Check out some NHL rule changes for this year...

[shrader]

Could you imagine that being the second penalty that gets someone their automatic 1 game suspension? That would be pretty pathetic.

[WildCard]

Completely forgot how terrible that call was

[Iron Crotch]

I like Rule #57 (below)

 

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.)

 

 

Breakaways are among the most exciting plays in hockey and they're routinely eliminated by a diving defender who gets a little piece of the puck, but demolishes the offensive player. I like that this is now a penalty.

[LTS]

Essentially the defender now has to make "clean" contact with the puck. If he misses entirely and trips the player it's a penalty shot. If he hits the puck first but also pulls the player down through contact with the legs or shoulder, etc. it will be a 2 minute penalty.

 

I'm down with that.

 

Spin-o-rama? Whatever.

 

Trapezoid? Whatever.

 

Face-off delay? Excellent.

 

I like that basically unless the attacking team intentionally shoots the puck out of play the face-off stays in the offensive zone.

I like that the hash marks are being spread out (even if just for pre-season). I think it will free up wingers to reposition quicker.

[beerme1]

Why continue to ignore the worst rule in hockey? Two minutes for accidently putting the puck over the glass. Let that be a discretionary call rather than automatic please. How many games have teams lost because of that garbage rule?

Fix it, get rid of the trapezoid altogether and dump the shootout and go to a 3, 2, 1 system or whatever you Einstein's concoct. And I am willing to forgive.

[drnkirishone]

Why continue to ignore the worst rule in hockey? Two minutes for accidently putting the puck over the glass. Let that be a discretionary call rather than automatic please. How many games have teams lost because of that garbage rule?

Fix it, get rid of the trapezoid altogether and dump the shootout and go to a 3, 2, 1 system or whatever you Einstein's concoct. And I am willing to forgive.

it is anything but the worst rule in hockey. The ref had the discretion to call a minor if he felt someone purposely shot the puck out of play. It was never called. I want less grey area in the rule book not more

[Iron Crotch]

Why continue to ignore the worst rule in hockey? Two minutes for accidently putting the puck over the glass. Let that be a discretionary call rather than automatic please. How many games have teams lost because of that garbage rule?

Fix it, get rid of the trapezoid altogether and dump the shootout and go to a 3, 2, 1 system or whatever you Einstein's concoct. And I am willing to forgive.

 

I hate the over-the-glass rule because more often than not it seems to be based on luck (e.g. the puck jumps up when it gets to a guy's stick) rather than intent. Meanwhile we routinely see games where guys are killing each other all over the ice and the refs don't call a thing... the message seems to be that you can maim each other, but don't accidentally botch a clearing attempt or you will immediately be escorted off the ice! :D

 

 

Almost every single call in the books is based on the ref's discretion. I'm not sure why this particular call needs to be automatic when we trust his judgment for the others.

[drnkirishone]

 

 

I hate the over-the-glass rule because more often than not it seems to be based on luck (e.g. the puck jumps up when it gets to a guy's stick) rather than intent. Meanwhile we routinely see games where guys are killing each other all over the ice and the refs don't call a thing... the message seems to be that you can maim each other, but don't accidentally botch a clearing attempt or you will immediately be escorted off the ice! :D

 

 

Almost every single call in the books is based on the ref's discretion. I'm not sure why this particular call needs to be automatic when we trust his judgment for the others.

for the most part the only discretion the ref should have is, was that 2, 4, or 5. Should slashing calls not be called if the player was simply trying to knock the puck away?

[IKnowPhysics]

http://www.nhl.com/i...vid=DL|NHL|home

 

Bigger trapezoid, no spin-o-rama in the shoot out among them.

 

Video review on those goals when official blows the whistle early will be allowed to actually be goals.

 

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.

Is it me, or does that open the door of players playing past the whistle? Seems like it opens a gray area of where the whistle has blown the play dead because the ref loses sight of the puck, but the puck can still cross the goal line and score based on video review. I thought we wanted the halt of play to be solely dictated by the whistle. Am I interpreting this wrong?

Edited September 19, 2014 by IKnowPhysics

[darksabre]

[/size][/font][/color]

Is it me, or does that open the door of players playing past the whistle? Seems like it opens a gray area of where the whistle has blown the play dead because the ref loses sight of the puck, but the puck can still cross the goal line and score based on video review. I thought we wanted the halt of play to be solely dictated by the whistle. Am I interpreting this wrong?

 

I don't honestly know how to interpret that. But I think you're right on the ramifications. Essentially it doesn't matter when the ref blows the whistle. If you get that puck in the net they're going to review it. That's bad news for goalies.

[Stoner]

[/size][/font][/color]

Is it me, or does that open the door of players playing past the whistle? Seems like it opens a gray area of where the whistle has blown the play dead because the ref loses sight of the puck, but the puck can still cross the goal line and score based on video review. I thought we wanted the halt of play to be solely dictated by the whistle. Am I interpreting this wrong?

 

The NHL needs a technical writer to review all language they issue about rules. It's nuts. It's almost like they try to be vague, so they can twist it around later to meet their needs. Nah.

 

I don't think they're trying to encourage players to play past the whistle. And I don't think the idea is to allow goals after the whistle has blown. I think what they're setting up is the ability to listen for the whistle and watch where the puck is. That gets dicey. Is the audio and video perfectly synched? Are all arenas equally equipped? Are they relying on team broadcasts that could (potentially) be manipulated?

 

As for intent to blow, why is that even there? Don't want to take the game away from the ref? What about taking a playoff spot or even a Cup away from a team?

[Taro T]

Why continue to ignore the worst rule in hockey? Two minutes for accidently putting the puck over the glass. Let that be a discretionary call rather than automatic please. How many games have teams lost because of that garbage rule?

Fix it, get rid of the trapezoid altogether and dump the shootout and go to a 3, 2, 1 system or whatever you Einstein's concoct. And I am willing to forgive.

Don't know the answer to the question. Do know that had the rule been in place in 2001 the Sabres almost certainly get through to play a Joisey team that they'd destroyed all 4 times they'd played.

 

Giving refs additional discretion typically means giving them license to ignore the rule book. Historically, IMHO, that is almost always a bad thing.

[IKnowPhysics]

Maybe there are situations where:

1) The puck is loose and is knocked over the goal line.

2) The ref blows the whistle because he loses sight of it.

3) The ref calls no-goal because he thought the puck crossed after the whistle blew.

4) Video review couldn't overturn/give guidance on that call previously (I don't think), but with the change, maybe now they can?

 

No idea. Where's Brenda Shanaban video with the boring rule explanation? Where's the Kerry Frasier blog entry?

 

It's nuts. It's almost like they try to be vague...