New Proposed Hockey Rules

[Oberon]

Sound ok to me..

No more goalie handling the puck behind the net.. ok or let them check him

Samller goalie pads .. sure

Trial of three points for a win in the minors next year ... sure

I had no real complaints before but these sound like ok changes..

Oberon

 

[James]

I would rather that the goalies had been given a fixed range in which to roam and play the puck. Outside that range they were playing like a skater so they should be treated like a skater (hit 'em).

I liked the "touch up" rule on the offside when they had it a few years back, so I'm glad to see it back.

Penalty shots for "probable" breakaways? Like the talented officials that call todays game need more decision making room.

But most importantly...............it's been said before..........

ENFORCE THE CURRENT RULES!

It is a great game! (Devils vs Wild excluded).

 

[sirlickheralot]

You forgot moving the nets back 3 feet closer to the boards which is a good idea. I don't like restricting the movement of the goalies, like others have said let them roam if they want to but make them fair game for clean checks. Smaller goalie pads is a good idea.

I don't see how changing the points system is going to make the game better or more exciting.

One thing that wasn't recommended but should be is to take the shackles off the enforcers and let them police the game again, get rid of the instigator rule. The star players wouldn't have to endure as much cheap shots if the opposing players knew they were going to get the crap kicked out of them if they touch a star player. There are too many 'pests' in the league whose job is to use clutching, grabbing and cheap shots to suffocate the offensively talented players. If they want to use these tactics fine, but they should be fair game for the enforcers on the opposing team.

 

[Oberon]

I don't see how changing the points system is going to make the game better or more exciting.

Some coaches are just playin not to lose, or so they say ???

Oberon

 

[sirlickheralot]

Some coaches are just playin not to lose, or so they say ???

Oberon

The points system is convoluted enough as it is with points for over-time losses. Look at last year when Colorado was seeded ahead of the Canucks in the playoffs by virtue of their 8 OTL points versus 1 for the Canucks even though the Canucks had a better winning percentage. Add in the proposed shoot-outs and you have seven different categories for determining points standings. After awhile it just gets ridiculous.

1) Regulation Wins
2) OT Wins
3) Shoot-Out Wins
4) Ties
5) Regulation Loses
6) OT Loses
7) Shoot-Out Loses

 

[darius]

My favourite sport, soccer (put on flame retardant suit), has had the scoring problem for a long time.

The 3 points for a win rule was introduced something like 10 years ago (probably longer). Its widely regarded as having been somewhat successful in increasing the amount of attacking play.

Its not that complicated.... It should certainly encourage playing to win in the last few minutes of a tied game.

However it doesn't do a lot to help the situation in the playoffs where all the matters is whether you come out on top at the end...

 

[pauseredial]

Re: too many teams, too many games ...

as long as the talent pool is piddled down by having so many teams, the game will suffer ... look at the olympics ... sure, it is national pride, best of the best and a very limited series, but it demonstrates the best hockey however it is played, Euro or North American style ...

as well, 82 games plus the exhibition plus the playoffs is just nuts ...

and then throw in the travel ... someone posted that Toronto does not have to play one more game outside their own time zone and the Canucks, among others, still have to travel long distances.

it should be balanced so that teams ALL end up travelling about the same distance by the end of the season ... it may mean that Eastern teams have to travel West more often than vice versa, but it would make the game fair.

but then fairness would also mean that if one of your players is injured and has to sit out games, the team the injured that player has to sit out an equivalent player for the same time ... it would stop stupid injuries and maybe keep the good players playing ...

my morning coffee rant ... thanks for including me in your ignore list ...

You have the right idea. The problem in the NHL is not rules. It is a lack of good talent. We can probably dump 6 teams without missing any of the players. It makes you think when the All Star team does not present all the clubs. Some of the clubs are so bad that they do not even have one exceptional player on their team whether it be offence or defence.

 

[James]

All good points, the product on the ice is not what it should be.

My comment about the goalies was something of a compromise: For the purposes of goalies playing the puck, extend the crease for a full circle around the net. In that circle, they're safe. Outside, they're just another skater.

Travel? Sure a balanced schedule would be nice. But, I 'd rather see Canucks - Colorado five or six times a year than Canucks - any of the various boring defensive minded trappers twice. Let's fact it: Canucks vs Calgary or Edmonton is a lot of fun to watch these days as well.

One more idea: Fire the refugee from the NBA who consistenly wants to change the game. How did a guy that short get involved in the NBA to start with? Hire a Commissoner who knows hockey, and is willing to stand up and enforce the rules of the game.

Enforcing the rules is the one single thing they can do immediately to rid the league of a bunch of very marginal talent.

 

[rickoshadows]

Someone earlier refered to the caliber of hockey at the Olympics, it was great. I think the larger ice surface made the biggest difference. We could keep everything else we like about North American hockey, just put it on a larger rink. Clutching and grabbing would be less because they would have to catch their target first. It would not completely eliminate the trap, but a pair of good skaters and and passers could compromise it regularly. The only down side is the prohibitive cost of retrofitting all the NHL facilities which were never built to accomodate the larger ice surface.

rickosahdows

 

[Hardatwork]

With the Olympics you're still talking about some of the best players in the world playing. I think that makes the biggest difference not the size of the rink afterall I've always been told that it's not the size that matters... . I would worry about watching NHL 3rd and 4th liners play against each other on an Olympic size rink. Often the 3rd and 4th liners are more "physical" and would have a harder time making contact for big hits against the boards or open ice body checks.

I agree completely with sirlickheralot about making goalies fair game for clean checks. I like the goal pad reduction, but I think the NHL also needs to look at the body "protection" that todays goalies use, they look bigger than lacrosse goalies especially the shoulder pads. As long as it doesn't compromise the protection of the goalie then all equipment needs to be reduced. As a fair compromise, player should have to play with wood sticks, not the composite sticks.

But most importantly, just enforce the current rules about clutching and grabbing !

My $.02

 

[Calgary69]

What's the point of all these rule changes??????

I think all these proposed rule changes is just another ploy to piss off the NHLPA into going on strike next year. By forcing them to go on strike the Owners can shove all the rule changes down the players throat or use it as a bargaining chip to get the concessions they want from the players. I mean why the goalies and not address the problem of the neutral zone trap.....its to isolate a small group of players and make examples of them so that they rally behind a strike.

Whiether we the fans like it or not, a long bitter strike is on the horizon and we better get use to the idea of NO HOCKEY next year. In the end there is going to be 2 sets of losers....the fans and small market teams. The NHL should never have expanded to areas like Carolina, Columbus nor should they try to float teams like Pittsburg. Either way a prolonged strike will close those doors forever.

Just my 2 cents....