Suggest new rules

[laquinta 0]

a few years back in the "A", they used the 2ft blue lines. I played on the AHL ice when it was like that once, and i really enjoyed. It was not very big rule change, but it gave that extra foot of potential offensive play.

[phunky_monkey 6]

One I would like to see go is hand passes in the defensive zone.

Me too

[Rustpot 1]

a few years back in the "A", they used the 2ft blue lines. I played on the AHL ice when it was like that once, and i really enjoyed. It was not very big rule change, but it gave that extra foot of potential offensive play.

The NHL just stretched the offensive zone a couple of feet a year or 3 ago. No need for such a thick line, it doesn't do anything.

The only suggestion to expand upon that is to make the center ice line the one for offsides in either the game or just odd-man situations.

[Neal 41]

a few years back in the "A", they used the 2ft blue lines. I played on the AHL ice when it was like that once, and i really enjoyed. It was not very big rule change, but it gave that extra foot of potential offensive play.

The NHL just stretched the offensive zone a couple of feet a year or 3 ago. No need for such a thick line, it doesn't do anything.

The only suggestion to expand upon that is to make the center ice line the one for offsides in either the game or just odd-man situations.

Lemaire is a proponent of using the blue line for offsides on the way into the offensive zone, but then shifting to the red line from then on. I'm intrigued by this idea and I'd like to see a game played with this rule in place. I think the creative players with good puck skills could really take advantage of the extra ice.

[fieldofdreams 0]

Lemaire is a proponent of using the blue line for offsides on the way into the offensive zone, but then shifting to the red line from then on. I'm intrigued by this idea and I'd like to see a game played with this rule in place. I think the creative players with good puck skills could really take advantage of the extra ice.

That's actually not a bad idea. Our inline league plays 5 skaters per side, and we use that exact same rule pertaining to offsides (blue line in, red line out). It really expands the offensive zone. I wouldn't mind seeing that at least given a trial run in the AHL.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

+1 for the extra ice. a little more room in the corners would be nice, but then you gotta mess with the whole rink size and screw that. Only problem i could see with the red line out theory, would be the game gets slowed down. Whats more exciting, a game dominated by penalties with long set ups in offensive zones, or back and fourth odd man rushes?

[Chadd 916]

+1 for the extra ice. a little more room in the corners would be nice, but then you gotta mess with the whole rink size and screw that. Only problem i could see with the red line out theory, would be the game gets slowed down. Whats more exciting, a game dominated by penalties with long set ups in offensive zones, or back and fourth odd man rushes?

Look at basketball and that's pretty much what the blue/in, red/out would create.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

Yeah, I could see it turning into basketball or lacrosse. You would just see teams run a 5 man penalty kill, sitting in the center until the opposing team tries to attack.

[adam14 182]

wouldnt that be like bringing back the two line pass rule?

[Ital79 0]

Instigator rule: get rid of it

-The play has gotten quite dirty and there should be a price to pay. Hockey is (was?) a self-governing sport where team mates protected each other.

Interference calls: go easy on it

-Lots of goalies have been hurt and there's always some tomahawk action going on in front of the net when there's a loose puck. If you're screening the goalie, the D-man should be able to clear you out, tie you up, and make your job as difficult as possible. If 2 opposing players are going after the puck, let the bigger/stronger/hungrier man win. This 'no-touch' crap is ruining a physical and flowing game with BS calls. Let 'em play!

Fighting with a shield: automatic $20,000 fine (or some number)

-Want to fight? Take your helmet off if you have a shield or your wallet will also be given a penalty.

Holding/hooking/slashing:

-Mario & Wayne scored a lot of goals...so why the need to call a penalty on minor contact? I see the need for these rules, however, the unintended consequence is you have many more people taking dives and refs blowing their whistles like they're auditioning for Debbie Does Hockey. This ruins the game b/c it disrupts flow and rewards people who take dives. Let the man who wants the puck more win.

Dives/acting auditions

-5min maj for acting like a puss...and make him wear makeup and a dress. This is a man's sport - might as well act like one or pay the penalty.

Headhunting

-Mandate HECC approved helmets & inspect/replace them once/twice a year. When people skate with their head down the 1st thing that's gonna get whacked is their head. Unless you make the NHL a no contact sport, people are still going to get their heads rattled. The only thing the NHL should do is mandate safety approved helmets and require them to be replaced at some interval (say 1 season). There are guys out there with helmets they've used for their whole career, and like every other thing that has existed in the world, things wear out. If someone on the other team is 'head-hunting' & playing dirty - see suggestion #1 on how the game will self-govern.

Icing/dump-ins

-Either have no-touch icings or let the guys chasing the puck bump & bang on the way. Are people going to get hurt? Probably. But they'll also be less inclined to chase the puck. Mandated safety regs for helmets will also limit injuries. It's a physical game - if you want the puck, battle for it. Regarding dump-ins, if you have just released the puck you're still fair game.

................................................................................

.................................................................................

..........................................................

Reasonings:

When there's a huge hit or a fight, the crowd gets into the game as much as if a goal was scored. What gets put into highlight clips; someone camping out in front of the net -or- someone getting creamed at center ice? Someone dumping the puck and skating around the defender to slap sticks in the corner -or- a beautifully executed hip check? Someone taking a dive -or- 2 heavyweights slugging it out?

Being physical, fighting, and having a high-speed/fast-paced sport is what sells this game to new fans and keeps the old ones coming back. Sure, goals are nice - but seeing a bunch of highly skilled dudes battle toe-to-toe is equally rewarding to the consumer. The NHL needs to focus on what makes hockey not only different, but BETTER than any other sport on the planet. There are many high-scoring sports/activites out there, but none have the same amount of physical contact and speed as hockey. Sell that and you'll start winning over more NFL/UFC types. Take their $$$ instead of the NFL/etc getting it and you can start to expand the sport to markets that are having trouble selling seats. Increased revenue = increased TV coverage = increased cash flows...and that's what it's all about. No $ = no hockey. More $ = more hockey :)

[Ahriman 1]

While I share a lot of your sentiment of the game, after watching the 'new' NHL while concurently watching a lot of D1 college hockey, I like watching the NHL game that flows better, purely from a spectator watching the skills of the players perspective. I'd rather *play* hockey the way college does, interference, roughing, corner battles and all.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

Double minor = 5 on 3

[RadioGaGa 162]

1. Get rid of the 'Delay of Game (Over the Boards)' penalty. If you do it...you get a defensive zone faceoff and you can't change.

2. Guy with a visor starts a fight with a guy without a visor...Visor gets an extra 2 min.

3. Get rid of minor for hitting from behind. If you can see the name/numbers and you hit into the boards, it's 5 min.

4. If you start a fight with a player after a clean or open ice hit. You get an extra 2 min.

[Chadd 916]

Double minor = 5 on 3

That's interesting but double minors don't happen very often.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

Yeah I know. The most common occurrence of a double minor is a high sticking penalty that draws blood. There was one in the Blackhawks vs. Lightning game tonight when Lecavalier was cut. I would think most teams would prefer a 2:00 5 on 3 instead of a 4:00 5 on 4.

[Chadd 916]

Yeah I know. The most common occurrence of a double minor is a high sticking penalty that draws blood. There was one in the Blackhawks vs. Lightning game tonight when Lecavalier was cut. I would think most teams would prefer a 2:00 5 on 3 instead of a 4:00 5 on 4.

Perhaps giving the other team the option would be the way to do it.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

That would be interesting. It would be hard to think of a time when you would take the 4:00 though. Perhaps the Rangers would (and I'm an avid Rangers fan).

[Chadd 916]

That would be interesting. It would be hard to think of a time when you would take the 4:00 though. Perhaps the Rangers would (and I'm an avid Rangers fan).

If you have a lead late in the third, having the other team down a man for four minutes would help burn more of the clock.

[RadioGaGa 162]

That would be interesting. It would be hard to think of a time when you would take the 4:00 though. Perhaps the Rangers would (and I'm an avid Rangers fan).

If you have a lead late in the third, having the other team down a man for four minutes would help burn more of the clock.

Could you just deny penalties altogether? (as a Hab fan...this year, that idea appeals to me *L*)

[Hockeyman11385 1]

That would be interesting. It would be hard to think of a time when you would take the 4:00 though. Perhaps the Rangers would (and I'm an avid Rangers fan).

If you have a lead late in the third, having the other team down a man for four minutes would help burn more of the clock.

I was thinking that would be the main situation to take the 4 minutes. The debatable issue there is whether or not having an extra goal is worth more than killing off the clock.

[fieldofdreams 0]

The most common occurrence of a double minor is a high sticking penalty that draws blood.

Actually, I think that is the ONLY time a double minor penalty can be assesed.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

You can get a double minor for roughing or you can take two penalties in the same sequence (which is very rare). I'm sure there are others but I'm not a ref so I don't know them.

[fieldofdreams 0]

You can get a double minor for roughing or you can take two penalties in the same sequence (which is very rare). I'm sure there are others but I'm not a ref so I don't know them.

Two penalties in the same stoppage is not considered a double minor, and there is no double-minor option for roughing, it is (depending on the league) either 2 or 5/game.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

In the Edmonton and San Jose game Ethan Moreau and Brad Staubitz were both assessed double minors for roughing at 16:42 of the 2nd period.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/boxscore.htm?id=2008020853

[Chadd 916]

You can get a double minor for roughing or you can take two penalties in the same sequence (which is very rare). I'm sure there are others but I'm not a ref so I don't know them.

Two penalties in the same stoppage is not considered a double minor, and there is no double-minor option for roughing, it is (depending on the league) either 2 or 5/game.

The NHL doesn't follow USA Hockey or Hockey Canada rules. And for what it's worth USA Hockey allows 2, 5 or 5 and a game. The game is only mandatory if there is an injury as a result of the penalty. You can (and I have) issued a major without the game misconduct.