Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
OBXer

Rule Changes

Recommended Posts

NHL Announces Rule Changes for 2014-15 Season

 

Rule 1.8 – Rink - Goalkeeper's Restricted Area

The trapezoid will be expanded by two feet from the goal post on both sides of the net.

 

Rule 23 – Game Misconduct Penalties

A new Game Misconduct category will be created. Clipping, charging, elbowing, interference, kneeing, head-butting and butt-ending move from the general category into the same category as boarding and checking from behind ("Physical Fouls"), whereby a player who incurs two such game misconducts in this category would now be automatically suspended for one game.

 

Rule 24 – Penalty Shot

The 'Spin-O-Rama' move, as described in Section 24.2 of the 2013-14 NHL Rule Book, will no longer be permitted either in Penalty Shot situations or in the Shootout.

 

Rule 38 – Video Goal Judge

Video review will be expanded in the following areas:

* Rule 38.4 (viii) has been modified to allow broader discretion to Hockey Operations to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g., to ensure they are "good hockey goals"). The revised Rule will allow Hockey Operations to correct a broader array of situations where video review clearly establishes that a "goal" or "no goal" call on the ice has been made in error. The new expanded rule will also allow Hockey Operations to provide guidance to referees on goal and potential goal plays where the referee has blown his whistle (or intended to blow his whistle) after having lost sight of the puck.

 

* In reviewing "Kicked in Goals," Hockey Operations will require more demonstrable video evidence of a "distinct kicking motion" in order to overrule a "goal" call on the ice, or to uphold a "no goal" call on the ice.

 

Rule 57 – Tripping

The rule relating to "Tripping" will be revised to specifically provide that a two minute minor penalty will be assessed when a defending player "dives" and trips an attacking player with his body/arm/shoulder, regardless of whether the defending player is able to make initial contact with the puck.

But, in situations where a penalty shot might otherwise be appropriate, if the defending player "dives" and touches the puck first (before the trip), no penalty shot will be awarded. (In such cases, the resulting penalty will be limited to a two-minute minor penalty for tripping.)

 

Rule 64 – Diving / Embellishment

The supplementary discipline penalties associated with Rule 64.3 (Diving/Embellishment) will be revised to bring attention to and more seriously penalize players (and teams) who repeatedly dive and embellish in an attempt to draw penalties. Fines will be assessed to players and head coaches on a graduated scale ranging from a warning to a $5,000 fine.

 

Rule 76 – Face-offs

To curb delay tactics on face-offs after icing infractions, in situations where the defending team is guilty of a face-off violation, following an icing, the defending player who is initially lined up for the face-off will be given a warning, but will be required to remain in the circle to take the face-off. A second face-off violation by the defending team in such situation will result in a two minute minor bench penalty.

 

Rule 84 – Overtime

* Teams will switch ends prior to the start of overtime in the regular season.

* The entire ice surface will undergo a "dry scrape" prior to the start of overtime in the regular season.

* The procedure requiring the head coach to submit a list of the first three shooters in the shoot-out has been eliminated.

 

Rule 85 – Puck Out of Bounds

There have been further rule changes made relating to face-off location to avoid penalizing teams for plays intended to create bona fide scoring opportunities. Specifically, the following are "categories of plays" where face-offs will remain in the attacking zone despite the fact that the attacking team was technically responsible for the stoppage in play: Shots at the net by a player on the attacking team where: (i) the shot breaks the glass; (ii) the shot goes off the side of the net and deflects out of play; (iii) the shot goes off the dasher boards or glass and deflects out of play; (iv) the shot is tipped or deflected out of play by a teammate; and (v) the shot becomes wedged in or on the exterior of the goal net.

 

In addition, the following rule change will be enacted for the 2014 preseason and may be continued for the 2014/15 regular season if approved by the League and the NHLPA.

Rule 1.9 – Rink – Face-off Spots and Circles – Ice Markings/Hash Marks

The hash marks at the end zone circles will be moved from three feet apart to five feet, seven inches apart (international markings).

This will take awhile for me to digest. I guess the trapezoid is here to stay...yuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing Earthshattering, but some nice tweaks. I wonder about the diving one though. I want to get rid of diving, but I can see lots of lobbying and whining about diving teams that might get as annoying as the diving itself.

 

Like the icing rule. Like the trapezoid rule. Like the switching ends for OT and the dry scrape. Pretty much like the tweaks.

 

Still like to see 3 on 3 if 4 on 4 doesn't decide and before the shootout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never followed how the spin-o-rama was legit to begin with, so many players can't do it without stopping the puck's forward movement or drawing it backwards entirely.

 

Glad to see the trapezoid getting decreased, goalies who can play the puck should be showcased for their talents behind the goal not punished. So a small step in the right direction, now if they'll just abolish it like crease violations.

 

Not sure how I feel about the possibility of two interference penalties = a 1 game suspension. Most interference plays aren't malicious unless I'm just not grasping what they mean and if the interference is malicious enough doesn't it usually fall under one of the other categories rule 23 is aimed at?

 

They can add diving penalties until the cows come home I don't see it being useful as long as they keep calling both players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say the end switching is to make the long change on d a factor,  but mainly I like it because I sit in the North end. :D

 

Just can't find my exact seats in the South end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how I feel about the possibility of two interference penalties = a 1 game suspension. Most interference plays aren't malicious unless I'm just not grasping what they mean and if the interference is malicious enough doesn't it usually fall under one of the other categories rule 23 is aimed at?

 

They can add diving penalties until the cows come home I don't see it being useful as long as they keep calling both players.

 

Yeah, interference seems like the answer to the question "which one of these doesn't belong?"

 

I don't think the new diving addition pertains to on ice penalties.  I think it just allows the NHL to assess gradually increasing fines to both player and coach for multiple instances (even if not called on the ice but caught in post game reviews).  But the max fine is $5k, which I don't see making a difference given the salaries these guys make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say the end switching is to make the long change on d a factor,  but mainly I like it because I sit in the North end. :D

 

Just can't find my exact seats in the South end.

 

Well, I guess it does make sense from the long-change perspective.

 

Also, I still have the time if and when it really matters, so there is that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Rule 76 idea. They tried a few seasons ago to speed up faceoffs, but the teams figured out how to beat that. Make teams pay for dragging out faceoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how they interpret the kicked in goal now. I wonder how much more evidence they need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK this is a rules change for next season, but I didn't want to start a whole new thread for this.

 

However, I am quite excited about this.

 

The GMs have approved and recommended 3 on 3 for OT next year. This will be an absolute hit. It has gone very well in the AHL. As to it being a gimmick. Anything other than continued 5 on 5 OT periods or a tie, is a gimmick and the shootout is about the biggest gimick there is. But it will lead to hugely exciting finishes and far less shootouts: 5% vs. 15% in the AHL this year vs. last.

 

Very good news.

 

They've also approved coaches challenges which I'm less sure about.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-gms-approve-3-on-3-overtime--but-what-format--183117113.html

 

What is undetermined is the format. Forslund said last night he thinks they might just go right to 3 on 3 and just go 5 minutes full 3 on 3. Fine with me.

 

Interesting point brought up last night was not counting the stats on goalie's stats. Proably fair.

 

Anyways, I for one, am happy with this.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I edited the title to reflect rule changes so we can just keep using this topic as rem suggested.

 

I'm all for the 3 on 3 but would like to see 4 on 4 first. I didn't hear the Forslund comment but if they are considering eliminating 4 on 4 and going straight to 3 on 3 it has to be better than the shootout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK this is a rules change for next season, but I didn't want to start a whole new thread for this.

 

However, I am quite excited about this.

 

The GMs have approved and recommended 3 on 3 for OT next year. This will be an absolute hit. It has gone very well in the AHL. As to it being a gimmick. Anything other than continued 5 on 5 OT periods or a tie, is a gimmick and the shootout is about the biggest gimick there is. But it will lead to hugely exciting finishes and far less shootouts: 5% vs. 15% in the AHL this year vs. last.

 

Very good news.

 

They've also approved coaches challenges which I'm less sure about.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-gms-approve-3-on-3-overtime--but-what-format--183117113.html

 

What is undetermined is the format. Forslund said last night he thinks they might just go right to 3 on 3 and just go 5 minutes full 3 on 3. Fine with me.

 

Interesting point brought up last night was not counting the stats on goalie's stats. Proably fair.

 

Anyways, I for one, am happy with this.

 

The NHLPA has to be in on this too.  Gary B. made it clear that it is now going to committees to get agreement from both sides.

 

The NHLPA was making noise about going to more than 5 minutes.  (Some early proposals were something like 4 minutes 4-4 and 3 minutes 3-3.)  So I suspect (just my thoughts) that 5 min of 3 on 3 is a good possibility.  Some stats were given about the length of 3 on 3 when waiting for a whistle.  There were quite a few games in the AHL that should have had 3 on 3 but didn't since there was no whistle.

 

So, all of this seems to be converging on "if we're gonna do it, let's just DO it" and make it 5 minutes.  

 

And I like it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Francis talks GMs listen

 

NHL.com - BOCA RATON, Fla. -- A recommendation to change the rules governing faceoffs to create a better opportunity for increased puck-possession time, which could lead to more goals, was made Wednesday by NHL general managers on the final day of their annual March meeting here.

 

The GMs will recommend to the NHL-NHLPA Competition Committee that the player who is on the defensive side of the red line must be the first to place his stick on the ice before the puck is dropped. In doing so, that player is at a slight disadvantage to the attacking player, who can put his stick down second.

 

 Carolina Hurricanes general manager Ron Francis proposed the change. Francis was known as one of the best at faceoffs during his Hockey Hall of Fame playing career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why nobody has ever proposed that.

 

Because it gets rid of home advantage?  Maybe people are stuck on that?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how defensive centers are going to like that?  Probably not too much.

 

Funny how that passed through and got approval so quickly

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ergo, glad we have Brindy as a mentor going forward, and somewhat as a conspiracy theorist, wonder if that was not a real coupe(certainly an astute move) for RF to make a point to sign McClement!! Hmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two formats being considered for 3-on-3:

  1. 4-on-4 for the first 3 minutes and then 3-on-3 after the first post 3-min whistle through the remainder of the 7 min total OT.
  2. 3-on-3 for 5 minutes.

1. clearly is closer to the "spirit of regulation hockey" but there seem to be 2 primary concerns with it that led to the second alternative.:

  • The transition to 3-on-3 depends on a stoppage in play, so you might not get much 3-on-3 play (or none at all if the whistle doesn't blow), so maybe more shootouts than a guaranteed period of 3-on-3 play.
  • From the players perspective, adding up to 2 additional minutes of play time to the current negotiated CBA "workload".

Not much to be done about the second point; the players will decide what they decide.  But any thoughts on how the league could fairly implement a transition from 4-on-4 to 3-on-3 that guarantees a set amount of 3-on-3 time but that's fair to both teams?

 

Puck possession is a much bigger advantage in reduced player situations, so if you just stop the game at the end of the first 3 minutes of OT and have a 3-on-3 faceoff you're penalizing the team that had possession at that point. Thinking outside the box, I initially wondered if, after the 3 min mark, once a team has clear possession (and isn't in a threatening scoring position) you could stop play, go to 3-on-3, give the puck to the team that had posession behind their own net (with the D maybe lined up behind the dots?), and then restart play.  But that disrupts the game flow, and starting 3-on-3 with that much open ice seems to give the team on offense a pretty big advantage.

 

Is there a fair way to require teams to sit a player on the fly at the 3 minute mark?

 

I love the idea of 3-on-3, but going straight to 5 minutes of 3-on-3 seems a bit too "gimmicky" (too far removed from the spirit of regulation play) for my tastes.  Thoughts?     

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first thought about the 3 on 3, the progression down from 4 on 4 seemed obvious. Basically just keep taking a player off the ice. But I had never really considered the idea of just getting to it. Now I favor that by a wide margin.

 

According to Forslund, in the AHL the typical 3 on 3 starts out fairly structured and is a "feeling out process", then someone gets a chance and takes it. But in 3 on 3 if you don't score it's going back the the other way, often in odd man rushes. So after the initial feeling out period....IT'S ON! And it is very exciting.

 

In his chalk talk Brind'amour also praised the virtues of 3 on 3 and the excitement of it, having seen it done in Canada. (My question to him at that lunch "pats self on back").

 

From what I've heard about the excitement of 3 on 3, why waste a few minutes on 4 on 4? You want the maximum of the good stuff. That last game vs Ottawa finished so exciting because it turned into a lot of chances 4 on 4, but that is more of the exception.

 

Three minutes of 4 on 4 then "however much" 3 on 3 is just as gimmicky. And the ultimate gimmick is the shootout and more 3 on 3 = less shootout.

 

Also, many games will end well before that 5 minutes is up, so the players won't be that taxed over it.

 

Tie? Get to it. 3 on 3 time right from the get go. Take a quick breath because here we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I like the idea of breaking a tie via 3-on-3 better than the shootout.  "Gimmicky" isn't quite the right word for what I meant, but I can't think of an alternative that gets to the essence I want (basically, the degree of variation from "standard" hockey play). 

 

I think part of my problem with going directly to 3-on-3 is a fear that it will unfairly favor teams with offensive superstars. Sure, both of the alternatives come down to that eventually, but not before a chance to win in more "moderate" (4-on-4) circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way will be good. If I had to predict I'd predict they just go straight to 5 minutes of 3 on 3.

 

Its been getting some talk and press today, and I have yet to hear any fan or analyst not want it. In fact it's only a matter of whether people think it will be great or very great.

 

One intersting question brought up was what happens if there's a penalty during 3 on 3. Answer: 4 on 3.

 

My question is what if there is a penalty during the then 4 on 3? I'm guessing 5 on 3? Just kind of interesting the idea of having a penalty and instead of losing a guy the other team adds a guy.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One intersting question brought up was what happens if there's a penalty during 3 on 3. Answer: 4 on 3.

 

My question is what if there is a penalty during the then 4 on 3? I'm guessing 5 on 3? Just kind of interesting the idea of having a penalty and instead of losing a guy the other team adds a guy.

 

That is interesting. Typically you're penalizing the team and also the player. I wonder if there will be any situations where the penalized player will have to sit out (he'd be replaced) in addition to the other team adding a player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...