Possible Rule Changes

[mattola]

NHL to reflect on rules at annual research and development camp

this is myt favorite and one I want in about 5 years ago.

NO ICING PERMITTED WHILE SHORTHANDED

Let's think about this one for a second. If icing isn't allowed in even strength situations then why is a team on the penalty kill, a situation in which they are being penalized, allowed to ice the puck?

This rule would not only make minor penalties more prohibitive, it would also enhance the effectiveness of the powerplay by increasing the amount of time spent in the offensive zone. The NHL is always conscious of boosting scoring and this would be a great way to do it.

 

[puckhead]

hmmm - still no mention of making the 'flipping over glass' penalty to be the same as an icing
(no change, face-off deep)

I don't care if they keep the delay of game as a discretion call, but it being an automatic minor is, was, and every shall be, a stupid rule.

 

[dash]

No icing permitted when shorthanded is very interesting - It would definitely make penalties more punitive. I still like the idea of the penalized player serving the entire time of the peanlty regardless of how many PPs goals are scored.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Icing?

Denis, I know that some in our audience don't know the finer points of hockey. Could you tell them, for example, what is icing?

Well, um, icing happen when the puck come down, bang you know, before the other guys you know. Nobody there, you know. My arm go comes up then the game stop then start up.

 

[Destroydacre]

I disagree about getting rid of icing while on the PK. It is necessary. You may as well just start awarding goals to teams when their opponent is penalized. I can get behind serving the whole penalty though, regardless of whether or not it's a major.


/edit: I don't like the hybrid icing either. Just make it automatic icing. Hybrid icing throws human judgement into the mix. We all know how that goes...

 

[awaz]

i like what one of the comments said.. change it so that you have to gain your blueline before you ice the puck.. so like icing, except you only have to get to your blueline instead of the centerline.. makes the change, but not as drastic

hybrid icing - probably a good idea.. might be tough to enforce at the dot though.. no only will the linesman probably not be standing along the dots line, there wouldnt even be a line for him to reference.. could be a tough judgement call

the OT options are just ridiculous.. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for OT loss and you have a lot less games going to OT, which means a lot less go to a shootout

i always thought beveling the posts was an interesting idea, but it wasn't listed this year.. change the curve of the posts so they direct more pucks into the net and less bounce out.. who doesn't love when players ring it off the post and in.. plus you'd increase scoring a little, but it wouldn't change the look of the game at all.. guess they decided that was a bad idea already

also no talk of changing how goaltender interference is called.. i've almost lost many a blood vessel on occasions when a forward gets checked into a goalie then goes to the box for 2 minutes

 

[TiLoBrown]

I for one would love it if the team on the PP is allowed to have their goalie play the puck outside of the stupid Marty Box...I mean trapezoid

 

[awaz]

another thing you could do is call it no-touch icing, but allow the team to change.. that way the PP doesn't lose the 20 seconds going back, collecting the puck, and then bringing it back up.. doesn't really kill time for the PK'ers, but it does get them a line change

i'm with Destroy, calling it actual icing is a little over the top

 

[puckhead]

I for one would love it if the team on the PP is allowed to have their goalie play the puck outside of the stupid Marty Box...I mean trapezoid

it'll never happen, but I'd like the trapezoid behind the net to be the goalie's "safe zone".
they can play the puck elsewhere, but they are fair game if they do.

I miss the old Mike Liut yardsales.

 

[dash]

How about a limit to the number of NTC's and NMC's that a team can hand out?!? Also known as 'The Darryl Sutter Rule'

 

[awaz]

How about a limit to the number of NTC's and NMC's that a team can hand out?!? Also known as 'The Darryl Sutter Rule'

i think sutter and holmgren would have to arm wrestle to see who got naming rights

 

[elocomotive]

it'll never happen, but I'd like the trapezoid behind the net to be the goalie's "safe zone".
they can play the puck elsewhere, but they are fair game if they do.

I miss the old Mike Liut yardsales.

LOVE the Mike Liut mention. Not the best goalie, but always entertaining to watch.

As a fan, I kinda like the exhale/cheer moment of your team icing the puck when on the PK. I also think you are talking about adding maybe 1-3 more whistles per power play if you make this change, so you are looking at something like 10-30 more whistles and faceoffs per game. That's a lot more chopping the game up and less flow, and I'm not a fan of that either. So I don't like the potential rule change from the perspective of the flow of the game and fan experience vantage point.

 

[Slimpikins]

LOVE the Mike Liut mention. Not the best goalie, but always entertaining to watch.

As a fan, I kinda like the exhale/cheer moment of your team icing the puck when on the PK. I also think you are talking about adding maybe 1-3 more whistles per power play if you make this change, so you are looking at something like 10-30 more whistles and faceoffs per game. That's a lot more chopping the game up and less flow, and I'm not a fan of that either. So I don't like the potential rule change from the perspective of the flow of the game and fan experience vantage point.

Good points. I agree that I enjoy when the Sharks clear the puck on the PK. It would take some of the excitement out of the game to have the play blown dead and the game stopped every time they do that.

I could be on board with 'serving the whole two minutes' although I have a slight reservation that it would lessen the harsh difference between a major and a minor. Maybe, maybe not, I will have to think about it.

 

[puckhead]

As a fan, I kinda like the exhale/cheer moment of your team icing the puck when on the PK. I also think you are talking about adding maybe 1-3 more whistles per power play if you make this change, so you are looking at something like 10-30 more whistles and faceoffs per game. That's a lot more chopping the game up and less flow, and I'm not a fan of that either. So I don't like the potential rule change from the perspective of the flow of the game and fan experience vantage point.

I would also like to point out the obvious loophole to this proposed rule:
if you can't fire it over the glass (without a penalty), and you can't fire it down the ice (without a line change), the only option to ensure that everyone gets a line change is to fire it into the bench. That ain't so safe, but it'll happen.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

I don't like the no icing on the powerplay possibility. The penalty kill unit would never be able to leave the ice. They'd need oxygen tanks on the bench after spending 2 to 5 minutes on the ice depending on the length of the penalty. I think it's far to big of an advantage for the team with the powerplay.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

I don't like the no icing on the powerplay possibility. The penalty kill unit would never be able to leave the ice. They'd need oxygen tanks on the bench after spending 2 to 5 minutes on the ice depending on the length of the penalty. I think it's far to big of an advantage for the team with the powerplay.

I agree. Over the course of an 82 game season, that rule could potentially just kill some guys.