icing in, BUT...

* Penalize repetitive icings. Say, each team gets 3 per period, after which its an automatic 1 minute delay of game penalty.

* Full two minutes. Why not?

* Shootouts. Not a huge fan, but I can see the appeal. But for all those people saying "but not in the playoff" I ask, why not? If its okay for the Montreal Canadiens to miss the playoffs on the last day of the regular season because Boston beat Nashville in a shootout, why is not okay for the playoffs? (just playing devil's advocate, by all means, bring on the shootouts)

* Touch up offsides.

* Mandatory suspensions for serious infractions, with set limits. No more "at the discretion of the commissioner." Hit someone over the head with your stick? Automatic 20 game suspension. No pleading, begging, or "let me explains."

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

BadCompany said:

Alas, there are no such men readily available. Where have all the good men gone, anyways?

If you've watched and/or listened to any AHL hockey on a regular basis, you'd know just how atrocious that league's refereeing is. No relief from that level, or any other level, really.

I have heard that the REAL reason the league went and stays with the two-referee system, is to prolong the careers of the refs they have, because they feel they don't have enough capable replacements coming up through the pipeline, and they have to max out the guys they have, while they have them. Its a sorry state, fer sure...

I've kvetched in the past about the poor quality of refereeing. IMO expansion had a deleterious effect on an already delicate situation. Poor officiating has been a great contributor to the decline in the over all quality of the NHL game.

AHL games put me in mind of a Sly Stallone prison flick. The warden isn't corrupt, just incompetent. I fully believe that lousy officating was directly to blame for the Perezhogin fiasco.

But, what can you do...?

[franko]

BadCompany said:

* Mandatory suspensions for serious infractions, with set limits. No more "at the discretion of the commissioner." Hit someone over the head with your stick? Automatic 20 game suspension. No pleading, begging, or "let me explains."

With you. The automatic known-in-advance suspension helps Colie and his minions as well -- no "what do we do if it's a star -- the gate'll be affected"?

Appeal? Point to the book. Or allow for appeals (how would Bertuzzi appeal other than to say "I didn't mean to break his neck?") with two conditions:
1. Appeal granted (I don't know why one would be); 1/2 the sentence (20 games becomes 10)
2. Appeal denied; add 1/2 the sentence (20 games becomes 30).

[TheHabsfan]

Rule changes...about time...

1. No touch icing: I like it, but with the proposed "no change" for the guilty party. Promotes fewer stops in play.

2. No red line: I am against this. If they take the red line away, you are gonna see more "hail mary" plays and teams are gonna fall into a 1-4 system to counter it. We want players to focus on offense to make the game interesting...This will make the game even more defensive than it already is, IMO.

3. Touch up offsides: Again, this promotes flow to the game...I am all for it.

4. Goalie can't leave crease: I am on the fence on this one. I am thinking that goalies can still play the puck, HOWEVER, they become fair game for getting hit....sorta like a 3rd d-man.

5. Shoot-outs: Call me a traditionalist, but I don't like shoot-outs. I like the 5 minute 4 on 4 and then unlimited 3 on 3.

6. Call the book: Definitely

7. Full 2 minutes per penalty: I like it...more goals, and probably less stick work and stupid penalties...Imagine getting scored on twice for a diving call...ouch! Can you say benched for life??

8. Moving the nets back: I am all for this. I rather see nice passing plays in front of the net than watching players grind it out for 30 seconds with no result, behind it.

9. Small goalie equipment: I am ok with this. More goals typically mean more excitement.

10. Instigator rule: Scrap it!!!

Well, that about covers it for me...interesting topic.

THF

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Some other ideas floating around:

- widen the bluelines

- call short-handed teams for icing

- 4-on-4 hockey during coincidental fighting majors

- on-the-fly line changes only; not allowed during stoppages

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I haven't read the entire thread as yet, but did take time to read the article.

First thing I noticed as Al Strachan's moniker on it. No comment. Okey-dokey, here we go:

For instance, many GMs want to kill the rule that allows a short-handed team to ice the puck.
It would certainly change the way teams practice penalty killing. I think it should stay the way it is.

Also, the GMs could kill the other rule that came in at that time: Limiting a team to one goal per power play.
I like this because teams might think twice before taking "I-did-it-to-get-things-going-with-my-team-penalties" especially if they're playing a high-percentage PP team.

While the GMs are in this metamorphic mood, they will bring back the tag-up rule. That's the one that allows a delayed offside while encroaching players clear the zone.
Yes, and while they're at it introduce the 30-second faceoff rule. You can still have your TV timeouts.

The tag-up rule's reinstatement was approved last year, but the NHL Players' Association filed a grievance against the GMs' laundry list of modifications on a matter of principle -- the principle being that their members had no input.
It might work in favour of trapping teams, but I like this rule as it keeps the game going.

So, the GMs will offer other suggestions, such as the one that says if you ice the puck, you can't make a personnel change.
Karl Dykhuis would never have gotten off the ice. I'm indifferent about this one. There's pros and cons to it.


There will be shootouts to determine the outcome if the game is still tied after overtime.
The rest of the hockey world does it, so it's about time to quit griping about it. I wouldn't mind seeing it providing it doesn't decide any playoff games.

Goalies' movement will also be under scrutiny. A Nevada proposal required goalies to stay in front of the goal line at all times, but passage of that one was not smooth.
I would like to see nothing change here. Well, maybe just one small thing; if a goalie comes out of his crease he should become the same as a skater. Far too often goalies come out of their crease and smear an opposing player into the boards (and the fans go wild for the home team). Yet, why is it no one is allowed to body check the goalie when he has the puck outside of the crease. There have been too many gutless goaltenders taking advantage of this; Ron Hextall was the worst and there are others. Irks me to no end.

It's also quite possible that the limit on stick curvature might be radically eased -- or dropped altogether.
There would be more goals that's for sure.

Cheers.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

From Eric Duhatschek's column in Friday's Globe and Mail:

AND FINALLY: The AHL's experiment with half-a-dozen rule changes on behalf of the NHL this season hasn't necessarily resulted in more scoring, but according to league president Dave Andrews, there has been a noticeable improvement in flow and overall entertainment value.

"In surveys, our fan response to the entire package has been extremely positive," said Andrews. "The most significant changes we've made have been bringing back rules that were there before, like the tag-up rule. Moving the net back has helped. There's less cycling behind the net. The wider blue lines have gained acceptance, both aesthetically and from a technical point of view. We've played with no-touch icing, which has had mixed reviews. We've put in a much more stringent restraining foul standard on the puck carrier, which I think has helped."

But …<br>
"At the end of the day, if increasing scoring is important, then we've found that these things are not increasing our scoring significantly," continued Andrews. "To get scoring up, there are two things that need to happen. One is related to goalkeeping equipment. The other is to apply an even stricter standard than we've been able to apply so far on illegal defensive tactics in the offensive zone. If you could take away the clutching and grabbing in the attacking zone - which you can - particularly on a puck carrier that has gained an advantage, I think you'll increase scoring if the goalies get a little smaller."

Buffalo Sabres coach Lindy Ruff gets to see his team's No. 1 affiliate, the Rochester Americans, play a lot because Rochester is an easy commute from Buffalo.

According to Ruff, he likes most of the things they've tried in the AHL (except no-touch icing) to open up the game, but the bottom line hasn't changed - teams are combining to score just a shade over five goals-per-game.

"What struck me," said Ruff, "was that goaltenders are still dominating the game. We've got to get away from that, to where the three stars are the top offensive players again."

According to Ruff, there are enough scoring chances in most games, just not enough goals.

"It really leads me to believe that either the goalies have to get smaller or the nets have to get bigger," said Ruff. "We've got to make the goaltenders make more skilful saves. It's a science now. It's net blocking. It's being at the perfect angle. The use of individual video and putting an individual camera on your goalie, holding your hand six inches in front of your body compared to having it even with your body. It's gotten so precise that they know, if they're in perfect position, a guy has to make the all-world shot to score - and it doesn't happen very often anymore."

Not even among the players that possess all-world shots.

Ruff continued: "The talent and the speed and the athleticism in the game, even from 1999, is so much greater. The training, the nutrition, you name it. There are no bad skaters left in the game, it doesn't seem like. That's hurt the game. You've got guys now that can track down anybody, that can back check anybody. Our game has evolved to that point. We have to find a way of pushing past that.

"Let's just assume the offence in the game is broken and we've been a little slow to fix it. I know some people are going to be traditionalists. For a while, I just thought, 'what's wrong with this.' But if you look at fans that pay good money to see the game, they should be rewarded with the thing they like best in the game."

[Disgruntled70sHab]

We're pretty much on-line THF.

TheHabsfan said:

Rule changes...about time...
1. No touch icing: I like it, but with the proposed "no change" for the guilty party. Promotes fewer stops in play.

... and would be the beginning to different strategies for penalty killing.

2. No red line: I am against this. If they take the red line away, you are gonna see more "hail mary" plays and teams are gonna fall into a 1-4 system to counter it. We want players to focus on offense to make the game interesting...This will make the game even more defensive than it already is, IMO.

I don't like this idea either. It would force teams to be more disciplined when making their line changes, granted, but right now I'm good with the current configuration.

4. Goalie can't leave crease: I am on the fence on this one. I am thinking that goalies can still play the puck, HOWEVER, they become fair game for getting hit....sorta like a 3rd d-man.

Goaltenders should be the same as any other player on the ice when they leave the crease.

5. Shoot-outs: Call me a traditionalist, but I don't like shoot-outs. I like the 5 minute 4 on 4 and then unlimited 3 on 3.

Again, so long as playoff games aren't decided by a shootout I think it would work. The rest of the world does it after all.

6. Call the book: Definitely

And stick to it ... don't waffle the second it slows down the game.

7. Full 2 minutes per penalty: I like it...more goals, and probably less stick work and stupid penalties...Imagine getting scored on twice for a diving call...ouch! Can you say benched for life??

Making players more accountable is always good. As for "benched for life" I feel a player who suckers another player and injures him for an extended period of time, should be made to sit out as long as his victim does.

10. Instigator rule: Scrap it!!!

Yep.

Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Doc_Holliday said:

...but only if it draws blood which spills on the ice. If it doesn't draw enough blood for a good size spill it's only a 2 minute... What... these guys are no wuss fer Pete's sake... Tell ya one tink right now, if we can't put a little Sher-Wood to a guy's face and leave a few teeth on the ice without having to hear a whistle than what are we ?? Swedes !!? French ?!!

www.playcentric.com/specials/doncherry/doncherry.jpg

[/img][/quote]

No, we're DEVO!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

BadCompany said:

* Penalize repetitive icings. Say, each team gets 3 per period, after which its an automatic 1 minute delay of game penalty.

Something like team penalties in basketball. Too many and you go to the line automatically. It makes the team accountable.

You're suggestion would do the same insomuch as making teams more accountable especially late in the game when the "gas reserves" are low.

I like it.

Cheers.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

23/03/2005 06:05

"The NHL game is GOOD" - Bob Gainey
Marc de Foy - Journal de Montréal

Without claiming that the spectacle presented by the NHL was perfect before the lockout, Bob Gainey doesn't think that the resumption of play will need to present an in-depth recasting of the product.

On the initiative of Brendan Shanahan, veteran left winger of the Detroit Red Wings, the subject was discussed last November within the framework of a summit which brought together stakeholders from all aspects of hockey, including Gainey.

The case will be approached in a more official way April 7th and 8th in Detroit, at a meeting of the NHL GMs.

If the people in charge have the intention of reflecting on the question, one shouldn't expect that they will rewrite the rule book..

"When one thinks of making changes to the game, one shouldn't think in terms of a number", Gainey begins by saying.

"Initially it's necessary to consider the objectives and the effects of such a process."

Right off the top, Gainey has a suggestion for the Journal de Montréal representative.

"I would like it if you begin your article by asking these questions than to demand whether hockey must change things", he continues.

The Canadiens GM does not agree with those who preach major modifications to all the rules.

"In my opinion, the spectacle is good", he thinks.

"When I look at Sidney Crosby, I see a spectacular player.

"When I observe certain players on our team like José Theodore, Richard Zednik and Michael Ryder, I see players who offer exciting play and who show professionalism."

Always the same story

The Canadiens head of hockey operations wishes that there was more focus on the things which make hockey a beautiful sport.

Gainey is obviously aiming at the media, but maintains the great moderation that characterizes him.

"The positive points are much more numerous than the negative, but one tends to speak only about what doesn't work", he regrets.

"This tendency should change."

In this respect, he recalls that it is not just today's NHL game that is under fire.

"When one re-examines games of the 60s, 70s or 80s, one says that the spectacle was better, but at the time everyone had criticisms of the game", says Gainey.

"It's the same thing today.

"Hockey is a beautiful sport. A good game is a good game."

Fans who can remember more than 25 years back cannot deny that current players are faster, are bigger and are in better shape.

"When one goes to game, one should be filled with wonder at a great save by the goalie, a smart reaction by a defenseman or a spectacular play by a forward", insists Gainey in closing.

- texte français original

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Hockey evolved to where it is today. Players are more skilled and bigger, but they still wear skates and play with sticks (straight blade wood, to curved, to fibreglas blades, to kelvar shaft two-piece back to one piece). Rules have to keep up with the changes, but the only two rules I see as needed are:

1. Goaltender equipment should be no larger than necessary to protect the goaltended (see Ken Dryden as a good example of ample, not Patrick Roy wearing a fat actress outfit)
2. Do not allow Bettman or Goodenow to attend any games.

Enforce the hooking and interferance that are already in the rule book.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

M. said:

I've kvetched in the past about the poor quality of refereeing. IMO expansion had a deleterious effect on an already delicate situation. Poor officiating has been a great contributor to the decline in the over all quality of the NHL game.

AHL games put me in mind of a Sly Stallone prison flick. The warden isn't corrupt, just incompetent. I fully believe that lousy officating was directly to blame for the Perezhogin fiasco.

But, what can you do...?

Well, apparently they can do this...

NHL considering pairing of referees

Saturday, April 16, 2005

By TIM PANACCIO
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS

PHILADELPHIA - It won't be Aldous Huxley's version of "Brave New World," but Gary Bettman's brave new world for the NHL may include some changes to the officiating schedule.

Colin Campbell, the NHL's director of hockey operations, said the league is working on a plan to create pairs of referees to go along with the current use of paired linesmen to work games.

This setup, if adopted, has been long sought by some general managers and on-ice officials.

- www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm3776_20050416.htm

[Forum Ghost]

From today's game against Latvia...

The Latvians, who lost 3-1 to Canada in an exhibition game on Monday in Riga, kept pace with Canada early by playing a tight defensive game, stringing four men across their blue-line to stop Canadian rushes.

*

I'm still on the fence about taking out the red line. Some days I'm for it, but then when I hear things like this, I'm not too sure that it would accomplish the objective of getting a more entertaining product.

[blaise]

You want entertainment? Then take out ALL lines, including the end red lines, and rescind the offsides and icing rules. However, leave the faceoff dots. In fact, add four more dots to cover situations in which the puck goes into the seats.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

If the NHLPA and the owners don't have a signed agreement, Buttman and Goodenow have to sit on the ice but naked until an agreement is signed.
Right now I see no encouraging signs for the upcoming season.