Bettman says he’s okay if you want to bring back the rule against forward passes, he doesn’t mind if you want to revert to old-school icing, he just demends you keep it to one rule change; you know, evolution is better than revolution…
What rule are you changing, tweaking, binning or creating.
I’d bring back the old 1-8 seeding for the playoffs, seeing some of the best teams face off in round 1 or 2 sucks compared to the old method IMO.
And it makes rivalries mean so much more when they face off in later rounds.
How much cooler is it when you have the chance to knock out a divisonal rival in the conference final instead of in a forced first round matchup?
Instead of the shootout we have another period of OT with 2 pucks
The number of OT periods is the number of additional pucks.
I’d like to combine this with the other guy’s suggestion of having fewer players for each OT round.
Round four, 1v1 with four pucks, should go pretty quick
And both are glowing.
It wouldn’t change much, but a defender clearing the puck over the glass should be treated the same as icing. If the team clears the puck over the glass before exiting their zone after the subsequent face off then call a Delay of Game.
I can’t stand the Delay of Game rule for accidental pucks over the glass, though. It doesn’t feel in the spirit of what Delay of Game means to me, at least not anymore than intentionally icing the puck.
Agreed. Even in the dead puck era it just didn’t happen that often. Time to lighten the punishment
I think the big difference is the potential for injury.
Intentionall icing just sends the puck down the ice, intentional puck-over-the-glass could really hurt someone, especially if its a kid or an older person.
I think keeping it as a penalty makes sense to discourage its use as a tactic to relieve the pressure like you do with icing.
I should be clear, I’m advocating for a return to how it was called pre-lockout. Putting the puck over the glass wasn’t an automatic delay of game, but it could be a penalty at the ref’s discretion (e.g. team is on the penalty kill and puts it over the glass to get a breather).
Prior to the lockout, this just didn’t happen that often, at least not much more often than it happens today. The reason the rule was introduced coming out of the lockout was to increase the amount of goals by increasing the number of ways teams could go on the power play.
I think I’d agree. You would have to treat icing the same way; a delay of game for either icing the puck or tossing it over the glass a second time without clearing the zone.
I’m probably getting rid of the trapezoid. I’d love to see what Shestyorkin could do without that limitation.
Add another ref who sits just off the ice, and is a “video ref” looking at as many screens as he chooses, of the available cameras, and has the power to whistle his own penalties or overturn the penalties from the ref on the ice. There’s no reason to deliberately not use the technology available to us rather than the randomness of whether something happens to get challenged for video review.
Ya know, I’ve always wondered how the fuck this isn’t a thing already. It’s honestly a bit bizarre, if you ask me.
Adapting someone else’s football review plan for hockey. There should be one ref, and one team advocate for each team, if 2/3 agree on a penalty/review then it happens. The window for agreement needs to be 2-3 seconds at the most. All should be trained to some degree in watching replays, and how various angles change perspective, because video review is a totally separate skill from real time refereeing.
Any call is reviewable, for any reason in the rulebook. You still go on a penalty if you lose, but you can call anything. The difference is, the decision is made by the on-ice refs in under 2 minutes, without using slow-mo or pausing. If you can’t see it in that time using regular speed, it should stand. Keep the game moving
Oh, and refs are now required to have after-game media availability. If they don’t want that, they’re welcome to retire
Oh, and I’d like some sort of positive reinforcement for sportsmanship. I saw cricket does something like that. So give each ref one standings point per year (as an example) and let them award it when they see something especially good. They know the written and unwritten rules, it’d be cool to let them reward dudes that play the right way. And imagine the crowd and both teams going nuts for some 4th liner getting a Lady Byng Point or whatever.
I like this one
In this day and age, where sports are as much about betting as players, any league that DOESN’T put their referees in public display is just asking for manipulation and problems and any smart fan (and owner) should see red flags.
Imagine a league where the refs are subject to public criticism… Doesn’t mean a bad job gets fired, but they should drive more training and classes to get consistency right (nobody should lose their job unless they really can’t cut it).
Anyway, that won’t happen. They don’t care about the fans, they care about the revenue.
All these suggestions are DUMB!
2 goalies in each net, but only one set of equipment. They have to share.
Institute review of embellishment/diving after games and penalize with 10 minute misconducts to suspension for the following game. It’s unsportsmanlike like dirty hits and should be treated as such IMO.
Nobody named Bettman allowed in / around / watching the NHL
Drop the shootout in OT and replace it with the following
- 5 mins of 4v4 (as it is now)
- 5 mins of 3v3
- 5 mins of 2v2
- 5 mins of 1v1
- if still no one scored, then the goalies meet in center ice for a good ole goalie fight. Winner of the fight wins the game for their team.
OT is currently 3v3 in the NHL
Dumb mistake on my part
Perhaps we can arm home goalie with nets and a Trident, visitor gets spear and shield.
…But refs have to stand in a circle around the combatants and hold hands.
If the winning team commits a penalty/s in the last two minutes, the game doesn’t end until the penalty/ies are over.
It requires that they be within a drawable margin of course.
I actually really like this idea in theory. It’s far too easy for a team to make a game saving play in the final seconds by slashing the stick away, or taking a guys legs. This would actually allow some pushback in those instances. I say we make it happen.
Pretty glaring oversight in the current rules, isn’t it?
Goalie goals are worth 2
make the nets wider by just a few inches. Increases scoring, goalies can keep there armor. what do we lose?
Remove the instigator penalty.
Or
Restrict reviews for disallowing goals to the period 3 seconds prior to the goal.
I agree with the limit on offside goal calls. If you can’t stop them by 15-30 seconds then it didn’t materially affect play. None of this ‘oh 2 minutes ago one dude didn’t grag his leg enough, no goal’
Removing the instigator would lead to a lot of guys just straight up getting jumped, no?
It more just allows fighting to happen more, it’s less about preventing players getting jumped, and more about making fighting expensive to a team based on a highly subjective call by the refs.
deleted by creator
