R&D Camp

[IniNew 52]

Well, the next R&D Camp is coming up rather soon. Here's a new article over at puck daddy citing rule changes they're going to test out for power players:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Four-NHL-rule-changes-that-would-revolutionize-p?urn=nhl-wp10401

Personally, the changes sound like they are extremely lopesided to the powerplay's favor over the penalty kill. Which I like. Maybe it'll help curb the enforcers getting ice time...

[Captain Sane 2]

I don't think any of the rule changes are good ideas. I mean, I like that Shanny is open to new ideas, but some these are just a bit ludicrous and should never see the light of day. It just screams "More goalz!" to me, which I've never understood.

[bigdmac 12]

Those new rules are brutal, the shorthanded team can now be called for icing? Stupid idea. I highly doubt any of those rules will actually make it to the NHL though.

[Chadd 916]

I like the idea of going back to a full two minutes for minors. It's a "back to the future" type of move and I like the idea of a change also fitting with tradition. Might happen, but only if the PP scoring goes down significantly this year.

The no-icing thing is an interesting concept. I like it but a lot of people will hate it. Coaches will hate it because it's so much harder to coach a kill where you can't ice it. The modified version where you have to reach your own blue line might be a reasonable compromise. I don't see it happening.

More strict with goalies covering the puck is a good idea. It will be interesting to see how strict they get with it. I think the compromise there will be allowing the puck to be covered as long as the goalie is touching the paint with some part of his body. I think this will happen this year or next.

The change of possession rule is just too damn convoluted. I can't see it changing.

It still doesn't solve the issue with the hockey ops department watering down the post-lockout standards of enforcement. I don't want to go too far off topic, but it is a factor in any judgement-type rule.

[TeamBlue96 3]

two of my own ideas that i'm surprised they haven't used yet since the inception of of this panel:

1. is there anything worse then getting a PP at the end of a period and have it being broken up by an intermission? let any late penalty calls extend the period! It would not disrupt the flow of a PP. I'm sure that would increase goal scoring a bit.

2. i've seen at allstar games and such where there's a camera under the ice at the center ice fdot. why not utilize this in the goal crease to the point where you can get a good view of the goal line and see if the puck ever crosses it 'completelty'? there's been plenty of times where a review has gone inconclusive because the puck is covered and the net cams do nothing.

...just my 2 cents.

[frankie56 0]

Get rid of the "double minor" and go straight to a major if a player is hurt on a penalty.

Not sure seeing more PP goals will make the game more exciting. I think unrestricted puck movement would make it more exciting.

[troy 12]

I like the idea of going back to a full two minutes for minors. It's a "back to the future" type of move and I like the idea of a change also fitting with tradition. Might happen, but only if the PP scoring goes down significantly this year.

The no-icing thing is an interesting concept. I like it but a lot of people will hate it. Coaches will hate it because it's so much harder to coach a kill where you can't ice it. The modified version where you have to reach your own blue line might be a reasonable compromise. I don't see it happening.

More strict with goalies covering the puck is a good idea. It will be interesting to see how strict they get with it. I think the compromise there will be allowing the puck to be covered as long as the goalie is touching the paint with some part of his body. I think this will happen this year or next.

The change of possession rule is just too damn convoluted. I can't see it changing.

It still doesn't solve the issue with the hockey ops department watering down the post-lockout standards of enforcement. I don't want to go too far off topic, but it is a factor in any judgement-type rule.

My father wrote a letter to Bob Clarke in about 1996-1998 asking as a STH to propose this rule change at GM meetings. He was politely rebuffed in response. It has never made sense why the offending team is offered a concession like the ability to ice the puck without consequence.

[chippa13 1844]

One downside that I can see if they implemented serving the full two minutes and disallowed icing by penalty killers, referees could become even more hesitant to make calls, especially late in games, because of how much of an impact they can have on the game. With standards already slipped, this could send them even closer to the clutch and grab play that we all despised so much.

[hrvd214 0]

All of these changes seem odd to me. The NHL just finished one of its most successful seasons in recent history, why go changing things now. The need to focus on keeping the game pure and not altering it to make it a spectacle for "casual fans". These changes seem as ludicrous as Fox's old lazer puck, which was designed to make the game better for casual fans.

[wrangler 157]

Get rid of the "double minor" and go straight to a major if a player is hurt on a penalty.

Not sure seeing more PP goals will make the game more exciting. I think unrestricted puck movement would make it more exciting.

I didn't watch the NHL for a number of years, but when I used to watch, they'd call it a major if there was blood, even if it would have been a minor otherwise. Seems like they do the double minor in that situation nowadays. They must have changed it in the meantime.

[Chadd 916]

One downside that I can see if they implemented serving the full two minutes and disallowed icing by penalty killers, referees could become even more hesitant to make calls, especially late in games, because of how much of an impact they can have on the game. With standards already slipped, this could send them even closer to the clutch and grab play that we all despised so much.

Clutch and grab is already back in the playoffs, it should be back in the regular season by 2012.

All of these changes seem odd to me. The NHL just finished one of its most successful seasons in recent history, why go changing things now. The need to focus on keeping the game pure and not altering it to make it a spectacle for "casual fans". These changes seem as ludicrous as Fox's old lazer puck, which was designed to make the game better for casual fans.

The stricter standards opened up the game and started bringing fans back. Allowing the standards to continue to erode is going to put the game right back where it was.

I didn't watch the NHL for a number of years, but when I used to watch, they'd call it a major if there was blood, even if it would have been a minor otherwise. Seems like they do the double minor in that situation nowadays. They must have changed it in the meantime.

Most of the degradation coincides with Colin Campbell starting his job in hockey ops for the NHL.

[ibeck 38]

1. is there anything worse then getting a PP at the end of a period and have it being broken up by an intermission? let any late penalty calls extend the period! It would not disrupt the flow of a PP. I'm sure that would increase goal scoring a bit.

I really like that idea...Not liking the *cant ice the puck on PK* idea, you're already down a man why penalize a team more? I wish the NHL would get rid of the goalie trapzoid already. Slows the game down and we dont get to see those long strecth passes from goalies to players on bad line changes. Finally I think it's time to adopt the hybrid icing rule. Why would you risk having players injured for long amounts of time (Foster).

[maxamillion 3]

two of my own ideas that i'm surprised they haven't used yet since the inception of of this panel:

1. is there anything worse then getting a PP at the end of a period and have it being broken up by an intermission? let any late penalty calls extend the period! It would not disrupt the flow of a PP. I'm sure that would increase goal scoring a bit.

2. i've seen at allstar games and such where there's a camera under the ice at the center ice fdot. why not utilize this in the goal crease to the point where you can get a good view of the goal line and see if the puck ever crosses it 'completelty'? there's been plenty of times where a review has gone inconclusive because the puck is covered and the net cams do nothing.

...just my 2 cents.

1 having a pp carry over is an advantage to the attacking team because they get a fresh sheet to work with.

2 in situations where that would be needed, the pile would make it too dark for the cameras to pick anything up. Good in theory to get an underneath look but it would be hard to decipher everything because the camera would be so close as well.

I hate all the nhl's proposed ideas for the record

[IPv6Freely 2089]

The no-icing thing is an interesting concept. I like it but a lot of people will hate it. Coaches will hate it because it's so much harder to coach a kill where you can't ice it. The modified version where you have to reach your own blue line might be a reasonable compromise. I don't see it happening.

I actually like that idea. Let them ice it, but they have to clear their own zone first.

Dropping the trapezoid is the only proposed rule change I'm happy about. BTW a better article than the one linked above is here: http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=373620

I don't know why they're trying to tweak the off-side rules so much. Isn't the play being blown dead enough of a penalty for going off-side?

I'm not sure how i feel about 4 mins of 4-on-4 OT and 3 mins of 3-on-3. Personally, I think if they made 4-on-4 10 minutes, most of the games would end in OT, not a shoot out.

[interpathway 9]

Personally, I think if they made 4-on-4 10 minutes, most of the games would end in OT, not a shoot out.

That's what they're after.

[Chadd 916]

I'm not sure how i feel about 4 mins of 4-on-4 OT and 3 mins of 3-on-3.

I'm 100% against that

[wrangler 157]

Me, too. 4 on 4 is bad enough; 3 on 3 is a joke. I still like the old way -- 5 on 5, sudden death, just keep playing extra periods till someone wins.

[goaliemanshark 6]

What's wrong with 4 on 4? It's super fast and exciting!

[wrangler 157]

I guess I'm old fashioned. To me, 4 on 4 ain't hockey; a team is 5 players.

[Chadd 916]

What's wrong with 4 on 4? It's super fast and exciting!

More often than not it's about trying to get to the shootout without giving up a goal and not scoring a goal to win.

[chippa13 1844]

I guess I'm old fashioned. To me, 4 on 4 ain't hockey; a team is 5 players.

If you were really old fashioned then a team would be 6 players, you also wouldn't be able to advance the puck forward but what fun would that be.

[IPv6Freely 2089]

I'm assuming they can't just let them play until somebody scores because their TV time is limited. So with that assumption, they need to end the game in one of two ways: shootout, or tie. There's no other way to guarantee an ending to the game within that allowed time frame.

So as much as I'm not a fan of 4-on-4, like I said earlier, I think MOST games would end in OT rather than a shootout if they did 4-on-4 for 10 minutes. OT is usually pretty exciting because of the open ice. I'm not sure what % of OT games go to a shootout, but I'd be willing to bet that number would be reduced considerably if they went to 10 mins.

I'd also rather see the loser in OT get 0 points and loser in SO get 1 point, just because I don't think a "loser point" is appropriate, but at the same time losing in a shootout isn't really losing, in my eyes. It's a crappy way to end a game. But that's a whole other discussion, I suppose.

/2c

[Chadd 916]

I'm assuming they can't just let them play until somebody scores because their TV time is limited.

No, it has more to do with travel considerations and player safety than anything else. Having to play a 4OT game, flying a thousand miles and then playing another game the next night just isn't good for anyone

[IPv6Freely 2089]

No, it has more to do with travel considerations and player safety than anything else. Having to play a 4OT game, flying a thousand miles and then playing another game the next night just isn't good for anyone

Very good point.

[chippa13 1844]

I'm assuming they can't just let them play until somebody scores because their TV time is limited. So with that assumption, they need to end the game in one of two ways: shootout, or tie. There's no other way to guarantee an ending to the game within that allowed time frame.

So as much as I'm not a fan of 4-on-4, like I said earlier, I think MOST games would end in OT rather than a shootout if they did 4-on-4 for 10 minutes. OT is usually pretty exciting because of the open ice. I'm not sure what % of OT games go to a shootout, but I'd be willing to bet that number would be reduced considerably if they went to 10 mins.

I'd also rather see the loser in OT get 0 points and loser in SO get 1 point, just because I don't think a "loser point" is appropriate, but at the same time losing in a shootout isn't really losing, in my eyes. It's a crappy way to end a game. But that's a whole other discussion, I suppose.

/2c

Doing that would take away any incentive for teams to try to win during overtime. The idea of giving the point at the end of regulation is that then the "extra" point is the incentive for teams to try to score during overtime. If a team has to make it through overtime tied before getting a point then nobody will try to score during overtime. They won't want to take the chance of losing in overtime and getting no points.