Suggest new rules

[Hockeyman11385 1]

I don't know if this has been discussed in the past, I tried searching, but let's hear some suggestions on new rules (or rule changes) that the NHL should implement to make the game better. The two I can think of right off the bat is:

1) The penalty should still be served and a powerplay given out even if a team scores during the delayed penalty call. It could possibly up the scoring, which the NHL is always trying to do.

2) On a delayed penalty in the defensive zone, the offending team has to clear the puck out of the zone. With this change we could get rid of all of the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes control. If not in the defensive zone the "control" standard could still be used. (Thought of this during the Sabres/Ducks game tonight when the Sabres batted the puck twice with their hands, which was considered control and a goal was disallowed because of it. To me this did not constitute control so I don't think the whistle should have been blown.)

[phunky_monkey 6]

I don't know, I'm not a fan of either of those suggested rules... sorry.

There's already a heap of powerplays for little things like one handed hooks, incidental trips etc What the NHL needs is more flow to the game, not just a higher number on the scoreboard in my opinion. That's what's exciting, not just a super goal fest.

As for the control thing, I think it's relatively clear cut, and have never had an issue with it personally.

Having said that though, I don't have any real suggestions to add excitment to the game. I'm not a big fan of rule changes though

[Chadd 916]

I would like the NHL return to the original penalty setup where the full two minutes must be killed off, regardless of how many goals are scored. It was changed simply because one team (montreal) was so dominant on the power play, not a very good reason in my book.

The other idea is just too convoluted for my taste. Control of the puck is essentially propelling the puck in an intended direction, and it sounds like that was achieved in the situations you're talking about.

[Theodoras 0]

I would like the NHL return to the original penalty setup where the full two minutes must be killed off, regardless of how many goals are scored. It was changed simply because one team (montreal) was so dominant on the power play, not a very good reason in my book.

I kinda like that. And it would also seem attractive to the NHL as players would be less likely to get penalized, since the NHL is trying to crack down on all these bad hits and dangerous plays and such.

[Chadd 916]

I would like the NHL return to the original penalty setup where the full two minutes must be killed off, regardless of how many goals are scored. It was changed simply because one team (montreal) was so dominant on the power play, not a very good reason in my book.

I kinda like that. And it would also seem attractive to the NHL as players would be less likely to get penalized, since the NHL is trying to crack down on all these bad hits and dangerous plays and such.

If the NHL really cared about that you would see much longer and more frequent suspensions. Since you don't see that, you can be assured that the NHL isn't cracking down on anything.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

I can see your points about my second suggestion. The only reason I thought of it is because there doesn't seem to be a standardized interpretation of what is "control". I just didn't think batting the puck out of the air constitutes control.

I like letting the full 2 minutes run even when a goal is scored. I didn't realize that there was a rule change in the past.

[Jason Harris 31]

I like the idea of having to clear the defensive zone during a delayed penalty. It's more of a penalty to the offending team than just "control."

I like the idea of having to kill the full penalty.

I like the idea of eliminating free icings while shorthanded.

I'd like to see automatic suspensions for fighting. If somebody still fights with suspensions looming, we'll know they really had a beef.

[xstartxtodayx 343]

I would like the NHL return to the original penalty setup where the full two minutes must be killed off, regardless of how many goals are scored. It was changed simply because one team (montreal) was so dominant on the power play, not a very good reason in my book.

Could have sworn that rule was changed due to Edmonton in the Gretzky days... I thought that's what I read in "THN 100 moments that changed the game".

I don't know what rules I'd change other than eliminating 3 point games so there's not such a bottleneck for playoff spots. I'm not a fan of the shootout at all but since it's not going anywhere I think they need to modify the points awarded to the teams, maybe 3 points for a win in regulation, or just 1/2 a point for a shootout win so they're not as valuable as a regulation win. Also, a player who has time left in a penalty at the conclusion of OT should not be able to participate in the shootout.

That's all I have for now.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

New rule : No more new rules

[Hockeyman11385 1]

I really wish that something could be done to get rid of the stupid fights after a clean hit. Just take the guy's number and hit him later. There's no reason to drop the gloves after a clean hit.

I also agree with the point changes. Comparing to old totals is already ruined so we might as well change it up completely. I would like to see:

3 pts - Regulation win

2 pts - Overtime win

1 pt - Shootout win

0 pts - Any loss

I think getting rewarded for losing is ridiculous. Just because you managed not to lose until after 60 min of play doesn't mean that you should get an extra point.

[mrusse01 0]

I would like the NHL return to the original penalty setup where the full two minutes must be killed off, regardless of how many goals are scored. It was changed simply because one team (montreal) was so dominant on the power play, not a very good reason in my book.

Could have sworn that rule was changed due to Edmonton in the Gretzky days... I thought that's what I read in "THN 100 moments that changed the game".

No, it was Montreal (in the 50's I think).

I don't like that rule change because it puts even more power in the hands of the refs. There are already too many phantom calls in the league. I could maybe be swayed on a compromise, say if you score in the first minute of the PP the time left goes to 1:00.

The simplest and most obviously beneficial rule change to the game is no-touch icing. It is unbelievable that they haven't put that in.

The over the glass automatic penalty should be abolished, return it to the old rule where it was referee's discretion. (I realize this contradicts my 'more power in refs hands' argument from before...but the current rule is just dumb. Before the rule change it was never called, now it's always called, I'd rather see something in the middle.)

Mandatory visors (it's coming one day for sure).

2 points for a win. 0 for a loss. Change the shootout to best of 5. If the league is going to hitch their trailer to shootouts, make them count for something.

[JoeyJ0506 192]

I would like to see a choice given to a player that is awarded a penalty shot to defer to putting his team on the power play. I think its a rule in the Olympics and International play, but I think it puts another aspect into the game. Some guys are just terrible on the shootout/penalty shot (Crosby) and if he could instead put the team on the Power Play for two minutes I think he would. Just my two cents.

[Chadd 916]

I would like the NHL return to the original penalty setup where the full two minutes must be killed off, regardless of how many goals are scored. It was changed simply because one team (montreal) was so dominant on the power play, not a very good reason in my book.

Could have sworn that rule was changed due to Edmonton in the Gretzky days... I thought that's what I read in "THN 100 moments that changed the game".

No, it was Montreal (in the 50's I think).

The rule changed during the Edmonton heyday had to do with serving coincidental penalties. The Oilers were so dominant 4 on 4 that they wanted to keep the action 5 on 5 as much as possible when at even strength.

[xstartxtodayx 343]

I would like the NHL return to the original penalty setup where the full two minutes must be killed off, regardless of how many goals are scored. It was changed simply because one team (montreal) was so dominant on the power play, not a very good reason in my book.

Could have sworn that rule was changed due to Edmonton in the Gretzky days... I thought that's what I read in "THN 100 moments that changed the game".

No, it was Montreal (in the 50's I think).

I don't like that rule change because it puts even more power in the hands of the refs. There are already too many phantom calls in the league. I could maybe be swayed on a compromise, say if you score in the first minute of the PP the time left goes to 1:00.

The simplest and most obviously beneficial rule change to the game is no-touch icing. It is unbelievable that they haven't put that in.

The over the glass automatic penalty should be abolished, return it to the old rule where it was referee's discretion. (I realize this contradicts my 'more power in refs hands' argument from before...but the current rule is just dumb. Before the rule change it was never called, now it's always called, I'd rather see something in the middle.)

Mandatory visors (it's coming one day for sure).

2 points for a win. 0 for a loss. Change the shootout to best of 5. If the league is going to hitch their trailer to shootouts, make them count for something.

You may be right, I may be confusing that with the coincidental minors rule change in the early 80's, it was coined as the "Gretzky rule" since back then they'd play 4 on 4 (as they do now as well), it opened up the ice a lot for the Oilers and they scored a massive amount of goals that way. As a result the NHL came up w/ the coincidental minors rul where the teams would play 5 on 5 and the players had to wait for a whistle to leave the penalty box.

I partially agree about the icing... it's nice they changed the rule about the dangerous hits that would occur during icing races but I think they still have to do more. I don't like the no touch icing b/c it removes those occasions when a speedy forward can beat a slow d-man on the end of his shift and create a scoring opportunity, I think they should modify it to be automatic at times and touch up at others (if there's a foot race it's not automatic, if there's no opposition around it's no touch... there's one of the minor or junior leagues playing a modified icing rule currently I believe, seems like the best of both worlds).

[Chadd 916]

I partially agree about the icing... it's nice they changed the rule about the dangerous hits that would occur during icing races but I think they still have to do more. I don't like the no touch icing b/c it removes those occasions when a speedy forward can beat a slow d-man on the end of his shift and create a scoring opportunity, I think they should modify it to be automatic at times and touch up at others (if there's a foot race it's not automatic, if there's no opposition around it's no touch... there's one of the minor or junior leagues playing a modified icing rule currently I believe, seems like the best of both worlds).

The only time there is the potential for injury is if there is a race for the puck, you're not solving anything by doing that. It should be up to the linesman to decide if it was an attempted pass or not, with the obvious clearing attempts being an automatic icing. Assuming, you want to make a change.

[chippa13 1844]

The Oilers not only dominated at 4-4, it was a team strategy. Semenko was often sent out with the task of causing coincidental roughing calls to put the on ice strength at 4-4.

I'm also a proponent of abolishing free icings when shorthanded.

[xstartxtodayx 343]

^^ ok you're right, I just went to google to refresh my memory on the hybrid icing rule/theory and it's a bit different than what I described. If there's a foot race/dead heat the linesman blows the whistle for an automatic icing, same as if the d-man is in the lead. The only time he wouldn't blow the whistle is if the forward has a step/lead on the d-man from "an imaginary line between the face end face off dits and the hash marks, roughly about 25' out".

http://hockey-blog-in-canada.blogspot.com/...don-cherry.html

I like the hybrid idea but it places a lot more pressure and responsibility on the linesman and trust in them to make the right call. It's funny, I think the no touch icing would actually speed the game up rather than slow it down since there won't be the foot race... also it would give the offending team less time to catch their breath so the other team would have slightly more of an advantage on the ensuing face off.

[tips09 0]

New rule : No more new rules

I agree there has already been too many rule changes just leave the game alone.

[Neal 41]

As a d-man no-touch icing.

No free icing on the power play.

Mandatory visors.

Mandatory minimum chin strap gap. No more than 2" slack.

No more instigator rule.

[ThePurpleCobra 0]

I would like the NHL return to the original penalty setup where the full two minutes must be killed off, regardless of how many goals are scored. It was changed simply because one team (montreal) was so dominant on the power play, not a very good reason in my book.

Could have sworn that rule was changed due to Edmonton in the Gretzky days... I thought that's what I read in "THN 100 moments that changed the game".

I don't know what rules I'd change other than eliminating 3 point games so there's not such a bottleneck for playoff spots. I'm not a fan of the shootout at all but since it's not going anywhere I think they need to modify the points awarded to the teams, maybe 3 points for a win in regulation, or just 1/2 a point for a shootout win so they're not as valuable as a regulation win. Also, a player who has time left in a penalty at the conclusion of OT should not be able to participate in the shootout.

That's all I have for now.

yeah i do believe it was Edmonton

[dsjunior1388 81]

if you suspend guys for fighting prepare to say goodbye to every superstar in the NHL today as dirty players like ruutu and tootoo will run rampant in the NHL, taking out superstars with knee checks, boarding, slew foots, etc. If you want everyone with an ounce of skill to end up like Cam neely, take out fighting. Of course if the NHL would pull their head out of whichever orifice they have it in, they would suspend Randy Jones more than 2 games for knocking out Patrice Bergeron for 72. then we can ban fighting. and not a second before.

[Chadd 916]

For the last time, it was NOT because of Edmonton:

1956-57 - Player serving a minor penalty allowed to return to Ice when a goal is scored by opposing team.

1985-86 - Substitutions allowed in the event of co-incidental minor penalties.

As you can see, frequent rule changes are nothing new for the NHL.

1951-52 - ... Goal crease enlarged from 3 x 7 feet to 4 x 8 feet.

http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhi...y/nhlrules.html

[eddyo57 0]

i want to see that stupid trapezoid rule thrown out. its ridiculous. now this being said i know many forwards will say its a great rule well i say this then. Take away the trapezoid rule but allow goalies to be fair game behind the goal line and in the corners. technically they are fair game now but refs call anything when someone touches us (the tenders). so please bettman. get rid of that stupid shape behind the net. we worked really hard to get good at puck handling only to have you make it less important.

[hockeysc23 0]

if you suspend guys for fighting prepare to say goodbye to every superstar in the NHL today as dirty players like ruutu and tootoo will run rampant in the NHL, taking out superstars with knee checks, boarding, slew foots, etc. If you want everyone with an ounce of skill to end up like Cam neely, take out fighting. Of course if the NHL would pull their head out of whichever orifice they have it in, they would suspend Randy Jones more than 2 games for knocking out Patrice Bergeron for 72. then we can ban fighting. and not a second before.

Agreed. What about making the suspension for as long as the player is injured? When the injured player returns the suspended player can.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

I really like having the suspension be as long as the injury. You have a minimum number in case the injury isn't severe (Gauthier vs. Georges) but if it is then you are out as long as the injured player is out. I think that would really curb the blows to the head as well because if you hit the person in the head and he sustains a concussion there is no telling how long the player will be out.

One issue I see with this is if a marquee player on a rival team takes a run at a 4th liner on another team and the 4th liner drags out the injury to keep the marquee player out of the line up (ie Joe Thornton goes after Tomas Kopecky).