New NHL rules to be tested in R&D Camp

[Bullwinkle]

Here is the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/what-rules-will-the-nhl-test-at-its-rd-camp/article2124005/

 

Here is the summary of changes:

 

1 Changes only permitted on the fly.

2 No line changes for team committing offside

3 After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team’s end

4 No icing permitted if shorthanded

5 OT variations such as 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3

6 Serve full two minutes of a penalty

7 Yellow verification line behind goal line. If puck touches that line, goal is good.

8 No-touch icing

9 Shallow-back nets

 

Personally I like nrs. 2, 3, 6 and 8.

 

I've thought about having nr. 5 for a while now but saw problems with penalty situations that could arise.

[Assquatch]

I've always liked the idea of number 4. Make power plays more effective to further deter teams from taking penalties. What problems did you foresee?

 

I've also never liked the idea of "Ok you broke a rule so go sit in the penalty box but we don't want to be too mean so now your team no longer has to follow this rule (icing) while you're in there"...

[sabills]

whatever to most of that, but that yellow verification line is an awesome idea. Has its issues, like if the puck is on edge, but it would save alot of controversy mid-games.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Here is the link: http://www.theglobea...article2124005/

 

Here is the summary of changes:

 

1 Changes only permitted on the fly.

2 No line changes for team committing offside

3 After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team’s end

4 No icing permitted if shorthanded

5 OT variations such as 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3

6 Serve full two minutes of a penalty

7 Yellow verification line behind goal line. If puck touches that line, goal is good.

8 No-touch icing

9 Shallow-back nets

 

Personally I like nrs. 2, 3, 6 and 8.

 

I've thought about having nr. 4 for a while now but saw problems with penalty situations that could arise.

I don't have a big problem with #2 I guess, but #3 seems a pretty severe penalty for your timing being a little off going into the zone ... especially if combined with #2. If it's intentional offside, then yeah, same as icing is fine with me.

 

I agree, no icing at all when shorthanded will gas guys and have them tackling people ... maybe you have to get to the blue line and then you can ice it? I don't know. But #6 (serving full 2 minutes) might not be bad.

 

The verification line just seems like common sense to me ... it won't solve every issue but it will solve some, may as well get as many right as possible. Too often there is a problem and they can't find the 100% solution so they scrap the incremental improvements.

 

Shallow back nets would be fine if they loosen up the actual mesh like they used to and the puck isn't coming back out as fast as it goes in.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I think they are also looking at the "bear hug" suggestion from Brian Burke ... the idea being if you can wrap your arms around a guy and take him to the boards it will eliminate dangerous hits from behind.

[gregkash]

Here is the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/what-rules-will-the-nhl-test-at-its-rd-camp/article2124005/

 

Here is the summary of changes:

 

1 Changes only permitted on the fly.

2 No line changes for team committing offside

3 After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team’s end

4 No icing permitted if shorthanded

5 OT variations such as 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3

6 Serve full two minutes of a penalty

7 Yellow verification line behind goal line. If puck touches that line, goal is good.

8 No-touch icing

9 Shallow-back nets

 

Personally I like nrs. 2, 3, 6 and 8.

 

I've thought about having nr. 5 for a while now but saw problems with penalty situations that could arise.

 

I like 6,7, and a modified 8.

 

I don't think offside is broken, and they already have intentional offside rule in place.

[Andrew Amerk]

- On-ice officials communication using ref-to-ref wireless

 

What, no refs in the stands?

[X. Benedict]

I've always liked the idea of number 4. Make power plays more effective to further deter teams from taking penalties. What problems did you foresee?

 

I've also never liked the idea of "Ok you broke a rule so go sit in the penalty box but we don't want to be too mean so now your team no longer has to follow this rule (icing) while you're in there"...

 

I hate this idea. I really do. No need to stop the game for another face-off when the PP team already has possession.

[shrader]

I hate this idea. I really do. No need to stop the game for another face-off when the PP team already has possession.

 

Coupled with the no line changes on an icing rule, you're suddenly facing quite an obstacle. They would find their way around it though. Pucks would be shot into the benches at a record rate if they ever enforced icing on the PK. SO you still get all the stoppages you're suggesting and you have an increased risk of pucks to the face of players/coaches/staff on the benches. It'll never fly.

 

That yellow verification line is great in theory, but it still clashes with the off angle view that all the goal cams give. In fact, with the camera slightly in front of the goal line, the view to that new yellow line would have an even greater angle than the goal line. It'll look like almost every puck near the goal line is touching that verification line. This one isn't going to help at all.

[Weave]

I think 1 and 2 are interesting. IMO the game doesn't need more powerplay scoring and action, it needs more 5 on 5 scoring and action. I think 1 and 2 have the best chance of increasing 5 on 5 action.

 

3 is too big a penalty for the infraction IMO. 4 is going to result in more whistles during powerplays. I'm not in favor of that. 5 could be interesting, especially if the 3 on 3 replaces the shootout. I'm in favor of 6. Anything that helps get goal reviews done correctly is a good change IMO so 7 gets my vote as well. Some form of 8 makes sense too, too many injuries for no reason due to icing races. 9 makes more room for Danny Briere behind the net so that one shouldn't happen. :devil:

[DJ Meddle]

I like the idea of #'s 2,4,6&8

 

7 is a good idea on the surface but could be resolved by a more modern solution that I have thought of fro some time.

 

FOX used have a stupid microchip embedded in the puck for the trailer line for hockey noobs that "cant follow the puck",

why not put a microchip that gives the exact location of the puck & sensors either in the ice at the goal line or the goal posts,

so that way it would not matter if the puck was blocked from view,

the review officials would know the exact location at all times & there would be no room for interpretation.

[Taro T]

Here is the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/what-rules-will-the-nhl-test-at-its-rd-camp/article2124005/

 

Here is the summary of changes:

 

1 Changes only permitted on the fly.

2 No line changes for team committing offside

3 After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team’s end

4 No icing permitted if shorthanded

5 OT variations such as 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3

6 Serve full two minutes of a penalty

7 Yellow verification line behind goal line. If puck touches that line, goal is good.

8 No-touch icing

9 Shallow-back nets

 

Personally I like nrs. 2, 3, 6 and 8.

 

I've thought about having nr. 5 for a while now but saw problems with penalty situations that could arise.

#1 is interesting. I don't think it could work as an across the board rule, but I wouldn't mind seeing them experiment w/ it for cases where the puck is no longer in play by keeping the team that caused the stoppage to keep their players on the ice. It would likely significantly reduce the # of times a goalie covers the puck. I'm not sure if it would have any effect on the play prior to a deflection / high shot, it probably wouldn't, but it could alter the goalies' behavior and create some additional scoring chances.

 

#'s 2&3 seem boneheaded as they will undoubtedly reduce scoring chances as players try to make sure they don't end up a smidge offsides.

 

#4 in theory sounds excellent. In practice, I'd expect (as someone already predicted) that it will cause players to shoot the puck into the opposing team's bench far more often than currently happens. I don't mind them experimenting w/ it, but would not expect that I'd be happy w/ how it affects the game were it implemented for the regular season.

 

I don't like #5. But in fairness, I hate that they use shootouts and use the 4-on-4 for OT. I don't like having different rules for different portions of the game and really don't like having 1 set of rules (w/ multiple variations) for the RS and a separate set of rules for playoffs. (And playoff OT is the most exciting action in all of sports.)

 

#6. I'm a strong advocate of that. I'd also like to see a 2nd set of coincidental minors bring on 3-on-3. That, and moving the nets further out from the boards, were the worst rule changes they came up w/ in the Gretzky-era. The vote to get rid of 3-on-3 was 18-3. Trivia question: which 3 teams voted against allowing teams to replace players serving coincidental penalties when there was already a prior penalty being served?

 

#7. If they add that, I'd also add a 2nd line which would be back 1 puck width behind the goal line and would reposition the overhead camera to be right on the goal line and add a 2nd 1 right on the yellow line. Ideally, I'd bring back a variant of the fox trax puck and put sensors in the net itself to determine precisely whether the puck was in the net or not. I'm sure they wouldn't do either (due to $'s) but it would make it better than the current set up.

 

#8. I'm fine w/ no touch icing, but would have the players still have to race back to the goal line, whoever gets there 1st gets the call. An attacking player managing to win the race and waive off the icing almost always creates a scoring chance. I'd like to see where that scoring chance isn't taken away but the players' safety is addressed. A modified lax possession rule would seem to be a decent compromise.

 

#9. Would have to see how they plan to implement this to have an opinion.

 

I think they are also looking at the "bear hug" suggestion from Brian Burke ... the idea being if you can wrap your arms around a guy and take him to the boards it will eliminate dangerous hits from behind.

I hate this idea. I don't like any rules that start us back down the slippery slope to the '04 TB-Calgary Final. That was nearly unwatchable w/ all the muggings taking place.

 

Yes, the league needs to address hits from behind. No, allowing really big D that can't skate the ability to grab a guy near the boards that he can't catch anywhere else is not the way to do it.

[X. Benedict]

 

#8. I'm fine w/ no touch icing, but would have the players still have to race back to the goal line, whoever gets there 1st gets the call. An attacking player managing to win the race and waive off the icing almost always creates a scoring chance. I'd like to see where that scoring chance isn't taken away but the players' safety is addressed. A modified lax possession rule would seem to be a decent compromise.

 

I think it should be a race to the bottom of the circles. In juniors I think they give up on the puck too soon. Hustle should be rewarded.

[nucci]

I think it should be a race to the bottom of the circles. In juniors I think they give up on the puck too soon. Hustle should be rewarded.

I remember during the lockout the Amerks played at the Arena and no touch icing was used. I agree with you about giving up because there were times as soon as the puck crossed the offensive blue line everyone stopped. I think they have done a good job by making sure players are chasing the puck instead of the opposing player. It's usually exciting when an O player beats a D player to the puck.

[wjag]

Here is the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/what-rules-will-the-nhl-test-at-its-rd-camp/article2124005/

 

Here is the summary of changes:

 

:thumbdown: 1 Changes only permitted on the fly.

:wallbash: 2 No line changes for team committing offside

:blink: 3 After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team’s end

:censored: 4 No icing permitted if shorthanded

:thumbsup: 5 OT variations such as 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3

<_< 6 Serve full two minutes of a penalty

:thumbsup: 7 Yellow verification line behind goal line. If puck touches that line, goal is good.

:worthy: 8 No-touch icing

:blink: 9 Shallow-back nets

 

Personally I like nrs. 2, 3, 6 and 8.

 

I've thought about having nr. 5 for a while now but saw problems with penalty situations that could arise.

 

That's how I feel......

[thesportsbuff]

Here is the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/what-rules-will-the-nhl-test-at-its-rd-camp/article2124005/

 

Here is the summary of changes:

 

1 Changes only permitted on the fly.

2 No line changes for team committing offside

3 After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team’s end

4 No icing permitted if shorthanded

5 OT variations such as 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3

6 Serve full two minutes of a penalty

7 Yellow verification line behind goal line. If puck touches that line, goal is good.

8 No-touch icing

9 Shallow-back nets

 

Personally I like nrs. 2, 3, 6 and 8.

 

I've thought about having nr. 5 for a while now but saw problems with penalty situations that could arise.

 

1. I don't get why. :thumbdown:

2. Kind of indifferent on this one, but I suppose it would speed the game up. :thumbsup:

3. I think the intentional offside rule is enough. :thumbdown:

4. I think it's fine the way it is. :thumbdown:

5. Might be cool, interested in seeing it tested out, so :thumbsup:

6. I don't like it. :thumbdown: Maybe an alternative would be hand out more "Major" penalties, even a "2 minute MAJOR" perhaps for certain hits, in which the penalty lasts the entire duration.

7. I'm interested to see how it works, so i'll give it a :thumbsup: but ultimately I don't think it would help too much. And imo the last thing we need is to be adding more lines on the ice surface, even if its just in the net.

8. Some form of Hybrid :thumbsup:

9. Meh. I'd have to see them in action, but I don't see any problem with the nets the have now. :yawn:

[shrader]

FOX used have a stupid microchip embedded in the puck for the trailer line for hockey noobs that "cant follow the puck",why not put a microchip that gives the exact location of the puck & sensors either in the ice at the goal line or the goal posts, so that way it would not matter if the puck was blocked from view, the review officials would know the exact location at all times & there would be no room for interpretation.

 

It's all about the money. They don't want pucks with these fancy microchips going into the crowd and being lost forever. Granted, the end netting greatly reduces the number of souvenirs, but it's still an increased cost that they don't want to deal with. I also think most leagues like to stick with having some sort of human error involved with officiating. It adds to the drama.

 

I think it should be a race to the bottom of the circles. In juniors I think they give up on the puck too soon. Hustle should be rewarded.

 

The NCAA introduced some sort of hybrid system to their no touch icing rule last year. The only problem was that they never really announced it publicly. It was hilarious at the start of the season to see people who had no clue about the rule complaining when icings were waived off. Once it was explained to them, it was pretty well received though.

[dEnnis the Menace]

It's all about the money. They don't want pucks with these fancy microchips going into the crowd and being lost forever. Granted, the end netting greatly reduces the number of souvenirs, but it's still an increased cost that they don't want to deal with. I also think most leagues like to stick with having some sort of human error involved with officiating. It adds to the drama.

 

I agree with this. I actually like the human error involved in most sports. It adds to the intensity. And in the end, even if it doesn't seem like it, the law of averages shows that you win some and lose some with the calls.

 

The NCAA introduced some sort of hybrid system to their no touch icing rule last year. The only problem was that they never really announced it publicly. It was hilarious at the start of the season to see people who had no clue about the rule complaining when icings were waived off. Once it was explained to them, it was pretty well received though.

 

 

I honestly didn't know this, and i spent a lot of time watching NCAA games last year. what exactly was the change?

[shrader]

I honestly didn't know this, and i spent a lot of time watching NCAA games last year. what exactly was the change?

 

It may have just been a Hockey East thing, I'm not 100% sure. If a player from the team that iced the puck was closer to the puck when it crossed the goal line, it basically switched over to NHL rules where the puck was live. It would still be whistled as icing if the defender wound up touching it first.

[dEnnis the Menace]

It may have just been a Hockey East thing, I'm not 100% sure. If a player from the team that iced the puck was closer to the puck when it crossed the goal line, it basically switched over to NHL rules where the puck was live. It would still be whistled as icing if the defender wound up touching it first.

 

That actually makes sense. Not a bad rule.

[bunomatic]

I don't like 6. You have to remember the stupid number of situations this past season in the playoffs where teams went down 2 players. The way it stands now the offending team has somewhat of a chance to kill it off if they have a hot goalie and a decent 1st and 2nd pk but with the new rule it becomes a series changer. Especially with the way the refs discretion plays into the penalty call process. Losing a series on phantom calls would suck the life out of most fans. In the later rounds these calls completely dried up.

[...]

My thoughts:

 

1. What about TV time-outs? And, aren't coaching strategies and teams built around the idea of running lines that match other, similarly built lines? No likey. :thumbdown:

 

 

2. & 3. This will slow down a game that has already slowed-down due to not enforcing post-lock out rules. A stupid fix for a problem that lay elsewhere. No likey. :thumbdown:

 

4. My first reaction was that this would blow a lot of defensive strategies and all but ensure a 50% or more increase in PP goals. But, I don't know, if the idea is to reduce stupid penalties, then this would do it. I'm ambivalent. <_<

 

5. Eh. I like shootouts. :ph34r:

 

6. I think if they want to reduce penalties they either do this or #4, but not both. I think #4 makes for a better game, if one has to be implemented. :rolleyes:

 

7. & 8. Whatever. The old chip in the puck idea is best if they want to go that far. Sometimes a team benefits from a call on the ice, sometimes they get robbed. I haven't really considered this a problem. If they want to make it so goals are goals, they need to do something to make the game more like it was immediately post-lockout, and get rid of the scrums in front of the net. In fact, this is a band-aid approach to a much larger issue. Stupid NHL. :death:

 

I can't believe this one didn't stand out: "Allow hand passes in all zones" WTF? It's not hockey then if they do this.

 

Not sure what to think of the "Bear-hug rule" - it could slow down the game, but could prevent injuries, too. I think the way it was stated by Burke, and the way they used to do it, it could be okay if the refs didn't let it get out of hand. As a way to prevent injuries, not slow down the game.

 

No-touch icing - not sure on this either. It looks like a way to make the game more boring while trying to make it more "safe". I'd have to see this in action before I could really comment on it, though.

[carpandean]

1. Don't see the point of this.

2. I want to reduce the chance/penalty for offsides to encourage aggressive offense, not discourage it.

3. See #2. Intentional offsides rule is fine.

4. Don't like it. I might change my mind after seeing it in action, but I don't mind the way it is now.

5. Well, I suppose if you're going to go to a gimmicky shootout, you might as well go to a more hockey-like gimmick first.

6. Don't like it. A goal against is penalty enough. Also, if you do that, would scoring on delayed penalty not negate the two-minute penalty?

7. Could work, but I'm not convinced it will help in most cases. There was talk on TSN that they are also considering adding several required cameras, including in the pipe itself, which should help more.

8. I like the sound of a hybrid system.

9. Not sure what to think of that one. Would have to see it.

10. (Bear hug) Am I the only one that thinks it could be more dangerous? If a defender wraps up a player's arms and then forces him defenselessly into the boards, how is that safe?

[LGR4GM]

Coupled with the no line changes on an icing rule, you're suddenly facing quite an obstacle. They would find their way around it though. Pucks would be shot into the benches at a record rate if they ever enforced icing on the PK. SO you still get all the stoppages you're suggesting and you have an increased risk of pucks to the face of players/coaches/staff on the benches. It'll never fly.

 

That yellow verification line is great in theory, but it still clashes with the off angle view that all the goal cams give. In fact, with the camera slightly in front of the goal line, the view to that new yellow line would have an even greater angle than the goal line. It'll look like almost every puck near the goal line is touching that verification line. This one isn't going to help at all.

They should wire 2 cameras inside the the posts directly over the line. |--x----x--| so the x's are the cameras (yes they have ones that small) and the other lines represent the crossbar and then sidebars. You could put the cams inside the posts and run the wires through the posts and out so they would be seamlessly integrated into the goal.

 

Also WTF do they not use high speed (2,000frames a second) cameras on that overhead goal cam at least, it would provide for a lot more information to be gathered and it's a simple improvement.

[sabre4life]

 

1 Changes only permitted on the fly.

2 No line changes for team committing offside

3 After offside, faceoff goes back to offending team’s end

4 No icing permitted if shorthanded

5 OT variations such as 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3

6 Serve full two minutes of a penalty

7 Yellow verification line behind goal line. If puck touches that line, goal is good.

8 No-touch icing

9 Shallow-back nets

 

 

1. Why? This takes away the Home team matchup advantages. :death:

2. Ok I'll give it a shot but keep the faceoff where it is unless it's intentional. :)

3. Keep it the way it is. It's not a overally bad thing being offsides why penalize the team more

You're trying to promote scoring not take it away. :doh:

 

4. This will only induce more penalties as players get tired and can't change :wallbash:

 

5. Replace the shootout hopefully :thumbsup:

6. Again it's fine the way it is :thumbdown:

 

7. I'm sure it wont help much but somethings better than nothing :o

 

8. Are we trying to be pu$$ie$? :censored:

9. Creates more room behind the net. :thumbsup: