MN Hockey News

 

 

The NHL recently proposed some rule changes to potentially tweak and enhance the game.  It is always a refreshing reminder that the NHL is always looking to improve itself and see how it can make the game better.  Some of the proposals look good, while some may make the grizzled NHL veteran fan cringe.  It will however, keep the game evolving and that is always a good idea.

 

This past Thursday, The NHL Research and Development Camp played out possible rule changes in Toronto with 33 top 2011 draft prospects participating in the camp.  The concept of the camp was to test rules while NHL teams also had a 'free' look at incoming and potential prospects.  

 

The NHL's Brendan Shanahan met the press after day two and said, "The group I have to thank the most for that is the kids that came and played. The skill level of these 17 year olds, to be able to do what we asked of them, to do that at the NHL level, and also compete-that they brought to the scrimmages, was just great."  He also added, "I don't think I could have done it when I was 17 years old.  It just bodes well for the future of hockey."

 

Here is a look at 5 of the bigger rules changes discussed and tested. 

 

 

 

 

Avoiding a shootout is the intended goal of this rule.  While there are a good number of fans that enjoy the shootout, the game has never been intended to be decided by a shoot out or more aptly known by this reporting group as a skills competition.  The shoot out 'show' should be reserved for the All Star Game only.  

 

The New York Rangers would love to have the shootout back that eliminated them from the playoffs on the final day of the season.  Granted, there must have been a point or two they hung on the board earlier in the season and they have the body of work to ultimately blame for their elimination.   But still, the bottom line is the Rangers were eliminated based on a skills competition.  That is not anything I would be proud of if it were my league. 

 

Previous decisions were based on scientific data stated that a majority of goals were scored in the first five minutes of overtime during NHL playoff games in the 70's and 80's.  It was easy for the NHL to settle on the 5 minute extra session.  They reduced the number of players to four on four opening up the ice.  Key to the decision was the five extra minutes would not hamper the pending travel schedules that are prevalent during the season. 

 

The proposal calls for 3 minutes of 4 on 4.  If a goal is not scored, the teams would go back out for 3 minutes of 3 on 3.  If they could not score then, it would be 3 more minutes of 2 on 2.  If the game was not decided in the 9 minutes of play a shootout of 5 players would be utilized. 

 

 

First and foremost, the notion of finding a winner on the ice in real game situations is the preferred solution.  Dropping the players to a 2 on 2 scenario is about as hokey as the skills competition since it is an unrealistic scenario in a regular game.  Let's add one more minute to the clock, and allow for 4 on 4 played for 5 minutes and 3 on 3 for 5 additional minutes in needed.  If the game is not solved then, get out of there and finish it in a tie.  Most hockey leagues are ok with a tie, and if the vaunted NFL can live with ties, so can the NHL. 

 

A potential issue presented is another 4 to 5 minutes of play would offer is the quality of ice.  Although, the ice is essentially  shoveled in the high volume areas  from end to end every 5 minutes making it playable.

 

While on the topic, take the extra point away if the loss occurs in overtime.  Do not reward a loss in overtime which is still a loss.  That will open the playoff races up.  A win needs to be 2 points better than a loss regardless of how it was won or lost.  

 

 

 

 

Instead of the usual touch icing that the NHL uses, this would eliminate that and the benefit is avoiding unnecessary injuries such as the broken femur that Wild defenseman Kurtis Foster.  He suffered his injury on a touch up race during a game in San Jose.  Foster certainly is not the first and will not be the last that suffers an injury under the current rule.  

 

Washington coach Bruce Boudreau is correct in his assumption that  NHL players  will find a way around the proposed rule.  It is possible the rule will impede progress to the end line and create more positional battles in the zones which could look a lot like obstruction.   The intent would be to keep the safety of players first which has been the overriding issue and the linesman will make the decision at the dots to blow the whistle or play on.  

 

 

There are two options.  Number one is to cut all debate and go to the no touch icing.  It is used in NCAA Hockey and the quality of the game is not compromised.   It reduces if not eliminates the injury factor that is scary.   With the NHL proposal to battle for position (and it will happen) as the puck rattles off the end wall higher at the dots, it does take the danger of the boards out of play.   What was a  clear cut  call would be eliminated for a judgment call by the linesman which invites a number of variables.  Who has position? What if nobody has position? Do the obstruction penalties increase?  Can the goalie play the puck? What about the trapezoid?  The proposal is too convoluted for TheMnHockeyNews taste. 

 

Option two is to go old school and not blow down any icing calls.  If the trapezoid was eliminated, goaltenders could move the puck at will and keep the "flow" of the game.   The NHL adopted the rule in 1939 to combat overmatched teams from throwing the puck down the ice to slow the game down which in some instances was a successful strategy.  In 2005, the post lock out era brought a new look as fatigued teams looking to ease pressure and change units were not allowed to change after an icing call. 

 

The major negative to option two is it  would be a revenue killer as a number of whistles would be eliminated, thereby reducing the commercial timeouts.   Non-stop action and rolling of lines is what people pay to see, and this would keep the game moving.  Reality dictates, icing stays and institute the no touch icing.  

 

 

 

Currently, we all know a team may ice the puck without a whistle while shorthanded.  This rule goes back to its roots when it was instituted after the Doug Harvey led Montreal Canadiens.  Back in the day, the teams had to serve the entire 2 minute infraction while the power play team was allowed to score as many as they could.  This melds two concepts together with the main idea taking the icing concept away complete with not allowing a team to change its unit for icing the puck like equal strength play allows today.  The other argument for instituting this rule is since it is not allowed at even strength, why change it when penalized and shorthanded?  Make them pay for their indiscretions, right? 

 

 

The no-ice concept is too radical for this cat.  The game is centered around special teams and they have a huge impact on how the game is played.  It is tough enough to kill a penalty as it is.  The game was not intended to be decided by special teams, and this would figure in the outcome more than my taste would prefer.  The love of five on five hockey runs deep here, and the thought is it should stay as is. 

 

Whistles and stoppages have killed the NBA.   By bringing on more opportunities for whistles in the NHL, that would slow the game to a crawl.  Less is more, and fewer whistles are better.    As stated, it is tough enough to kill a penalty as it is.  By allowing the shorthanded team to clear the puck, the flow continues for the game and the team enjoying the man advantage.  They will launch pucks anyway and the impact may not be that great.  

 

However, it makes complete sense to keep the penalized player in the entire two minutes.  That is an easy fix, and it would be great to see again. 

 

 

 

Interesting concept.  When looking down on the ice and paying attention to the officials from the stands or press box, indeed  there are a lot of them (4) yet it does appear crowded when paying attention to it while the game is on.  In fact, they do an outstanding job of positioning and staying out of the way.   The idea is to have one official on the ice with two linesmen while the second official is off the ice.  The images from the Toronto session showed an official looking very tennis or volleyball like in a type of stand or umpires chair.  

 

The News will argue that officials rarely get in the way, and go largely undetected because their positioning is so strong.  The bigger issue is two officials who are individuals with different approaches to the game.  It is working as is however, and a change here seems unlikely.  

 

 

Since the league will want to officials calling penalties on or around the ice, how about leaving them on the ice and going the the same two man format the Minnesota High School League employs.  They have one linesman and the two officials double as linesman depending on their positioning.   That is an easy fix and the look of the tennis umpire makes us cringe.  No way, can that happen in our game.   Bringing on the chair ump is setting up another scene with perhaps, Sean Avery yelling, "Are you serious??"  

 

We already moved the goal judges from behind the net  to the press box with the x-box controller which is utter blasphemy. Forget about the  ticket revenue, it takes the charm of the game, the nuances out of what makes it special. 

 

 

 

This concept is to allow goals that are not seen by the naked eye or the camera lens.  Even though the puck is not visible, this line would allow for the fine people working the replay booth to make a call on a goal that is in the net that would have been overturned in years past. 

 

 

Forget about it.  If the on ice official and the replay booth can not determine by their vision that the puck is not across the line.  No goal.  One can't call what they can't see, and we are getting into the area of airport screening now.  There has to be some human interpretation, and if my club had a goal allowed against due to an imaginary yellow line, that would be as bad as being eliminated from the playoffs on the last day of the season by a skills competition.