NHL Rule Changes

[jkrdevil]

http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/rules_changes072205.html

To sum up.

2 line passes will be allowed.

Touch up icing still in effect however the linesmen can blow it dead it he feels a injury may occur.

If a team ice's the puck they can not make a line change.

Tag up offsides.

Fighting in the fianl 5 minutes is a game misconduct and a 1 game suspension. If player repeats fine and suspension each time.

AHL goalie rules

Smaller goalie equipment

4 on 4 OT for 5 minutes followed by a shootout.

Winner get 2 pts, if game goes to OT the loser get 1.

Can not talk bad about game or league.

I think the big one is the no changing lines after icing. Teams especially late in the game won't be inclined to ice the puck. Plus if a team is tired this increases the chances for turnover goals. 2 line pass could go either way. I heard a lot of the euro leagues want to put the red line back in for passes.

[BCBoy]

Wow! I didn't here about the no line changing after icing! That one is kinda stupid to me but I understand why they did that.

I really like the smaller golie pads and the tag up offsides though

[Stampman]

I like them all except the shootout.

I'm glad they will allow goalies to play the puck behind the net--but limiting their range is good as well--and once upon a time they couldn't roam everywhere anyway...

[wheateater]

Man, that no line changes after an icing is silly. There's a stoppage in play anyway, and while it may only be about 20 seconds, it could be enough for a guy to (somewhat) catch his breath. And besides, in the third period, a team bench is still on its side of center ice, so it's not like the forwards, at least, would have to go very far to get a change once they clear the puck out to the neutral zone or something.

The two-line pass and tag-up offsides are my personal faves here. I was kinda hoping they'd drop the 1 pt. for making it to OT ('cause Minnesota is known for getting there 30 times a season in 1-1 games and the like), but I can understand how that would create a massive discrepancy in the standings. But still, reward the team that wins, not the team that hangs on for a sissy point.

[jkrdevil]

Man, that no line changes after an icing is silly. There's a stoppage in play anyway, and while it may only be about 20 seconds, it could be enough for a guy to (somewhat) catch his breath. And besides, in the third period, a team bench is still on its side of center ice, so it's not like the forwards, at least, would have to go very far to get a change once they clear the puck out to the neutral zone or something.

The two-line pass and tag-up offsides are my personal faves here. I was kinda hoping they'd drop the 1 pt. for making it to OT ('cause Minnesota is known for getting there 30 times a season in 1-1 games and the like), but I can understand how that would create a massive discrepancy in the standings. But still, reward the team that wins, not the team that hangs on for a sissy point.

Well, the fact there isn't a tie anymore it should make for an exciting ot as teams have no choice but to go for the win because there has to be a winner. Before even with the point for getting to OT if a team was playing a divisional opponent they still would play for a tie so the other team doesn't get the extra point. This at least brings the stadings back to a a 3 column standing W-L-OL.

[NJTank]

I think I can learn to like the Shoot out as long as it never sees the playoffs.

[CC97]

I like the no change after an icing rule -- keeps you from icing the puck just to change your line.

[jkrdevil]

I like the no change after an icing rule -- keeps you from icing the puck just to change your line.

Yeah, me to plus it helps raise scoring. If the team is in their own end, especially in the 2nd period, they can't ice the puck when they're tired. With them being tired it increases the chances of a turnover and a goal. I think this is going to be the rule with the biggest impact.

[wheateater]

I like the no change after an icing rule -- keeps you from icing the puck just to change your line.

Yeah, me to plus it helps raise scoring. If the team is in their own end, especially in the 2nd period, they can't ice the puck when they're tired. With them being tired it increases the chances of a turnover and a goal. I think this is going to be the rule with the biggest impact.

....and yet it was the least-rumoured rule change before the official decision. (In fact, I don't recall hearing anything about this idea before... )

[mac]

2 line passes will be allowed.

Tag up offsides.

surprise, surprise

[See Red]

As much as I love seeing a good ol' hockey fight... I think they should've done away with fighting completely.

[kingssss]

I like the no change after an icing rule -- keeps you from icing the puck just to change your line.

Yeah, me to plus it helps raise scoring. If the team is in their own end, especially in the 2nd period, they can't ice the puck when they're tired. With them being tired it increases the chances of a turnover and a goal. I think this is going to be the rule with the biggest impact.

....and yet it was the least-rumoured rule change before the official decision. (In fact, I don't recall hearing anything about this idea before... )

Me neither. i was just reading this and i saw that and it surprised me. i really like it though, and yea, i think that will have the biggest impact. teams used to ice it when they were getting tired. i also didnt here about the no fighting in the last 5 min. i like that too. and, wheateater, i agree, i sord of wanted them to do away with the point for getting to OT but i guess thats more okay now because they wont just be playing for a tie. and, Tank, i can almost assure you that a shootout will never find the playoffs. the shootout is being used so there is no ties, and there is already no ties in the playoffs. the OT action is great. overall, i like almost all of the changes.

[jkrdevil]

I like the no change after an icing rule -- keeps you from icing the puck just to change your line.

Yeah, me to plus it helps raise scoring. If the team is in their own end, especially in the 2nd period, they can't ice the puck when they're tired. With them being tired it increases the chances of a turnover and a goal. I think this is going to be the rule with the biggest impact.

....and yet it was the least-rumoured rule change before the official decision. (In fact, I don't recall hearing anything about this idea before... )

I had heard about it a few times before the announcement but not as much as the others. It will have the biggest positive impact for this reason. It changes basic hockey stratagy. Beginning when players are at the mite level they are tought if you are tired and can't get the puck out of the zone you ice the puck. Well, at the nhl level you can't do that anymore. If it is a success at the nhl level (which I think it will be) it will be something adopted by lower level leagues and organizations such as usa hockey and hockey canada.

[Sodboy13]

Well, weren't the pads originally supposed to be cut from 12" to 10"? Guess this is a case of the art of compromise.

I saw most of these rules in action watching the AHL last year, and they've all seemed to benefit the game. AHL games seem to run at a quicker pace too - about 2 1/2 hours on average instead of 3, and that's even with the Wolves' TV time-outs. I'm glad to see that pro sports' most tradition-bound league is now demonstrating a willingness to adapt and improve its game.

I hope that the standings go back to three columns, but I think there's just as good of a shot we'll see W-L-OTL-SOL in our newspapers come October. And bully for bringing in the shootout while not scrapping standard overtime. Shootouts are riveting stuff, and when I saw my first one in the IHL I thought "why on Earth doesn't the NHL do this?" Come to think of it, maybe the first hockey shootout I ever saw was on Blades of Steel. But I digress. My only complaint is that I wish the standings points were distributed like this:

Win (Regulation, Overtime, or Shootout): 2 points

Shootout Loss: 1 point

Regulation or Overtime loss: 0 points.

Think of the added strategy and late season tension that would add.

Hmm, now all I need is a league to hire me.

Anybody got the WHA's number?

[jkrdevil]

I hope that the standings go back to three columns, but I think there's just as good of a shot we'll see W-L-OTL-SOL in our newspapers come October. And bully for bringing in the shootout while not scrapping standard overtime. Shootouts are riveting stuff, and when I saw my first one in the IHL I thought "why on Earth doesn't the NHL do this?" Come to think of it, maybe the first hockey shootout I ever saw was on Blades of Steel. But I digress. My only complaint is that I wish the standings points were distributed like this:

IT will be 3 coloums because the shootout is considered part of the overtime.

[KCScout76]

I like the changes, 'cept for the goalie pads being made smaller. Maybe not that big a deal. I am glad to see that the goalies can still play the puck, even if is restricted to that 8x26 foot 'zone'. I want to see more offense, but don't put the goalies at a total disadvantage.

Bringing in the shoot-out should be fun to watch. Why have it in the skills competetion if you don't use it, except for penalty shots, which are far and few between.

[-kj]

Most of the changes are good. I'm not a fan of disallowing the team that iced the puck a line change. Then there's the shootout. UGH.

Here's something I wrote earlier today for a soccer-oriented board (in their "other topics" forum), before I'd seen the official release on the rule changes. (So I didn't realize it was three rounds for the shootout, not five... which is WORSE, I think.)

----------

Hockey was my first love, the flame ignited as a lad growing up in St. Louis. Hockey hasn't been missing from my life this past year, since there's a lot of hockey up in these parts. I play, scorekeep, and officiate. I still love hockey, even if soccer has created a Bizarre Love Triangle in my life.

But the NHL is dead to me.

...well, ok, maybe it's not. Like a true junkie, I'll always go back for more. I'll go to a few games at the Xcel. I'll watch games on TV (in the rare instance a game gets shown on TV). But that doesn't mean I'm happy. I can't believe the deal that they arrived at--a deal that generally makes a lot of sense for the game--took so long to reach.

But messing with the game is just wrong.

Some of the proposed rule changes make sense. Bringing back touch-up offsides is fantastic; they never should have gone to the no touch-up rule in the first place. Shrinking the Michelin Man goaltender pads is a good move. Enlarging the offensive zones and getting rid of the two-line offsides rule are good ideas as well. All these things add value to the games without making a mockery of the game. They allow better flow in the game--taking away the ability to touch up caused the neutral zone trap phenomenom, I'm convinced--without making the game gimmicky.

I draw the line at two things, however.

One, the nets do not need to change in size. 4x6 forever. And the ridiculous nets the experimented with in Buffalo? GOOFY. Oh, and unnecessary.

Then there's what to do about ties. Frankly, I don't think anything should be "done about" ties.

The last couple of seasons, they've done the 4-on-4 overtime, and giving a point for an OTL. While the purist side of me has a problem with a bonus point for OTLs, I gave that a chance. The 4-on-4 was gimmicky, IMHO.

Now they're talking about going 4-on-4 for five minutes, then transitioning to 3-on-3 (in some unknown way) for the remainder of a seven minute overtime.

Say it with me. GIMMICK.

Oh, yeah, and the shootout.

*sigh*

The penalty shot is a very exciting play. Awarding a shooter-on-goaltender opportunity when a breakaway scoring chance is given is sweet justice, akin to getting fouled in the 18. In the buildup to the shot, as the officials give instructions to both shooter and goaltender, the arena whips into a frenzy. No need for the scoreboard or announcers to implore the crowd to "MAKE NOISE!" Everyone in the crowd knows what's coming.

So, in the minds of the Powers That Be, settling a tie game by doing that ten times should be magic, right?

WRONG.

A game-ending shootout cheapens the impact of the penalty shot. It's relatively rare to see a penalty shot called, and very rare to see multiple shots in a game. (Oddly, I've been to a game where a PS was called for each team--in the same period.) Now you're going to add (at least) ten shots to the end of a game that ends in a draw? The novelty of the penalty shot will get worn out rather quickly. I've been to minor-league games that involved game-ending shootouts, and they seemed anti-climactic at best.

A game-ending shootout cheapens the game. It takes sixty(-plus) minutes of hard-fought hockey and erases it. The outcome of the game comes down to a skills competition, a la All-Star Saturday. Is that what the game is about? No. The game is about fighting tooth-and-nail, a combination of skilled finesse and bulldog-tough determination. Take either of those out of the equation, and it's no longer professional hockey.

And, frankly, there's nothing wrong with ties. You want to do something about teams "playing for the tie"? Do what FIFA did. Make wins worth three points, and keep ties at one point. There's much more reward for "going for the win" towards the end of the game.

Even if they do bring in shootouts for the regular season, the playoffs should remain untouched. You want to settle a game with drama and excitement? Sudden death overtime, no matter how long it takes. I relish getting to watch a multiple-overtime game. The tension, the nerves, the grit, the players giving it every ounce of energy they have... there's nothing better for a fan to watch.

That's my take on the discussion about shootouts in the NHL.

(Oddly enough, if you ask me about overtime in soccer, it seems Just Right to have two full fifteen minute extra time periods. Ironically, while I love the sudden-death scenario in the NHL, the golden goal seems odd to me, never mind the silver goal.

And for some odd reason, as much as I hate shootouts to decide games in hockey, I haven't been able to muster hate for deciding a soccer game in penalties. It just seems traditional, though I don't know the history well. It seems like there should be a better way, mind you, but I'm at a loss for one.)

[Stampman]

Oh, yeah, and the shootout.

*sigh*

The penalty shot is a very exciting play. Awarding a shooter-on-goaltender opportunity when a breakaway scoring chance is given is sweet justice, akin to getting fouled in the 18. In the buildup to the shot, as the officials give instructions to both shooter and goaltender, the arena whips into a frenzy. No need for the scoreboard or announcers to implore the crowd to "MAKE NOISE!" Everyone in the crowd knows what's coming.

So, in the minds of the Powers That Be, settling a tie game by doing that ten times should be magic, right?

WRONG.

A game-ending shootout cheapens the impact of the penalty shot. It's relatively rare to see a penalty shot called, and very rare to see multiple shots in a game. (Oddly, I've been to a game where a PS was called for each team--in the same period.) Now you're going to add (at least) ten shots to the end of a game that ends in a draw? The novelty of the penalty shot will get worn out rather quickly. I've been to minor-league games that involved game-ending shootouts, and they seemed anti-climactic at best.

A game-ending shootout cheapens the game. It takes sixty(-plus) minutes of hard-fought hockey and erases it. The outcome of the game comes down to a skills competition, a la All-Star Saturday. Is that what the game is about? No. The game is about fighting tooth-and-nail, a combination of skilled finesse and bulldog-tough determination. Take either of those out of the equation, and it's no longer professional hockey.

And, frankly, there's nothing wrong with ties.

I'm with you on that stuff--it's contrived!

The penalty shot is exciting because-

1-They're rare-they're special.

2-They flow out of the play

Breakaways are also exciting--they flow from the play.

Shootouts?

Artificial-tacked on at the end.

[OMMF]

So, in the minds of the Powers That Be, settling a tie game by doing that ten times should be magic, right?

WRONG.

Shootouts will be 3-on-3 but point made.

[KCScout76]

I can't believe they didn't adopt the new nets.