NHL rules experiments

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    NHL rules experiments

    Good articles if your interested in any ideas the NHL has regarding trying out different rule changes . The 2 on 2 would be odd to see and would be like watching pond hockey IMO.

    http://www.torontosun.com/sports/hockey/2010/08/18/15069166.html


    http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/

    From the indispensable Chris Johnston of the Canadian Press, a glimpse of the NHL Research and Development Camp on Wednesday in Toronto, where concepts such as having one giant cyclopic faceoff circle in the offensive zone were tested by some of the 2011 draft's top prospects.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    The beloved shootout is being attacked.  Oh the shock!  The fans love it.  

    It just is not hockey! Hitchcock was absolutely correct on the 4 on 4 strategy. Something needs to be done to take the emphasis off of the overtime shootout.  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    I like most ideas that remove the shootout, but I'm not a fan of paring down to 2-2.  4x4 for five minutes then 3x3 for five, then end it in a tie.  Ties were fine for 70 years.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Canbostondoit. Show Canbostondoit's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    I don't like like the one face off circle in the offense zone. 2 on 2 no thanx. I would rather go back to a tie and no OT or Shoot Out. If a team is leading ie 2 -1 and the game is tie  then let it be. I want to see automatic icing and no racing for the puck too amny craxy injuries.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Clyde-Fitch. Show Clyde-Fitch's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    If they want player to play for a win how about 3pts for a WIN and a SO/OT Win is 2pt and 1 pt for SO/OT Loss. So every game is worth 3pts.

    This would also help seperate the men from the boys and elminate this log jam they get from teams 4-10.

    Right now a team could lose every game in OT and make the playoffs.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bruins73. Show Bruins73's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    I mostly just read this blog..but I heard discussion of this on the radio yesterday.

    I like Not-A-Shots post about the 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3 and leave it a tie if it no one scores. I am so sick of the shoot out. And not because the Bruins had a tough time with it. Because in most cases (IMO) the team that has played better for the majority of the game loses. I would rather see it end in a tie during the regular season. Play-offs is another story. And definitely no shoot out in the play-offs. Too much riding on a teams season to leave it all up to a goalie in a one on one.

    It's like soccer (not that I am a fan) But how fare is it to have a guy 5 feet from the net get to just blast it in? While the net is smaller in hockey the goalie is still at a disadvantage.

    Taking out the icing or making it automatic I am 50/50. I agree it would reduce the crazy injuries but that is an exciting part of the game.

    When the defenseman and offensive player are sprinting to the puck just trying to get the touch.  But that is where a lot of injuries stem from. But it's hockey it's supposed to be physical and rough. I don't like to see the sport get wimp-a-fied. Better rules and enforcement for cheap hits I am for. I am not so sure on this icing rule change.

    And that one large face-off circle looks ridiculous.

    Go Bruins!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NorthernBrewin. Show NorthernBrewin's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In my world, here's how we'd play.

    Regulation win: 2 points.

    One overtime period of 10 mins, 5 on 5. If you win in OT, you get 1 point, loser gets 0. If no winner at end of period, neither team gets a point.

    Let's stop rewarding failure by giving a point if you get to OT.

    I want to get rid of the shootout because it's not applied consistently. If it isn't allowed in the playoffs, lose it during the regular season.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]I like most ideas that remove the shootout, but I'm not a fan of paring down to 2-2.  4x4 for five minutes then 3x3 for five, then end it in a tie.  Ties were fine for 70 years.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Watching games end in a tie were not fine for me. Just my opinion and not criticizing yours just to clarify that so you don't call my post a rant. BTW as stated in the article none of these rule experiments have anything to do with removing the shootout. So for now it's here to stay.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NumbaFouwer. Show NumbaFouwer's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    I like the hybrid icing concept, as it should make the game safer, even though there is a human element in determining who would touch the puck first. I think this is something like what Don Cherry has been advocating.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]I like the hybrid icing concept, as it should make the game safer, even though there is a human element in determining who would touch the ice first. I thiink this is something like what Don Cherry has been advocating.
    Posted by NumbaFouwer[/QUOTE]

    Ya numba, this one caught my eye the most out of any of them.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    82 points wouldn't get you into the playoffs - one of the effects of 3 point games has been a general inflation of point totals.  That should be obvious, right?  Every game that goes to OT adds another point to the potential league wide point total.  If every game only had two points at stake, then the total points for all teams at the end of the season would have to total 2460 (30teams, each playing 41 home games worth 2pts - so 30x41x2=2460).  A perfectly average team, then, would be 15th or 16th in the league with 82 points and, depending on conference alignment, probably makes the playoffs.

    Last year, 301 OT games added 301 points that total, inflating the average point total to 92.  Two teams with 88 points made the playoffs. The median score was 90.  Two teams with 90 points missed the playoffs.  82 points would have put you around 24, between Carolina at 80 and the Thrash at 83.  The Bruins were under the average score based on available points, but just barely.  In essence, they turned in an 81 point season where they held all the tie-breakers.  If you think about it that way, the point total and the performance on the ice mesh much better than if you're thinking of what a 90 point team used to look like.

    I'm pretty sure the ability to compare stats across eras has been raised as a reason not to find other solutions to avoiding ties, but that baby went out with that last tub-full.

    If I had my way (sing it Rev.!), we'd lose the point for an OTL, extend 4 on 4 OT to ten minutes (3 on 3 is rarer in the course of a game than a penalty shot, so it's no more hockey than the current skills competition), and end with a tie if that's the will of the hockey gods.  If you want to keep the SO as a nod to fans who appreciate a decision, keep it, but score it differently.  Track the tie in terms of points and have a separate SO winning percentage.  Use that as the third tie-breaker for playoff seeding/draft position: winning percentage, head-to-head, SO, then other trivia like goals for.  That would still make it feel like there was a decision, but it would minimize the impact of the SO without completely neutering it.  Hey, people moan about baseball putting home field on the line at the ASG, so this would be enough motivation to actually try to win.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    "Regulation win: 2 points.

    One overtime period of 10 mins, 5 on 5. If you win in OT, you get 1 point, loser gets 0.
    Let's stop rewarding failure by giving a point if you get to OT."

    I like this but I would keep the 4 on 4. Lengthening the OT in minutes would more than likely bring shootout numbers down that extra time would give more conclusions. I also like the idea of not giving a team reward just getting into OT that would eliminate boring dump in hockey as teams start playing not to lose near the end of regulation.

    Shanahan was a great hire by the NHL in my view. Listening to him the other day on NHL Home Ice Radio speaking with Boomer Gordon he gets it. Brendan knows there needs to be some tweaking and will get to it. This kind of observation with an eventual conclusion would have never happened during the Ziegler/Eagelson days.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments


    Why aren't they asking me???

    idea 1)
    Instead of shoot out, 4x4, no subs, no goalies, nets made with a players shoes, no lifting the puck, no pads and no hitting - plus remove the boards - get fans right into the action!

    Disputed goals settled by fisticuffs!

    idea 2)
    oh what the heck, save all the touble and move right into the settling the OT with fisticuffs, make fighting more relevant in the game.  Thornton would be much more valuable.  Might even make it worth it to try to teach Mike Tyson how to skate.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from OlsonicCreations. Show OlsonicCreations's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    These issues have been on the table for a very long time

    4v4 then 3v3 then SO.

    It doesn't rock the boat too much, the players already have some level of familiarity with the 3v3, and it gives the fans something new and exciting. 

    The SO will be even more exciting since it will happen less.

    I love the idea of 3v3 with Savard/Seguin, Bergeron/Krejci, Chara/seidenberg
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]In my world, here's how we'd play. Regulation win: 2 points. One overtime period of 10 mins, 5 on 5. If you win in OT, you get 1 point, loser gets 0. If no winner at end of period, neither team gets a point. Let's stop rewarding failure by giving a point if you get to OT. I want to get rid of the shootout because it's not applied consistently. If it isn't allowed in the playoffs, lose it during the regular season.
    Posted by NorthernBrewin[/QUOTE]

    Totally agree, especially the last sentence.  No icing during power plays would help as well.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]In my world, here's how we'd play. Regulation win: 2 points. One overtime period of 10 mins, 5 on 5. If you win in OT, you get 1 point, loser gets 0. If no winner at end of period, neither team gets a point. Let's stop rewarding failure by giving a point if you get to OT. I want to get rid of the shootout because it's not applied consistently. If it isn't allowed in the playoffs, lose it during the regular season.
    Posted by NorthernBrewin[/QUOTE]

    Are tie games allowed in the playoffs ? With your reasoning , lose the tie games during the regular season.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments : Are tie games allowed in the playoffs ? With your reasoning , lose the tie games during the regular season.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    My reasoning is if it is not done in the playoffs then it should not happen.  Philadelphia made it to the playoffs with a shootout win, what else needs to be proved that shootouts should exist in the playoffs.  Now if there is a better solution, like 4 on 4 in a longer OT then that is more reasonable.  Or even no icing on power plays.  Scoring should be emphasized in regulation time. The NHL is evolving into international football on ice, defense only.  I liked the suggestion of getting less points if you go into an overtime.... now that is incentive to win the game in a league pushing parity.  Want to save time, count ties as one point status quo ante-1983.   
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruins8. Show bruins8's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    play 10 min 4 on 4 before a so  no 3 on 3 2on 2 crap.....  id take a 60 min game followed by a 10 min ot   ties would be ok but for you fans that hate ties lets have the shootout after 10 min personally i like 4 on 4 better than shootout with 5 extra min more games will be won   maybe limit teams to 3 forward 1 d in ot 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    Enough with the incessant rule changes already!

    By show of hands, who likes the instigator rule? Or the Goalie Trapezoid?  Or the automatic penalty for shooting the puck over the glass in your end zone?  Each of these awful rules has, in its own way, diminished the game.  Now, we are "piloting" a single face-off circle in each end zone?  Are you kidding me?  These ideas are absolute garbage, there is no need to dramatically change the greatest game on the face of the earth.

    Now, for safety reasons, I can get behind the hybrid icing idea.  Beyond that, leave the game alone!  Unless, of course, the league wishes to revoke any of the three bad rules mentioned above.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments


    no one on the planet sees it this way but me.

    q) what is the most exciting hockey there is?
    a) playoffs, tight series, tight game.  End to end hockey, pace is fantastic.

    q) do you see any penalties called in that situation?
    a) no

    q) why not?
    a) because you can't risk a stupid penalty in that situation.  Annihilate someone with a clean hit, don't do that behind the whistle slash at someone that could get you 2 minutes.

    the final answer is:
    Infuse that into every game.  I think you could do it by calling EVERYTHING.  And that way you don't get guys like Avery and Cooke because you can't take a stoopit penalty anymore.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    I agree BadHab, but that sounds more like enforcing existing rules, as opposed to creating new ones.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]I agree BadHab, but that sounds more like enforcing existing rules, as opposed to creating new ones.
    Posted by Crowls2424[/QUOTE]

    Except that the only way to do it would be to make the penalties hurt a lot more so that people are afraid to take them (as they are in a high pressure playoff game).  Not sure how to do that, maybe make the penalties 3 minutes or take away icing from pk or something like that.

    And thinking about it, calling the game closer means less cheap shots, less violence and this would cut the fighters out of the game or same as the high pressure playoff games and the NHL doesn't want that.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruins8. Show bruins8's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    there is no tie in a reg season tie.....   extend the ot per to 10 min id say 70 npercent of games would be decided if they play 10 min   the other 30?  what is so wrong with a hard fought tie? 1 pt each
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from No4BobbyOrr-GOAT. Show No4BobbyOrr-GOAT's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]no one on the planet sees it this way but me. q) what is the most exciting hockey there is? a) playoffs, tight series, tight game.  End to end hockey, pace is fantastic. q) do you see any penalties called in that situation? a) no q) why not? a) because you can't risk a stupid penalty in that situation.  Annihilate someone with a clean hit, don't do that behind the whistle slash at someone that could get you 2 minutes. the final answer is: Infuse that into every game.  I think you could do it by calling EVERYTHING.  And that way you don't get guys like Avery and Cooke because you can't take a stoopit penalty anymore.
    Posted by BadHabitude[/QUOTE]


    Not much diff between season and playoffs on how it is played, the diff is in how it is reffed.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from No4BobbyOrr-GOAT. Show No4BobbyOrr-GOAT's posts

    Re: NHL rules experiments

    In Response to Re: NHL rules experiments:
    [QUOTE]82 points wouldn't get you into the playoffs - one of the effects of 3 point games has been a general inflation of point totals.  That should be obvious, right?  Every game that goes to OT adds another point to the potential league wide point total.  If every game only had two points at stake, then the total points for all teams at the end of the season would have to total 2460 (30teams, each playing 41 home games worth 2pts - so 30x41x2=2460).  A perfectly average team, then, would be 15th or 16th in the league with 82 points and, depending on conference alignment, probably makes the playoffs. Last year, 301 OT games added 301 points that total, inflating the average point total to 92.  Two teams with 88 points made the playoffs. The median score was 90.  Two teams with 90 points missed the playoffs.  82 points would have put you around 24, between Carolina at 80 and the Thrash at 83.  The Bruins were under the average score based on available points, but just barely.  In essence, they turned in an 81 point season where they held all the tie-breakers.  If you think about it that way, the point total and the performance on the ice mesh much better than if you're thinking of what a 90 point team used to look like. I'm pretty sure the ability to compare stats across eras has been raised as a reason not to find other solutions to avoiding ties, but that baby went out with that last tub-full. If I had my way (sing it Rev.!), we'd lose the point for an OTL, extend 4 on 4 OT to ten minutes (3 on 3 is rarer in the course of a game than a penalty shot, so it's no more hockey than the current skills competition), and end with a tie if that's the will of the hockey gods.  If you want to keep the SO as a nod to fans who appreciate a decision, keep it, but score it differently.  Track the tie in terms of points and have a separate SO winning percentage.  Use that as the third tie-breaker for playoff seeding/draft position: winning percentage, head-to-head, SO, then other trivia like goals for.  That would still make it feel like there was a decision, but it would minimize the impact of the SO without completely neutering it.  Hey, people moan about baseball putting home field on the line at the ASG, so this would be enough motivation to actually try to win.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    Good research, I never looked it up but I think over the past you needed more like 94 to get in, with inflated s/o scenarios.

    Leave the onus on the team game, forget about this idiotic showboating of players to score in the s/o, leave that for the all-star  shenanigans.
     

Share