Your ideas for rule changes

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:58 pm

They may not be negotiating but atleast they're talking about something. The players and the league were in Detroit this walking discussing rule changes geared at increasing scoring.

*Drastically smaller goalie equipment--goalie equipment was made to protect the goalie, not to stop pucks...that's the goalie's job

*Allow two-line passes--I loved seeing the long passes in the Olympics from a few years ago

*Shootouts after regualation--nobody wants to spend $50-100 to watch a tie...both teams get a point for a regulation tie and the winner gets the extra point for the shootout win

I hope they don't do something crazy like make the nets bigger. The only reason that's even to be discussed is because the goalies are huge. If you make the gear smaller, the nets are fine the way they are.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:11 am

1 - Player serves full penalty time regardless of how many goals are scored

2 - No touch offsides

3 - Eliminate red line for 2 line passes

4 - Abolish instigator penalty

5- Make diameter of posts smaller - Bowman is a big advocate for this and I am surprised it hasn't gotten more run.

This one maybe be tough to enforce:

6 - Team killing penalty cannot ice the puck. Basically, the puck would have to be carried out of the zone. Once out of the zone it can then be cleared the length of the ice. The issue I see with it is what type of "penalty" would the PK team receive if they iced the puck. There could be a stoppage in play to set up a face off in the PK teams' zone. or you could reset the penalty time to the original time.

Captain Haddock · Post by **Captain Haddock** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:16 am

I have no problem with bigger nets, smaller goalies, no touch icing, and the shootout. All appear to be lock rule changes. I'm happy with all of them.

What about the cosmetic chages? The blue ice appears to becoming a reality. The red & blue lines are huge. It's like looking at a French flag.
Rumour has it that the newly designed jersey is on its way.

fix · Post by **fix** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:31 am

Shootouts are gay. You want to watch shootouts, go watch soccer.
And God Bless Stever Yzerman for voicing his opinion of shootouts as well.

Now onto the needed changes...
In order of priority...

1 - Abolish instigator penalty

2 - No touch icing

3 - Eliminate red line for 2 line passes

4 - Drastically smaller goalie equipment

5 - Zero points for ties. You win, you get 2 points. You tie or lose, nada, zilch.

Quit trying to sell the game to people in markets that just don't give a fuck about it.
If the blue ice becomes a reality, the idiots responsible for ruining this league with their orange pucks etc... will have completed their mission.

Cross Traffic · Post by **Cross Traffic** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:37 am

NO BLUE ICE!!! I've seen it in use at Long Beach and its horrible, you can't see the lines unless you are in the upper deck. The puck is harder to see as well.

Smaller goalie equipment (10" pads were good enough for Plante, Hall, Dryden, etc.)
No instigator penalty
2 line passes
Touch up offside, it speeds up the game
Put the crease in its old retangular shape
Shootout after 5 minutes of ot

I like the idea about using smaller posts, not sure about full minor penalties, although that is the way the rule was enforced until the last 50s, when Montreal was so good at the power play, the other 5 teams bitched about it and the rule was changed.

scritti · Post by **scritti** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:43 pm

Cross Traffic wrote: Smaller goalie equipment (10" pads were good enough for Plante, Hall, Dryden, etc.)
No instigator penalty
2 line passes
Touch up offside, it speeds up the game
Put the crease in its old retangular shape
Shootout after 5 minutes of ot

I like the idea about using smaller posts, not sure about full minor penalties, although that is the way the rule was enforced until the last 50s, when Montreal was so good at the power play, the other 5 teams bitched about it and the rule was changed.

bingo.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:50 pm

Otis wrote:5 - Zero points for ties. You win, you get 2 points. You tie or lose, nada, zilch.

RACK that! You play OT until someone wins, even if it takes all evening.

fix · Post by **fix** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:54 pm

MuchoBulls wrote:
Otis wrote:5 - Zero points for ties. You win, you get 2 points. You tie or lose, nada, zilch.
RACK that! You play OT until someone wins, even if it takes all evening.

Exactly.. but let's open up the ice some more and make it a 3 on 3 with penalties that are called forcing the penalized team to play with only 2 men on.

scritti · Post by **scritti** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:20 pm

MuchoBulls wrote:
Otis wrote:5 - Zero points for ties. You win, you get 2 points. You tie or lose, nada, zilch.
RACK that! You play OT until someone wins, even if it takes all evening.

damn,i miss the days of multiple sudden death playoff OT extravaganzas like the Craps/Pens playing untill 2AM.

Smoked Meat · Post by **Smoked Meat** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:37 pm

Many good ideas so far in this thread.

1-If goalie plays the puck outside his territory, then he should be treated as a player.

2-Reduce space behind the nets.

3-TML Fergusson suggested something interesting: When a team is penalized, the game should start with a face-off in their territory.

BTW what the hell is that blue ice thing all about?

fix · Post by **fix** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:35 pm

Smoked Meat wrote:BTW what the hell is that blue ice thing all about?

Where the hell have you been?

http://www.sabres.com/pressbox/index.php?nID=452&bA=0

Smoked Meat · Post by **Smoked Meat** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:55 pm

I saw those pics already but I didn't inquire further. Thanks for the article link. Is it suppose to be some kind of improvement such as those "Cirque du soleil" hockey nets?

fix · Post by **fix** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:06 pm

Smoked Meat wrote:I saw those pics already but I didn't inquire further. Is it suppose to be some kind of improvement such as those "Cirque du soleil" hockey nets?

It's another one of Betteman's stellar ideas being he's such a hockey officiendo.

“We are very excited to experiment with a light blue ice surface,” said Buffalo Sabres Managing Partner Larry Quinn. “The National Hockey League first introduced the idea of using different types of ice colors.

Next up Betteman's said to be proposing that Rawlings be brought in to provide them with red, white and blue pucks.
His thinking is that those pucks would be a "patriotic" and unique trademark that would, supposedly, show up well on television.

And then he's going to introduce a 30 second shot clock along with a new 3 point orange line to increase scoring

scritti · Post by **scritti** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:23 pm

he should have stayed with the glowing puck from hell...

Captain Haddock · Post by **Captain Haddock** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:02 am

Yzerman on shootouts: "I really wasn't a big fan of it. Yes, it is exciting from a spectator point of view, but I really haven't been in favor of it and I'm less in favor of it now." - 7 years ago.

So really, he's admitting that it's great for fans. What he personally thinks about it is a moot point. He's fading fast and most likely won't be around to take a shootout.

The shootout is here for good. You'd better get use to it.

Picture this, for the sake of scenario, Vancouver vs Toronto, game 7 Stanley Cup final...I guess they'd have your one period of overtime....then the shootout. That would be a heart attack.

I don't need to see 7 period games. That is really gay.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:23 am

Captain Haddock wrote:Picture this, for the sake of scenario, Vancouver vs Toronto, game 7 Stanley Cup final...I guess they'd have your one period of overtime....then the shootout. That would be a heart attack.

I don't need to see 7 period games. That is really gay.

I thought the shootout, if implemented, would only be during the regular season.

Using your scenario of Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals: A coach basically has to tell 13 other skaters that all of their work the entire season means nothing now.

Bottom line is that hockey is a team game and it should be settled by all members of the team. Like the Fox Track, the shootout is a gimmick.

scritti · Post by **scritti** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:53 am

MuchoBulls wrote:
Captain Haddock wrote:Picture this, for the sake of scenario, Vancouver vs Toronto, game 7 Stanley Cup final...I guess they'd have your one period of overtime....then the shootout. That would be a heart attack.

I don't need to see 7 period games. That is really gay.
I thought the shootout, if implemented, would only be during the regular season.

Using your scenario of Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals: A coach basically has to tell 13 other skaters that all of their work the entire season means nothing now.

Bottom line is that hockey is a team game and it should be settled by all members of the team. Like the Fox Track, the shootout is a gimmick.

bingo,it won't be fair to have the Cup decided in a shootout. may be fun for TV,but get real...it cheapens it like a britney spears video.
i would rather see them play it out untill someone drops. if it means the game's over at 2AM,so be it.

btw Manolo Blahnik will be designing the new jerseys for the NHL for next season.

Cross Traffic · Post by **Cross Traffic** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:14 am

"and he takes the puck across the orange line...." :roll:

ugh, there is a reason the ice has been painted white for the past 60 years, its easier to see the puck for people watching the game.

Shootouts are great for regular season, playoffs of course I want OT as long as it goes.

JD · Post by JD » Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:58 pm

I have a question for anyone thinking about changing rules to the game: what is your reason?

If your reason is "to increase goal-scoring", you're a tard.

Goals aren't necessarily exciting. Close games are exciting. Games with flow and exhanges of chances are exciting. Evenly-matched games are fun to watch. Rules that promote these things are rules I'm in favour of.

Elimination of the red line? Why? So that defensemen are even MORE hesitant to jump into the play than they've become over the past ten years? I promise you that for every team that will institute passes from behind their own net to the other blue (orange?) line into their game plan, 2 teams will ask their defensemen to stay back and guard against that break-out. It's the way things naturally evolve in hockey. As one of our illustrious posters states: defense wins championships.

Move the nets back closer to the boards. This is a good one. It creates more scoring area. The area behind the nets is just another space for defensemen to steer on oncoming rush into oblivion. If the puck is in front of the goal-line, more chances will be created.

Wider blue lines is along the same line. The lines look strange to me, but the idea behind them is good. Should make the game flow better with fewer stoppages. Essentially, you've made the three zones on the ice bigger without making the rink bigger.

Goalies playing the puck more effectively is one of the reasons scoring chances are down recently. I'm sure one of the major things teams talk about when preparing for a team is how to keep the puck away from their goalie. If you can at least put a little fear into those goalies' minds, they might hesitate a little more when thinking of going to play a dump-in. Make them more accountable. "Fair game" might be a bit drastic, but they shouldn't be immune to being hit. I don't like the idea of keeping them in their creases... it eliminates the chance of those quick break-out passes some goalies will make when the opposition is making a bad line change.

As far as ice colour, I don't mind the blue ice; it's barely noticeable. But the orange lines are terrible.

Bring back the tag-up off-side. It keeps the game moving.

No-touch icing? Personally, I hate it, but I understand the players for wanting it in.

Players serving entire 2 minute penalties is a bad idea, in my opinion. Yeah, it'll increase goal-scoring, but like I say, the way I see things, that shouldn't be the intent. Picture this: a back-and-forth game between the Panthers and Thrashers is half-way through the first. Lots of flow to the game, but the Thrashers get caught with Marc Savard taking a long shift, and suddenly the Panthers are on a 2 on 1. Savard, with his newly-discovered defensive concience, hustles back to make a play, but gets his stick nestled into Nathan Horton's armpit. Two minutes for hooking. The Panthers score early in the pp to make it 1-0. Uh oh, they score again with 5 seconds left in same pp to make an otherwise exciting game essentially over at 2-0.

Not allowing icing of the puck during a pk? No thanks. If you have a vested interest in the game, watching your team effectively kill off a penalty is one of the most thrilling parts of a game, even if it is 2 minutes of dumping the puck down the sheet. Again, instituting a rule like this will tip the scale of games towards the team with the pp's. This doesn't promote an evenly matched game.

Smaller goalie equipment is acceptable to me. I'm not big one way or the other on this, as I doubt we'll notice it much as fans anyway, unless the Ducks are in town, of course. "Hey Dad, didn't Giguere used to be bigger?"

Smaller goal-posts? Sure, why not. Again, doubt we'll notice much. The goalies probably will for about a month, though.

Then there's the big one: shootouts. I want them in, but only for the regular season. I completely understand the argument against them, however. But I'm a person who absolutely loathes ties. I'd rather see the Flames lose than see them tie. If the only logistical way to rid the NHL of ties is through a shoot-out, DO IT!! But I don't want to see championships gained and lost through the shoot-out. Besides, long OT in the playoffs is one of the greatest things the NHL has to offer.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:15 pm

JD wrote:I have a question for anyone thinking about changing rules to the game: what is your reason?

Here are my answers based on the changes I want to see:

1 - Player serving full penalty time - As a means to encourage more scoring it should also serve as a deterrent for guys to take what would be considered a marginal penalty. If referee's are going to crack down on obstruction, this also should help in reducing the clutching and grabbing.

2 - No touch offsides - Keeps flow in the game by cutting the number of whistles. Also, teams should have a "free pass" out of their zone.

3 - Eliminate red line for 2 line passes - Creates more chances for breakaways, odd man rushes, scoring chances, etc.

4 - Abolish instigator penalty - Ridiculous rule to begin with.

5 - Make diameter of posts smaller - Should give shooter a little more room to shoot at.

6 - Team killing penalty cannot ice the puck - The team killing the penalty should not have such an advantage.

JD · Post by JD » Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:43 pm

Well, I agree with what you say except for 1 and 6, as you may have gathered. That, and, it's time to change your sig.

Hapday · Post by **Hapday** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:12 pm

Otis wrote:Shootouts are gay.

RACK!!!

Otis wrote:Now onto the needed changes...
In order of priority...

1 - Abolish instigator penalty

2 - No touch icing

3 - Eliminate red line for 2 line passes

4 - Drastically smaller goalie equipment

5 - Zero points for ties. You win, you get 2 points. You tie or lose, nada, zilch.

Here's a change I would like to add to the rules......CALL THEM!!! Call ALL clutching, grabbing, and fuckin' interferrence!!!

Do all of this and the game will be fine.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:33 pm

Hapday wrote:
Otis wrote:Shootouts are gay.
RACK!!!

Otis wrote:Now onto the needed changes...
In order of priority...

1 - Abolish instigator penalty

2 - No touch icing

3 - Eliminate red line for 2 line passes

4 - Drastically smaller goalie equipment

5 - Zero points for ties. You win, you get 2 points. You tie or lose, nada, zilch.

Here's a change I would like to add to the rules......CALL THEM!!! Call ALL clutching, grabbing, and fuckin' interferrence!!!

Do all of this and the game will be fine.

I can't rack that enough. All the rules in the world mean jack if you don't enforce them. I would also go so far as to be for an "eye in the sky" official to call down penalties to the ref on the ice when they are blatant and missed by the on ice ref. Either that, or put two refs on the ice.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:45 pm

Otis wrote:Shootouts are gay. You want to watch shootouts, go watch soccer.

RACK!, RACK! RACK!

Now onto the needed changes...
In order of priority...

1 - Abolish instigator penalty RACK!

2 - No touch icing

3 - Eliminate red line for 2 line passes

4 - Drastically smaller goalie equipment RACK!

5 - Zero points for ties. You win, you get 2 points. You tie or lose, nada, zilch.

Quit trying to sell the game to people in markets that just don't give a fuck about it.
If the blue ice becomes a reality, the idiots responsible for ruining this league with their orange pucks etc... will have completed their mission.

Instead of changing the point for a tie, I'd rather see them call fucking penalties for all the grabbing & shit in between the blue lines.

And I'd trade off the no touch icing for getting rid of Gary Bettman.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:52 pm

JD wrote:it's time to change your sig.

very true. this will have to do for now.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:23 pm

Otis wrote:Shootouts are gay. You want to watch shootouts, go watch soccer.

No, if you want to watch a 1-1 tie...watch soccer. I don't want to see a regular season game end in a tie anymore. Obviously, keep unlimited sudden death OT for the playoffs but there has to be an ending for regular season games. It would be impossible to play unlimited sudden death in the regular season because some games could go all night and with the hectic travel schedule...it just wouldn't work. I like the idea of 5-on-5 OT for 5 or 10 minutes and if it's still a tie...go to shootouts to break the tie.

Hapday · Post by **Hapday** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:45 am

Shoalzie wrote:
Otis wrote:Shootouts are gay. You want to watch shootouts, go watch soccer.

No, if you want to watch a 1-1 tie...watch soccer. I don't want to see a regular season game end in a tie anymore. Obviously, keep unlimited sudden death OT for the playoffs but there has to be an ending for regular season games. It would be impossible to play unlimited sudden death in the regular season because some games could go all night and with the hectic travel schedule...it just wouldn't work.

I see your point but unlimited sudden death OT during the regular season would be AWESOME if the losing team gets zero points for the loss. It means teams wouldn't mail it in with five minutes left in a tie game anymore. It also means teams would actually play their ass off for the whole OT, it would be like playoff hockey every night.

If a regular season game goes four periods into OT to decide a winner, then at least you be getting value for the $5,000 it cost you to take your family to a game.

Cueball · Post by **Cueball** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:04 am

I've got one:
Keep the doors locked

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:42 am

Cueball wrote:I've got one:
Keep the doors locked

Maybe you guys wanna rethink the instigator penalty?

fix · Post by **fix** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:04 pm

BSmack wrote:
Hapday wrote:
Otis wrote:Shootouts are gay.
RACK!!!

Otis wrote:Now onto the needed changes...
In order of priority...

1 - Abolish instigator penalty

2 - No touch icing

3 - Eliminate red line for 2 line passes

4 - Drastically smaller goalie equipment

5 - Zero points for ties. You win, you get 2 points. You tie or lose, nada, zilch.

Here's a change I would like to add to the rules......CALL THEM!!! Call ALL clutching, grabbing, and fuckin' interferrence!!!

Do all of this and the game will be fine.
I can't rack that enough. All the rules in the world mean jack if you don't enforce them. I would also go so far as to be for an "eye in the sky" official to call down penalties to the ref on the ice when they are blatant and missed by the on ice ref. Either that, or put two refs on the ice.

You don't really watch NHL hockey much do you..

They've been using the 2 referee system for 5 years now.

And yes, RACK Hap.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:22 pm

Otis wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Hapday wrote: RACK!!!

Here's a change I would like to add to the rules......CALL THEM!!! Call ALL clutching, grabbing, and fuckin' interferrence!!!

Do all of this and the game will be fine.
I can't rack that enough. All the rules in the world mean jack if you don't enforce them. I would also go so far as to be for an "eye in the sky" official to call down penalties to the ref on the ice when they are blatant and missed by the on ice ref. Either that, or put two refs on the ice.
You don't really watch NHL hockey much do you..

They've been using the 2 referee system for 5 years now.

And yes, RACK Hap.

Yea, that didn't exactly come out right. I was trying to say that linemen should be allowed to act as refs, but I guess that's not how it came out. I guess maybe I should edit my posts?

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:31 pm

BSmack wrote:I was trying to say that linemen should be allowed to act as refs

I like that idea a good deal. Take away the second referee and let all 3 officials on the ice call penalties.

Cross Traffic · Post by **Cross Traffic** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:40 am

Linesmen used to be able to call majors for high sticking, boarding, etc. before the 2 ref system.

James Dean Bradfield · Fri May 20, 2005 3:17 pm

All great ideas .
but first ...the clutching and grabbing has got to go .

i bet if you change the goalie equipment , they will have to change those one piece Easton "SYNERGY" kevlar sticks ...they do make a difference with velocity .