Bettman says he’s okay if you want to bring back the rule against forward passes, he doesn’t mind if you want to revert to old-school icing, he just demends you keep it to one rule change; you know, evolution is better than revolution…

What rule are you changing, tweaking, binning or creating.

3 points

I’m probably getting rid of the trapezoid. I’d love to see what Shestyorkin could do without that limitation.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Remove the instigator penalty.

Or

Restrict reviews for disallowing goals to the period 3 seconds prior to the goal.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Removing the instigator would lead to a lot of guys just straight up getting jumped, no?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It more just allows fighting to happen more, it’s less about preventing players getting jumped, and more about making fighting expensive to a team based on a highly subjective call by the refs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I agree with the limit on offside goal calls. If you can’t stop them by 15-30 seconds then it didn’t materially affect play. None of this ‘oh 2 minutes ago one dude didn’t grag his leg enough, no goal’

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Get rid of the offside rule. It’ll make the defending team have to defend space instead of just a line. Should create more rush chances.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Plus you won’t have to explain what it means to someone who doesn’t watch hockey. Actually, get rid of icing too!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Icing the puck is a big advantage to the team with the lead if there’s no penalty for it. Maybe only have it be a penalty if you have a lead.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I think it would lead to more 4v4 with someone waiting by the goal for a quick shot opportunity more than rushes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
5 points

It wouldn’t change much, but a defender clearing the puck over the glass should be treated the same as icing. If the team clears the puck over the glass before exiting their zone after the subsequent face off then call a Delay of Game.

I can’t stand the Delay of Game rule for accidental pucks over the glass, though. It doesn’t feel in the spirit of what Delay of Game means to me, at least not anymore than intentionally icing the puck.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Agreed. Even in the dead puck era it just didn’t happen that often. Time to lighten the punishment

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think I’d agree. You would have to treat icing the same way; a delay of game for either icing the puck or tossing it over the glass a second time without clearing the zone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think the big difference is the potential for injury.

Intentionall icing just sends the puck down the ice, intentional puck-over-the-glass could really hurt someone, especially if its a kid or an older person.

I think keeping it as a penalty makes sense to discourage its use as a tactic to relieve the pressure like you do with icing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I should be clear, I’m advocating for a return to how it was called pre-lockout. Putting the puck over the glass wasn’t an automatic delay of game, but it could be a penalty at the ref’s discretion (e.g. team is on the penalty kill and puts it over the glass to get a breather).

Prior to the lockout, this just didn’t happen that often, at least not much more often than it happens today. The reason the rule was introduced coming out of the lockout was to increase the amount of goals by increasing the number of ways teams could go on the power play.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Community stats

  • 142

    Monthly active users

  • 650

    Posts

  • 2.6K

    Comments