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

Rule Changes

Recommended Posts

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?

 

I'm guessing the player would go to the box. But then maybe can't get back in until there's a whistle. Also, I wonder how the non penalized team has to get their guy off the ice when the pp is over? Wonder if they blow the whistle at the end of the penalty? Normally the penalized guy is highly motivated and chomping at the bit to get on the ice. The extra player would be highly unmotivated to get off...

 

Wonder if anyone on here has seen this in the AHL or knows how it is done?

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd really hate to see the 3 on 3 determined by a midpoint whistle. Changing ends could also increase the chance of scoring. Not to mention if the play continues with no whistle and it's a 7 minute period there's a decent enough chance of no 3 on 3 or very little 3 on 3 which makes this all very pointless.

Edited by legend-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the AHL is doing it that way (4-4 then 3-3). It would be interesting if anyone on here has seen it.

 

I still say go right to 3 on 3. Gentleman, start your engines....go!~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the AHL is doing it that way (4-4 then 3-3). It would be interesting if anyone on here has seen it.

 

I still say go right to 3 on 3. Gentleman, start your engines....go!~

 

Yeah, the AHL is doing the 4 first then 3 thing. I've read that even starting out 4-on-4, only 24% of extra session games made it to a shootout.  As compared to 65% making it to shootout last year.

 

I'd still love to hear about how the AHL handles some of the detailed logistics we've brought up.  Didn't we use to have a Checkers fan who stopped in occasionally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something I haven't heard anyone else mention that I'd like to see.  I'd like the NHL to adopt a 2 tier Embellishment rule: 2 minutes for "soccer style" flopping and 1 minute for less blatant instances. 

 

As distasteful as flopping is, it's usually called in conjunction with a physical penalty by the other team.  The embellishment call completely "cancels out" the precipitating penalty, which is usually more egregious imo because it's a physical foul that could cause injury. And in the case of dual calls, there was a precipitating foul, which by definition is going to cause some effect on the fouled player.

 

But just as important, I suspect that officials don't call it as often because the embellishment penalty is as severe as the precipitating foul.  I'd bet that giving them the option of a 1 minute embellishment penalty might actully lead to more calls and less embellishment in the long run.

 

Oh, and keep the off ice penalties for embellishment that the NHL implemented this year (even though I doubt they do much to lessen the problem). 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A penalty that is not 2, 4, 5 long?  How dare you assault tradition!   :)

 

I also wondered if there might be cases where it would be "fairest" to start play with a team in possesion of the puck behind it's own net rather than a faceoff.  I can hear the voices now: HERETIC! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!  :P

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wondered if there might be cases where it would be "fairest" to start play with a team in possesion of the puck behind it's own net rather than a faceoff.  I can hear the voices now: HERETIC! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!  :P

 

:)

 

Steve Kouleas (broadcaster) was discussing 3 on 3 in OT.  His take is that the ice has gotten small since the guys have gotten big.  And it is true, nutrition has lead to bigger athletes over the last 100 years.

 

Anyway, he suggests the NHL go further and consider 4 on 4 play as a matter of course.  He knows the NHLPA won't accept this, so his suggestion is the 3rd period start with 4 on 4 until the first commercial break.

 

Wow, that's some out of the box thinking.  Roster stays the same size, guys even play fewer minutes so the NHLPA is happy.  Most of the game is traditional.  But there's the 5+ minutes of "bonus make up time" that trailing teams can use to pour on the gas.  Kind of nutty, but I like it.

 

It will never happen, though.

 

And on tradition and playing field sizes... I'm always amazed at how well baseball got it.  The length between bases is just perfect to always make it a contest for grounders and stolen bases.  Really amazing.  Basketball, however, is a completely different game than 60 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

Steve Kouleas (broadcaster) was discussing 3 on 3 in OT.  His take is that the ice has gotten small since the guys have gotten big.  And it is true, nutrition has lead to bigger athletes over the last 100 years.

. . .

 

That's my other big wish, that the NHL adopt the bigger international sized ice. Not gonna happen because it will mean losing some of those high priced rink side seats.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my other big wish, that the NHL adopt the bigger international sized ice. Not gonna happen because it will mean losing some of those high priced rink side seats.  

The rinkside seat pricing issue is sort of a misnomer, I think. The NHL would not "lose" the rinkside pricing. The "new" rinkside seat prices after a rink adjustment would still be the same price. They would simply have fewer total lower bowl seats and would adjust the rest of the lower bowl seat pricing (and maybe some or all of the upper bowl) to make up for the loss. It would depend on how big your arena is as to how much you'd have to raise prices on a "per seat" basis. The people in the last row of the lower bowl would end up paying more, not the people in the rinkside seats. Those would stay the same. The trade off is: Would a bigger surface create a better product that people would be willing to spend more on tickets?  

 

I would love to see an international ice surface, personally. However, you have to factor in constructions costs, loss of ticket, parking and vending revenue with less seats, and a biggie...isn't the refrigeration system permanent? Wouldn't they have to dig up the floor and expand the refrigeration system by at least 15 feet? Gotta be expensive. 

Edited by CincoNuwaywaay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rinkside seat pricing issue is sort of a misnomer, I think. The NHL would not "lose" the rinkside pricing. The "new" rinkside seat prices after a rink adjustment would still be the same price. They would simply have fewer total lower bowl seats and would adjust the rest of the lower bowl seat pricing (and maybe some or all of the upper bowl) to make up for the loss. It would depend on how big your arena is as to how much you'd have to raise prices on a "per seat" basis. The people in the last row of the lower bowl would end up paying more, not the people in the rinkside seats. Those would stay the same. The trade off is: Would a bigger surface create a better product that people would be willing to spend more on tickets?  

 

I would love to see an international ice surface, personally. However, you have to factor in constructions costs, loss of ticket, parking and vending revenue with less seats, and a biggie...isn't the refrigeration system permanent? Wouldn't they have to dig up the floor and expand the refrigeration system by at least 15 feet? Gotta be expensive. 

 

Yeah, it's unlikely to happen anytime soon due to revenue/ cost issues. Unless: player salaries have to be the biggest NHL "cost". As you pointed out, players have gotten much bigger and faster.  Would a bigger ice surface reduce the number of injuries?  If so, one could make the argument that reducing the number of player injuries, especially to stars, might more than offset the costs of going to bigger ice. 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thought on the 2 possible 3-on-3 options.  With the 7 minute total 4-4 then 3-3 option, even if there isn't a whistle to transition to 3-on-3, you're still getting a total of 7 minutes of 4-on-4 play before going to a shoot out as compared to 5 minutes now. Those extra 2 minutes should decide some games even if you never get to 3-on-3.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the player would go to the box. But then maybe can't get back in until there's a whistle. Also, I wonder how the non penalized team has to get their guy off the ice when the pp is over? Wonder if they blow the whistle at the end of the penalty? Normally the penalized guy is highly motivated and chomping at the bit to get on the ice. The extra player would be highly unmotivated to get off...

 

Wonder if anyone on here has seen this in the AHL or knows how it is done?

 

Not sure about how the AHL does it but I would assume that if it was a 4 on 3 power play in OT you would simply go 4 on 4 (even strength) after the penalty has concluded until the next whistle and then go back to 3 on 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about how the AHL does it but I would assume that if it was a 4 on 3 power play in OT you would simply go 4 on 4 (even strength) after the penalty has concluded until the next whistle and then go back to 3 on 3.

 

That does make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule changes I would like to see considered:

1)  Make the goal bigger.  Goalies and their equipment have gotten bigger, so the net should be bigger.  Say, two inches higher and 4 inches wider.

2)  When a team ices the puck, instead of a faceoff, the defending team has to stay behind the face off dots in their end until the puck crosses the red line.  This would eliminate the lolly gagging that goes on by the defending team prior to a face off and teams would be bringing the puck up ice with speed..

3)  If a team scores on a delayed penalty, enforce the penalty after the score.

4)  Make a two minute power play two minutes.  Do not end the penalty if the attacking team scores.  If you can score 2-3 goals in the two minute time period, more power to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the bigger goal. I get that the integrity of the record book might be an issue. But there is no question that scoring would go up big time. I wonder if there is a stat on number of pipes hit per game. It has to be at least 2. Those would be goals. Then the near misses would still clank off the pipes.

 

Not sure if I favor it, but is is the single, simplest way to increase scoring, by a lot, if that's the goal, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never noticed this thread until I had posted the below proposals in a new thread I created in the "Around the NHL and other Hockey talk" category. I've now deleted that other post. Mods, if you'd remove that thread entirely I'd appreciate it.


 


The Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Rule: If your team is shorthanded and you score, your penalized player is sprung from the sin bin. 


Why: This rule would add an element of drama to every PP/PK situation. Teams adept at shorthanded play will design plays to try to score - and to recover quickly if their scoring bid fails. Teams with poor PPs will be forced to get better, or at least maintain possession. And fan reaction to the penalized player leaving the box, whether of the home or away team, will be priceless.


 


The Score-All-You-Can Rule: Teams on the PP can score as many goals as possible during the penalty and maintain the man advantage until the penalty is up. Exception: Double minors would maintain a two-goal max.


Why: There was a time in the NHL when this was the reality: Teams on the PP could score as many goals as possible until the penalty was up. Re-instituting the rule would not only add the excitement of potentially higher scoring, but make the proposed Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free rule (above) even more meaningful.


 


The Non-Playoff-Team Trade Rule: All teams not making the playoffs may resume trading, only amongst themselves, immediately upon the end of the final game of the regular season. Teams not advancing in the playoffs may also resume making deals with all other teams not competing in the postseason immediately upon losing their series.


Why: Allowing non-playoff teams to resume trading while the Stanley Cup Playoffs are being contested would add excitement for fans of those teams as the playoffs are contested, and would add hockey news to playoff coverage. Giving non-playoff teams first crack at FAs and trades with of other such teams might also promote parity across the league. Also, the knowledge that non-playoff teams will have free rein to make deals while the playoffs are being contested will inject another layer of intrigue to the in-season trade deadline.


 


The Let's-Reduce-OT-and-Shootout-Decided Games Rule: Teams which come back from a deficit of two or more goals to tie a game in regulation are awarded two points, and the team which failed to protect its lead gets just one. Only games in which neither team has had more than a one-goal lead and which end in a tie go to OT and possibly a shootout.


Why: It's often said that a 3-0 lead is the most dangerous lead in hockey. Let's make teams pay for failing to close it out by taking away their second (OT) and third (shootout) chances to get two points anyway. If a team can't close out a win with a two-goal (or greater) lead, it doesn't deserve more than one point.


Edited by top-shelf-1

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...