Whoa, people! My question of the week -- what rule changes would you like to see in the NHL -- got you riled up. Tons of posts; well done, puckheads! Let's take a look at a sample:
wildog1268: Instigator rule. Are we all not sick of seeing Ryan Hollweg taking runs at people? No instigator rule means Ryan Hollweg's NHL career is over because he will get pummeled every single shift.
hatterson09: Instigator rule. Plain and simple. Too many idiots running around taking cheap shots and not feeling any consequences. Also, why is it that people so fervently believe that increased scoring means better games or more exciting games? Take a look at the Leafs-Rangers game on Friday night (Oct. 17). Game ended 1-0 in a shootout and yet it was one of the best games I've seen in a long time.
My take: I'm on board with eliminating this rule. Players are taking liberties, knowing full well they can get away with it because tough guys can't go after them for fear of costing their team a goal while sitting in the penalty box. Many an NHL player has told me they would like to see the instigator rule gone. The problem for the NHL, however, is the optics in dropping it. "NHL CONDONES FIGHTING" is the kind of headline the league fears seeing the next day after dropping the rule. Because of that, I doubt we'll see it gone from the game.
Pengwin7: Icing needs the change. I don't want to see an NHL fatality in my lifetime from two guys skating full speed into a wall. The game won't lose any excitement by going to no-touch. I've never seen a fan jump out of their seat because their team won a race to the iced puck. There is a good list of items that could be addressed, but this is the one that seems most sensible to me.
My take: There were several posts on this. I, too, share the concern of losing someone's life one day on an icing call. But having covered lots of international hockey over the years, I can also tell you how boring it can be with the constant whistles for no-touch icing. I think the solution is some kind of hybrid, where you still see somewhat of a chase for the puck, but once it crosses, say the hashmarks, the whistle goes. That way, you keep some kind of chase and allow the forechecker to win a puck, but you ensure there is no collision near the boards. The NHL's GMs have talked about this and I wouldn't be surprised to see it adopted one day.
tt7766: I can't take the regular season seriously when double points are awarded for an OT or SO loss. If you lose, you lose! This is really irritating at the end of the season when you are trying to catch a few teams in the standings and one of them gets two points and the other gets a point for losing in OT. By NHL rules, the Jets would have received a half a win for losing in OT to the Raiders in the NFL.
Fatslobs7: The managers need to adjust on the point system. Currently, if you win a game in regulation, it's worth two points, but why is a game that goes to overtime worth three? It should all be about splitting points, not creating more because there is overtime; that promotes more defensive hockey. Teams will play into OT knowing they can get one guaranteed point. The playoff races are tighter and go later ever since the point system was changed. I just don't think it's right when you are chasing teams in the playoffs and you win a game and get two points, but two foes ahead of you in the standings walk away with 3 combined? There is no logic in that. They should go to a 3-point regulation win system, 2 points for an overtime win and 1 point for an overtime loss. That would open up the game and teams can't rely on the 1-point guarantee when other teams are getting 3.
My take: The GMs looked at this again last February and decided against changing the point system. I think they were wrong. A regulation-time victory should mean more than an overtime/shootout win. Either award three points for a regulation win and two for overtime/shootout (and one point for an OT/shootout loss) or award two points for a regulation win, one for OT/shootout and zero for any kind of loss. Having said all that, I know several GMs and owners who only supported the shootout on the condition their teams get a point for losing in one. Otherwise, it would have got voted down. So, quite frankly, as long as the shootout exists, so will the losing point.
pelti: I hate the shootout. Would you settle a basketball game with nothing but free throws, or a baseball game with a home-run derby. It also gives an advantage to the teams that play a run-and-gun breakaway style of game and hurts teams that play a passing, defensive-minded game, effectively endorsing one style of play over all others. I also hate the suggestion that fans are too dumb to comprehend ties.
Evil-F-Gorilla: OT shootout = All-Star competition event.
My take: I have to say, and I never thought I would ever feel this way three years ago when it was implemented, but I'm tired already of the shootout. I used to fly around my dial looking for it. Now, I don't care. The novelty has worn off.
biester79: Change the rule about putting the puck over the glass from the defensive zone to be the same as an icing -- no one on the ice from the defense can change, but not have it be a penalty. I would enforce it the same on a penalty kill -- none of the penalty killers could change. Too many hockey games are decided because a puck rolled on edge and a player knocked it over the glass -- that's always struck me as the stupidest rule ever since it went in.
My take: Well, biester79, that's a clever compromise. It still penalizes a team for doing it and yet I agree that a two-minute penalty, especially late in a game, seems outrageous for what is most often an unintentional play. Smart.
felixdagoalie: I say leave the game the same, however, make it a higher skill/ higher scoring game. 1) Olympic-size rinks; now your fourth line will be 5-foot-6, 5-foot-7 speedsters; 2) Wood sticks; 3) Smaller goalie equipment -- 10-inch wide pads, max 36-inch height, but No. 2 must happen or goalies will get killed.
My take: I'll touch on one element here, felixdagoalie: Olympic-size rinks. I used to also believe this myth before I went on to cover six World Championships in Europe. Let me tell you something -- there were lots of boring, defensive games on the big ice over there. Why? Because the D-men often stayed back instead of trying to keep the puck into the offensive zone -- they rarely pinched. Some countries just had five guys line across their blue line to make sure they didn't get anyone behind them on the big ice. Interestingly, some new arenas in Europe have actually been built a little smaller, about halfway between NHL and international size.
dikaia880: The trapezoid serves the purpose to keep the goalies from taking a dump and chase and sending it right back down on another dump and chase; works for me. Why would you want to watch a puck get dumped, then watch the goalie meet it in the corner only to turn around and dump it right back down. How is that entertaining?
And you can't have goalies open to getting hit; there are so many issues with that.
rrrlit: GET RID OF THE STUPID TRAPIZOID! No need to explain any further. If you don't like the goalies leaving the crease, then just let them skate out at their own risk.
My take: Lots of posts on the trapezoid. And I'll have to disagree with the majority of them that want it gone. I'm going to have to overrule you puckheads on that one. The reality is that the rule has helped opposing teams create a more effective forecheck. Before, goalies would just flip the puck right back out and on and on it went. This is a good rule and it should stay.
spasmatic13: there's nothing wrong with the current rules; stop trying to change the rules every season and let the game evolve on its own. there is no point in trying to make the game a higher-scoring game when every team's job is to allow a minimal amount of goals ... trying to make the game a higher-scoring affair will just introduce new problems and more penalties since the defense's job is to stop a guy from scoring. let the damn teams play hockey for god sakes! one team will win and one team will lose -- that's how it works. a 1-0 game can be just as exciting as a 7-6 game. besides the fact that every fan in the league gets goose bumps as the game winds down and it looks like their goalie might be serving up a shutout! and again i say ... LET THEM PLAY HOCKEY AND LEAVE THE RULES ALONE!
My take: I will say this, there is a danger of constantly changing the rules because, honestly, teams are just now finally adjusting fully to all the changes we had coming out of the lockout. And the NHL and its GMs know that, which is why not much has been done since then. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about it!
Pierre LeBrun
