NHL rule changes for the 2014-15 season

[HotWheelsdude]

Here are the new rules that are applied according to sports illustrated

Link: http://www.si.com/nhl/2014/09/11/new-nhl-rule-changes

Rule 1.8 – Rink—Goalkeeper's Restricted Area

The trapezoid will be expanded by two feet from the goal post on each side 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 one ("Physical Fouls") as boarding and checking from behind. 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 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

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.

What do you guys think? For me, it's basically no comment expect for I like the new overtime rules, and getting rid of the "Spin-O-Rama" moves in penalty shots, and shootouts.

[Stampman]

Instead of banning the spin-o-rama, they should ban the shootout.

[BBTV]

What's the thought process behind banning the spin move?

[mamiller99]

What's the thought process behind banning the spin move?

When you think about it, technically the puck doesn't stay in a forward motion.

Also, Crosby might need a higher paycheck to pay for the b***h (er, embellishment) and diving fines.

[STL FANATIC]

Increasing the size of the trapezoid is good, but eliminating it would be better.

[youcan'tseeme]

Increasing the area the goalies can play the puck? Why not just not restrict it? It was a stupid rule when it was made and still is, most goalies cutting off the puck do it behind the net regardless. May as well just get rid it all together.

[STL FANATIC]

Yep. And then you could eliminate the need for hybrid icing too!

[The_Admiral]

Now that Fatso is probably out of the league and most goalies are trained to be rather risk-averse, we don't really need the trapezoid anymore. Mike Smith would make use of it, but Mike Smith also makes use of the dressing room because he's been pulled from games, so who cares.

[Cosmic]

What's the thought process behind banning the spin move?

When you think about it, technically the puck doesn't stay in a forward motion.

Also, Crosby might need a higher paycheck to pay for the b***h (er, embellishment) and diving fines.

You can do the spin-o-rama with the puck constantly moving forward, but refs couldn't be bothered to tell the difference.

[NJTank]

Increasing the area the goalies can play the puck? Why not just not restrict it? It was a stupid rule when it was made and still is, most goalies cutting off the puck do it behind the net regardless. May as well just get rid it all together.

This rule was aimed at just one goalie and his career is all but over.

[Still MIGHTY]

What about the idea of reversing the trapezoid? Make the area behind the net the unplayable area and make the goalies play the puck in the corners.

That'd be exciting.

[HotWheelsdude]

Instead of banning the spin-o-rama, they should ban the shootout.

Agreed. What was wrong with ties? I would love to see winless, and unbeaten streaks (with ties) to comeback.

[The_Admiral]

How quickly we forget the way overtime games would devolve into the equivalent of zoo monkeys beating off in the corner so that nobody could risk losing a point. Or would you prefer the return of the four-column standings where teams were guaranteed their point for a regulation tie and played for a second? and yet teams still played it safer than safe and ended in ties a lot?

By the same principle that you can't have infinite sudden death (rejected title of a David Foster Wallace biography?) over the course of a six-month, 82-game season, you can't have an 82-game season where as many as 20 of those games end in ties. We already joke that the NHL regular season doesn't tell us anything about who will win in the playoffs. Now you want the games to tell us no winner at all? gtfo

[HedleyLamarr]

There really isn't any perfect way to decide regular season hockey games.

I really don't mind the current format. It may be a little better with the switching sides for OT (although, now there's going to be an 8-minute build-up for overtime if they're cleaning the entire ice before OT...way to kill momentum. Unless I'm reading that change wrong and it'll be the ice crew with the shovels instead of the zamboni...but they were already doing this, right?). There is strategy in playing for the shootout, and I'm never against strategy, such as it is. The guaranteed point helps with OT play, since as Admiral alluded to...the previous form of OT was 5 minutes of grab-ass. It makes the standings ugly and uneven, but the NHL insists on keeping standings in point form.

I wouldn't be against ties, but the games would have to be 60 minutes with no OT, and a 3-1-0 point format. Make wins more important. Plus, I like the idea of pulling the goalie in a tie game in mid-March to go for the full three points.

The 3-2-1-0 format is okay. Every game is equal in point distribution. Keep the now-current OT and shootout format. Every game has a winner and loser. Works for international tournaments...don't see why it couldn't work in an 82-game schedule. But four columns in the standings won't be fun to explain to a person trying to get interested in hockey.

Of course, straight wins and losses (use the current format, drop-kick the points) works well for basketball and football and baseball.

Then again, the NHL standings don't mean much to a guy with no dog in the fight, so use whatever the hell you want, NHL.....

[The_Admiral]

I'd go with straight wins and losses, regulation/overtime wins as a tiebreaker.

And sometimes bad strategies have to be legislated out. Football does it every season. Whether you agree with the end result or not, the NFL isn't above adjusting the rules to get a desired product, and it worked wonders for them until the world got wise to what a bunch of dickholes the players are. I had no problem with defanging the neutral zone trap by legalizing the two-line pass and calling obstruction fouls by the book (boy, that was a nice week the NHL had). Unfortunately, the great equalizers that are in vogue now -- namely, shot-blocking shells, short shifts, playing for the shootout -- have proven much harder to legislate out. I don't like the idea of penalizing shot blocks, and I really don't like requiring a maximum shift time, but pre-shootout conservatism can be dealt with rather easily and without changing officiating.

Oh, and the cleanup will be a "dry scrape" with the Zamboni similar to what they do before shootouts. I suppose it'll be about that much of a delay, maybe a bit more, and will obviate the need for another scrape between overtime and the shootout.

[HedleyLamarr]

It'll be nearly a 10-minute delay just for cleaning the ice, placing the goals back in their space, and giving a couple moments for the ice solution to completely freeze. Seems pretty pointless for a faster-flowing 5-minute-max period. Unless a dry scrape means snow removal only and no full-on resurfacing of the ice. If I remember correctly, the shootout cleaning was just snow removal. That won't take as long, but still a bit of a lengthy delay. Enough to work in a full commercial break and some highlights from regulation play.

I'm not sure what can be done to make hockey better. The easy answers would be making the playing surface larger (which just isn't a possibility for most arenas) or making the goals larger. Maybe a rule stating your body isn't allowed to be on the ice unless it's from the result of a body check? Give the linesmen more leeway in calling penalties? Have players sit the full two minutes on minor penalties, no matter how many goals are scored?

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, it's just snow removal, no setting down fresh ice. This should still improve the ice conditions a bit, which in tandem with the long change, should make a goal more likely, thus reducing shootouts.

I think we'll see some sort of penalization of intentional shot blocks next time some guy gets his face obliterated lying down to block a shot (in spite of a visor). "Stay upright whenever possible" might be what ends up happening. I think you're right. Not only is it dangerous, watching a team set up in the other team's end only to watch the other team hit the ice and lie on their sides to willingly get hit with a projectile looks flat-out dumb. It's like Battling Seizure Robots without all the rolling around.

[dbadefense1990]

What about the idea of reversing the trapezoid? Make the area behind the net the unplayable area and make the goalies play the puck in the corners.

That'd be exciting.

Or. Or. How's about isolating those trapezoids behind the nets, enclosing them behind end boards (thus, changing the shape of the playing rink) and making them the new places to house penalty killers.

Say it's Flyers-Pens, Philadelphia is shooting to the left and they're going to be on the power play. On that left trapezoid, you have Pittsburgh penalty killers being sent to that trapezoidal penalty box behind Marc-Andre Fleury, watching helplessly as Philly is on the attack. Plus, it'd be a fun bonus to watch players play hockey with a rink minus a trapezoidal shape behind the net, as it's boxed out from play. All those funny bounces and second guesses arising from an awkwardly-shaped rink.

Now that would be exciting.

[The_Admiral]

"Penalty killers" are the skaters who aren't in the box during a penalty. Another rough day at the office for dbadefense1990.

[dbadefense1990]

"Penalty killers" are the skaters who aren't in the box during a penalty. Another rough day at the office for dbadefense1990.

Yeah...this oppressive heat and humidity here right now have made me say things out of logic, and do things out of reason. Lucky I didn't faint during the typing of the original post.