Looking at Changes

The NHL game is getting more defensive again, and that's something the NHL has to be looking at when it holds it's R and D session in Toronto this week.

But there's nothing on the agenda that's going to make much difference.

There seems to be an inordinate focus on icing, both the rule in general as it pertains to racing for the puck and the way in which it's allowed during shorthanded situation.

The first element is about danger. But the so-called "hybrid" rule would simply force officials to guess which player is going to win the race at the face-off dot, and I'm pretty much against any rule that forces more judgement calls. The most effective NHL rules changes in recent years have been the black-and-white ones. Players do very occasionally get injured on icing calls, and sometimes badly. But if reducing injuries is the goal, there are other areas that could be addressed with greater results.

What about forbidding penalized teams to ice the puck? I see the logic, except they'll likely ice it anyway, producing more whistles and more faceoffs. Icing the puck while penalty killing has long been part of the game, and a more skilful part than say, fighting.

Better to force the offending team to kill off the entire two minutes. However, the problem with anything that makes it tougher on shorthanded teams will almost certainly have the effect of motivating officials to call fewer penalties because minors will become more costly.

Quite frankly, there is no magic pill for the NHL right now. The game is generally excellent, and the biggest alteration in the ability of teams to score is the incredible amount of shot-blocking that takes place. But in the Cup final, the last hockey we saw, there were low-scoring games and high-scoring games. Goals were hardly a problem there.

So I'd expect nothing significant to come out of this week. That said, the attitude that everything is always worth looking at is admirable.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Nick Martin]

One thing about shorthanded situations that I've never understood...when a team is shorthanded, and gets a delayed penalty, during which time the team on the power play scores, the shorthanded team gets its man out of the penalty box and the delayed penalty is wiped out.

And just to make things more complicated: if the NHL decides not to make the shorthanded team kill the entire two minutes even if a power play goal is scored, why not make the offending player stay in the box the entire two minutes (or longer, until the next whistle), thereby depriving his team of his services for the length of the penalty?

Or why not let the player out of the box if his team scores a shorthanded goal, thereby rewarding a shorthanded team that tries to add some more excitement ot the game?

[Kevin Murray]

The area of the game that I would like to see addressed is the scrum in front of the net after the whistle has gone.
The problems are:
it's dead time when the whistle has already gone and the clock is not running.

there are too many infractions (cross checks, punches to the head) that are not penalized or even addressed with a warning. This leads to a blatant disregard for the rules.

Here is where face-offs, preventing line changes or some other measure may help more than just calling penalties.

it happens far too often.

[Chad]

not allowing a short-handed team to ice the puck is absolutely ridiculous. it more or less forces the penalized team to play the same players for the entire two minutes, and that would be especially true when there bench is on the opposite end. it's penalty enough that they're short-handed, why add on to that?

[Matt B]

The rules I'd like to see tweaked:

1. Get rid of the trapezoid. Nothing good has come of it. Let goalies wander into the corner if they want — it'll create more mistakes and more goals. It may also allow the good stick handling goalies to work the puck and avoid the forward crushing the defenseman.

2. Don't allow players to drop to the ice to block shots.

3. I also think the NHL should consider 2 levels of minor penalties. Give 1 minute penalties for non-physical misdeeds like flipping puck over the glass, illegal stick curve, too-many men on the ice. Or, if that's not palatable, make it a 3 minute penalties for things like elbowing, high-sticking. There is no reason that penalties only have to 2 or 5 minutes in length.

[RowerGuy]

And just what is wrong with no touch icing??? If you ice it, you pay the price....without getting bailed out by your fast team mate.

[Jeff]

I agree, the game is pretty good as is. Some of the rules are just so stupid it would make it impossible for even the most knowledgeable fans to keep up with. Imagine the new fans?

I think olympic sized ice is hte way to go. If they are worried about losing a few rows of seats...there are ways around it, although i think the should just suck it up and lose a few rows of seats for the good of the game.

[KD]

Three words - no touch icing. Plain and simple. But I like the idea of two classes of minors - physical and not. The difference shouldn't be in the length of the power play, but whether a power play goal ends the penalty. For example, on a delay of game, a goal would end it. For elbowing, it would not. I admit I like Nick's idea (the first comment) - if a power play goal is scored, the short-handed situation ends, but the penalized player still has to sit out the full two minutes, or longer until the next whistle.

[Gary M. Mugford]

Damian,

A quick and easy rule to implement that my back-of-the-napkin calculation should lead to a scoring increase of between 1.8 and 3.2 per cent. Change the face-off rule so that the last man in is always the attacking player rather than the home player. Only time the home player gets the advantage is at centre ice.

Secondly, I've long stumped for a three-minute penalty for all stick infractions involving bodily contact: High-sticking, slashing, hooking, tripping with the stick, etc. (spearing should be a treated separately). Make the player skate (and throw an elbow instead [G]). So much of the violence in hockey actually starts with a slash.

Get the stick penalty rule started in kid's hockey and we'd have a better game at the NHL level by no later than 2030.

GM

[Adam]

Uh, Damien, doesn't the current icing rule require a judgment call? Certainly there are times when it's easy to call, but I've seen a few plays where officials were "guessing" because they got it wrong. I would think it's easier to tell who finishes across a dot out in the open, rather then touching a puck with a stick in a corner with a partial view being blocked by the net and ice shavings from the players stopping. I don't think you thought out your argument very well....

[yellow4dissent]

i like the idea of allowing a player to come out after his team scores a SH goal... it does put an added incentive for a skilled team to try to nab a sh goal and open up. I like the idea of no touch icing to save players from getting injured. However, if I always thought that it should be a delay of game penalty if the same team ices it three times in a row without the other team icing it. It would definitely discourage a team who just iced the puck to ice it again, and for the other team, they wouldn't want to ice it so that they could have a chance to go on the PP.

[Hank]

Shot-blocking is certainly something that has helped reduce the goals per game totals over the past 6 seasons.
So I'd prefer the NHL take a look at a rule that states you are not allowed to leave your feet to block a shot or pass.
You can still block shots, but you have to be on two skates to do so.
There's very little entertainment value of watching a big defenseman lying on the ice to block a pass. Sure, hometeam fans love it, but if the NHL wants the game to appeal to a national audience, plays like that take excitement out of a game, not add to it.
I'm an NHL fan first, so I watch more games that don't feature my favorite team. I'm only interested in seeing good, entertaining hockey. And I'd love for the NHL to find a way to add more clean, even-strength goals to it's nightly totals.

[Hank]

Rowerguy said "I think olympic sized ice is hte way to go. If they are worried about losing a few rows of seats...there are ways around it, although i think the should
just suck it up and lose a few rows of seats for the good of the game."

Couldn't agree more.
Despite what some critics might believe, the game will not look like it does in Europe (more east-west than north-south).
It's a frame of mind and since every coach is from N.A., we won't be seeing a lot of KHL-type hockey.
The NHL missed the boat when all these new buildings were being erected. They should have forced Olympic sized rinks on them.
At the very least, why not have two consecutive nights in a row where every exhibition game is played on Olympic surfaces? Then we'd be able to see how it'd look with close to NHL standard skill.

[yertu damkule]

personally, i like the idea of 'no icing' for a team on the PK, but agree that they would simply ice it anyway...UNLESS there was an additional 'penalty,' like adding time back to the PP for each icing (say, 15-20 seconds). that way, you negate the 'advantage' the team icing the puck is trying to create (i.e. killing time off the PK while the icing is actually taking place & getting a slight chance to rest) & penalize them (albeit slightly) for the icing attempt (by making them stay on the PK - with guys who've not been able to change - even longer).