2014/15 NHL Rules Changes

[Gummer12 134]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-announces-rule-changes-for-2014-15-season/

[chippa13 1844]

Two things I love; getting rid of the spin-o-rama and harsher consequences for diving. Now let us see if the referees will call it.

[Chadd 916]

Most of the changes seem to make sense, it's a refreshing change

[IPv6Freely 2083]

I like the icing faceoff procedure. Also like the widening of hash marks to the international standard.

I wish they'd dump the stupid goalie trapezoid altogether.

[chippa13 1844]

Sure, if you loved watching the '95 NJ Devils.

[crazyhick 19]

the one i don't like is the tripping call even if you get the puck first. People do like seeing good efforts from the d-men to keep the other team from scoring when it's a legal play

[Chadd 916]

the one i don't like is the tripping call even if you get the puck first. People do like seeing good efforts from the d-men to keep the other team from scoring when it's a legal play

All they did was change the definition of a legal play. And let's be honest, most people only appreciate the effort when it's a guy on their team and they don't really care if it's legal or not at that point.

[CathyGo 15]

As a Coyotes fan I love the trapezoid being expanded. Seems like some good changes. The face off marks being moved is great.

[IPv6Freely 2083]

All they did was change the definition of a legal play. And let's be honest, most people only appreciate the effort when it's a guy on their team and they don't really care if it's legal or not at that point.

Especially since I'm not sure how making contact with the puck magically makes a trip not a trip anymore.

[RadioGaGa 162]

If they really want to increase scoring, invert the trapazoid rule. Goalie can't go behind the net to play the puck, but he's welcome to go into the corners to stop it or play it up.

Goalie would remain off limits as far as being hit, obv...and with the icing being called as it is...there are fewer full head of steam forecheckers than there used to be anyway.

More realistically, I'd like to eliminate the puck over the glass penalty (for players, not goalies). Treat it like icing. The faceoff reamains in your end and you can't change.

[wrangler 157]

Game misconduct for two interference calls sounds like it will further discourage refs from calling interference. Making penalties harsher for things not usually called is not a smart move.

[CathyGo 15]

Seems a bit odd to lump interference in with things like throwing a knee or elbow.

[chippa13 1844]

If they really want to increase scoring, invert the trapazoid rule. Goalie can't go behind the net to play the puck, but he's welcome to go into the corners to stop it or play it up.

Goalie would remain off limits as far as being hit, obv...and with the icing being called as it is...there are fewer full head of steam forecheckers than there used to be anyway.

More realistically, I'd like to eliminate the puck over the glass penalty (for players, not goalies). Treat it like icing. The faceoff reamains in your end and you can't change.

I disagree on changing the puck over the glass call. Before it came in too many defensemen were using it to relieve pressure. It has to stay a penalty.

[RadioGaGa 162]

If they could penalize when it is obviously an attempt to end pressure, then I'd agree...but there are so many times where a guy just gets it a bit too high no intent other than clearing the puck and he gets the same penalty as the guy who throws it 15 feet over the glass to end a push.

[Chadd 916]

If they could penalize when it is obviously an attempt to end pressure, then I'd agree...but there are so many times where a guy just gets it a bit too high no intent other than clearing the puck and he gets the same penalty as the guy who throws it 15 feet over the glass to end a push.

The referees showed that they would not call the penalty when they were permitted to use their discretion. Had they called the rule appropriately, it would never have become a mandatory call.

Game misconduct for two interference calls sounds like it will further discourage refs from calling interference. Making penalties harsher for things not usually called is not a smart move.

My guess is that it is intended for the late hit type of interference calls. Any other type of interference should be called hooking, holding, etc...

[adam14 182]

I'm a fan of the face off staying in the o zone if a scoring chance leads to the puck going out of play instead of the face off moving outside

[stick9 881]

Sure, if you loved watching the '95 NJ Devils.

How many goalies can handle the puck the way Broduer did? Not many. I say, if a goalie wants to leave his net to play the puck, let him.

[chippa13 1844]

Every goalie that grew up watching him can. Half the goalies in my beer league are making tape to tapes to the red line.

[trevor13478 1]

I think a "minor" rule change that's being overlooked by many is the changing ends for overtime. That should actually cut down on the amount of games that go to shootouts. The long change in the second period is often overlooked by casual fans, but there are more goals scored in the second period than any other and the first overtime of playoff games (also long change period) decides an awful lot of games as well. D-men stuck on the ice, or bad changes resulting in breakaways/odd man rushes will lead to more goals.

[Chadd 916]

I think a "minor" rule change that's being overlooked by many is the changing ends for overtime. That should actually cut down on the amount of games that go to shootouts. The long change in the second period is often overlooked by casual fans, but there are more goals scored in the second period than any other and the first overtime of playoff games (also long change period) decides an awful lot of games as well. D-men stuck on the ice, or bad changes resulting in breakaways/odd man rushes will lead to more goals.

I think it will just make the teams play more conservatively in OT. I would rather see them go to 3 points for a regulation win to discourage teams from playing to get one point and "see what happens" in OT or the shootout.

[stick9 881]

I think it will just make the teams play more conservatively in OT. I would rather see them go to 3 points for a regulation win to discourage teams from playing to get one point and "see what happens" in OT or the shootout.

How about NOT awarding a point to each team at the end of regulation... That would seem to be the logical solution. Too many teams sit back just to get that single point.

And to chippa's point. Leaving the net to make the stretch pass in a beer league is a lot different than the NHL, don't ya think? The rink is bigger, the players are better and faster and mistakes have bigger ramifications. Hey, let them try and make that pass. When it gets picked off the opposing team will have a wide open net. You'd have to be Glen Wesley to miss that.

[Zylos45 118]

Chippa

Do you mean "can make" instead of "are making"?

[Zylos45 118]

There is no place for diving in the NHL.

Harsher consequences for diving is A-OK in my book

[IPv6Freely 2083]

I think a "minor" rule change that's being overlooked by many is the changing ends for overtime. That should actually cut down on the amount of games that go to shootouts. The long change in the second period is often overlooked by casual fans, but there are more goals scored in the second period than any other and the first overtime of playoff games (also long change period) decides an awful lot of games as well. D-men stuck on the ice, or bad changes resulting in breakaways/odd man rushes will lead to more goals.

I don't think it's being overlooked so much as just being such an easy and obvious change to make so nobody really mentions it because it's not surprising

[Chadd 916]

How about NOT awarding a point to each team at the end of regulation... That would seem to be the logical solution. Too many teams sit back just to get that single point.

In theory, the teams have nothing to lose in overtime and will play for the win once they have the single point at the end of regulation. Giving them the point at the end of OT would likely see even more passive play in OT. Just playing devil's advocate here, not arguing with you. Like I said, I think the solution is to make every game a 3 point game.