Potential rule changes resulting from GM's meeting

[Coconuts]

Some of this is already in the Around the NHL thread, but I figured a new topic would get people's attention more 

 

Some interesting potential changes may be on the way, although one change is in place immediately

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Miss Korea]

Yeah I can see why they implemented those changes.  7 minutes OT would've been cool, though.

[HKSR]

I like the reviewable high stick rule change.  So many times it's not an actual infraction.  I'd be curious to see if they extend this to embellishment.  I recall times when guys snap their head back when the stick didn't even touch their face (a la Bonino). 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

Yeah I can see why they implemented those changes.  7 minutes OT would've been cool, though.

 

I feel like this would make more sense if the shootout didn't exist though.

[Warhippy]

NO changes to the tamp bay knights...err las vegas lightning and their cap circumventions though

[Bob Long]

I like the warning for the offensive C, vs just being kicked out. Its been annoying to see our guys tossed so many times this year, I'm sure its happening all over. 

[Coconuts]

12 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

NO changes to the tamp bay knights...err las vegas lightning and their cap circumventions though

 

I don't think the NHL brass have as much of an issue with it as NHL fans do, it's resulted in NHL darlings winning cups and further growing the game further south 

 

Rival GM's may not like it, but I'm not convinced it's something the NHLPA would rail against either 

 

It'll take a good segment of owners being peeved about it for anything to change imo, so I'm not really holding my breath 

 

 

[HKSR]

35 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

NO changes to the tamp bay knights...err las vegas lightning and their cap circumventions though

Sounds like it was a topic on the table.  There's a committee regarding LTIR, and the committee has been tasked to take the issue away to gather feedback and consensus from all 32 teams to see if it is an issue that will be brought to the player's association.  So it's a wait and see. 

 

At least they are looking at it with the realization that it might be an issue.

[King Heffy]

More video review is good for the game given the incompetence of the officials.  Get it right and take it out of their hands where possible.

[flat land fish]

For the 3 on 3 I would like them to  introduce a shot clock that is maybe 20 seconds perhaps 30 tops so there is not the long loops up and down the ice.

[UnkNuk]

"New coaches challenge: if penalty is called for puck over glass, they can ask for a video review to prove it did hit something…this is only for when a penalty is called. Cannot be used to call a penalty on another team. KEY: if you are wrong on this challenge, it’s a 5-on-3"

 

If you're a coach, which would you rather deal with:  5-on-4 for four minutes or 5-on-3 for two minutes?

 

In any event, I'm thinking if the other team scores in this situation (5-on-3), both penalties should be wiped out.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

17 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

"New coaches challenge: if penalty is called for puck over glass, they can ask for a video review to prove it did hit something…this is only for when a penalty is called. Cannot be used to call a penalty on another team. KEY: if you are wrong on this challenge, it’s a 5-on-3"

 

If you're a coach, which would you rather deal with:  5-on-4 for four minutes or 5-on-3 for two minutes?

 

In any event, I'm thinking if the other team scores in this situation (5-on-3), both penalties should be wiped out.

 

I dunno.  If Marty Brodeur played the puck behind the goal line outside the trapezoid, and then cross-checked Sean Avery in the throat as the 6-on-5 play was being set up, that would count as two separate penalties.

 

Wiping them both out at once would suggest it's just one delay-of-game penalty, when in fact there are two instances invovled (the initial puck-over-glass, and the subsequent coach's challenge).

[Gurn]

16 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

I dunno.  If Marty Brodeur played the puck behind the goal line outside the trapezoid, and then cross-checked Sean Avery in the throat as the 6-on-5 play was being set up, that would count as two separate penalties.

And the game would get delayed as Marty accepts his award, at  the center ice ceremony that would be held;  prior to someone else serving his penalty time.

[wai_lai416]

I wish they get rid of shootout and 3v3 OT.. or change it to something like 2 5min OT start with first 5min 4v4 if no winner than go to 3v3.. the current 3v3 format is way too beneficial to certain teams.. oilers and leafs are like almost invincible in OT.. 

[UnkNuk]

1 hour ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

I dunno.  If Marty Brodeur played the puck behind the goal line outside the trapezoid, and then cross-checked Sean Avery in the throat as the 6-on-5 play was being set up, that would count as two separate penalties.

 

Wiping them both out at once would suggest it's just one delay-of-game penalty, when in fact there are two instances invovled (the initial puck-over-glass, and the subsequent coach's challenge).

 

I should be more clear.  When one of the two penalties is for a failed coaches review concerning the first penalty then both penalties should be wiped out in the event of a goal.

 

And while we're talking about this:  I think the owners and managers are too tied in to traditional thinking.  Why should penalties be either two or five minutes?  For instance, I think the puck over the glass should be a 1 minute penalty.  Other types of penalties might warrant 3 minutes or 4 minutes.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 minute ago, UnkNuk said:

 

I should be more clear.  When one of the two penalties is for a failed coaches review concerning the first penalty then both penalties should be wiped out in the event of a goal.

 

And while we're talking about this:  I think the owners and managers are too tied in to traditional thinking.  Why should penalties be either two or five minutes?  For instance, I think the puck over the glass should be a 1 minute penalty.  Other types of penalties might warrant 3 minutes or 4 minutes.

 

The second penalty is its own "delay of game".  ie. you've delayed the game.  You're now delaying the game again.  They're discrete instances of the same penalty in the rulebook that occurred on separate issues.

 

Much like if Pius Suter was called on that guy he tripped before he tripped Tage Thompson last night, he'd face two separate tripping penalties on the same play.

 

Or if Marty Brodeur cross-checked Sean Avery in the throat and the ref raised his hand for a delayed penalty, and Marty Brodeur then cross-checked Sean Avery in the back while he was convulsing on the ice, he'd probably get two separate penalties for cross-checking (plus get thrown out of the game for unsportsmanlike conduct, but that's a different concern).

[ABNuck]

On 3/19/2024 at 3:19 PM, HKSR said:

Sounds like it was a topic on the table.  There's a committee regarding LTIR, and the committee has been tasked to take the issue away to gather feedback and consensus from all 32 teams to see if it is an issue that will be brought to the player's association.  So it's a wait and see. 

 

At least they are looking at it with the realization that it might be an issue.

 

The intention of the circumvention allowance is certainly valid (a team is able to stay competitive with an equal replacement), but it's the abuse of it (ie/ the player is "conveniently" ready to re-join the lineup when the reg season ends as do the cap rules) that needs to be addressed. I think that the solution is quite simple, keep the cap in place for the playoffs. Then no matter when the player returns, the team will have to sit someone, on the expanded roster (post TDL) and cannot field a team on the ice that circumvents the rule (same as they would have to between the TDL and Playoffs now anyways). I get that the NHLPA wouldn't be happy as there could be some high-value talent sitting on the sidelines on bulked up teams, but it might make GM's a little bit more cautious about abusing the rule realizing that they can't have both players (the injury returned player AND the replacement player both in the lineup at the same time)...therefore curbing the idea of leaving players on LTIR in order to bulk up.

 

Another idea might be a combination of the above with a Cap penalty for the following year...but again, cap penalties only hurt the NHLPA's members, so it might be tough to get them to sign off on that one. It is a tough decision no matter how you try to solve it, due to the conflicting parameters: NHL wants the competitiveness and parity that come from a salary cap, NHLPA wants its members playing and making the most money they can, GM's want the ability to stay competitive even when unforseen bad luck happens, and players on expiring contracts, typical TDL fodder, want to showcase for their next contract (not sit on the sidelines due to some cap circumvention rules)...so it's hard to have an equitable solution that meets the special interests of all 4 groups.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

2 minutes ago, ABNuck said:

 

The intention of the circumvention allowance is certainly valid (a team is able to stay competitive with an equal replacement), but it's the abuse of it (ie/ the player is "conveniently" ready to re-join the lineup when the reg season ends as do the cap rules) that needs to be addressed. I think that the solution is quite simple, keep the cap in place for the playoffs. Then no matter when the player returns, the team will have to sit someone, on the expanded roster (post TDL) and cannot field a team on the ice that circumvents the rule (same as they would have to between the TDL and Playoffs now anyways). I get that the NHLPA wouldn't be happy as there could be some high-value talent sitting on the sidelines on bulked up teams, but it might make GM's a little bit more cautious about abusing the rule realizing that they can't have both players (the injury returned player AND the replacement player both in the lineup at the same time)...therefore curbing the idea of leaving players on LTIR in order to bulk up.

 

Another idea might be a combination of the above with a Cap penalty for the following year...but again, cap penalties only hurt the NHLPA's members, so it might be tough to get them to sign off on that one. It is a tough decision no matter how you try to solve it, due to the conflicting parameters: NHL wants the competitiveness and parity that come from a salary cap, NHLPA wants its members playing and making the most money they can, GM's want the ability to stay competitive even when unforseen bad luck happens, and players on expiring contracts, typical TDL fodder, want to showcase for their next contract (not sit on the sidelines due to some cap circumvention rules)...so it's hard to have an equitable solution that meets the special interests of all 4 groups.

 

I'd be more inclined to have the team declare which LTIR players they are expecting to return during the playoffs, and ensure they have the cap space to accommodate them before they play the final 3 games of the regular season (ie. "playoff roster freeze").  If they play an undeclared player during the playoffs, automatic loss of game (or series).

[Ballisticsports]

4 changes I would like are; (Did I make 6)?

 

1- If a offensive team enters a zone and off-side was not called ,and the defensive team had gained control in their own end, before a goal was scored on them, then there is no off-side challenge review (It is ridiculous with 5 min reviews of frame by frame and still get it wrong)

 

2 - IF a team gets a penalty because a player dived with no contact, (under review challenge), then that is a poor sportsmanship penalty) or slipped on his own, without contact (then no penalty) I have seen so many times a player lose an edge before making contact

 

3- Call a penalty for team playing a 1-1-3 trap- this is supposed to be a game of entertainment (not watching chess)

 

4- If a goalie leaves His protected zone to play the puck behind his net (into the players part of the ice) he is acting as a defenceman and curbing offense, so if their is incidental contact with him skating into a speeding forward trying to retrieve a puck, then no penalty on the play (he has that blue zone for protection, not outside it)

 

Put a 3 min review limit on reviews (tv timeout), if it can't be reviewed in that time, it is inconclusive and the ruling on the ice stands

Only 1-2 wrong Challenges allowed per team max

[grumpyone]

On 3/20/2024 at 3:41 PM, wai_lai416 said:

I wish they get rid of shootout and 3v3 OT.. or change it to something like 2 5min OT start with first 5min 4v4 if no winner than go to 3v3.. the current 3v3 format is way too beneficial to certain teams.. oilers and leafs are like almost invincible in OT.. 

especially when they constantly flop or flip their heads back to get the powerplay in OT

[grumpyone]

rule change that I'd like to see...

-in OT, the offensive team is NOT allowed to circle back over their own blue line once they've entered the offensive zone.

-if, say player 1 legally hits player 2, then player 3 jumps player 1 to fight.... player 1 only gets a 2 min minor for roughing, while player 3 gets 5 min major. 

[IBatch]

On 3/19/2024 at 3:10 PM, HKSR said:

I like the reviewable high stick rule change.  So many times it's not an actual infraction.  I'd be curious to see if they extend this to embellishment.  I recall times when guys snap their head back when the stick didn't even touch their face (a la Bonino). 

Baby step adjustments.   Like the one with puck over the boards a lot as well. 

[RJCF96]

I would like to see more embellishment penalty gets called on its own. For players who dives/snaps their head back with the stick not hitting them on the face/falls down easily when someone barely touches them etc. they should be the only one going to the box. They will also receive additional fines after the game. We need to get diving out of this league, it is an embarrassment watching some players dive and draw a penalty. Penalties should be drawn by hard work, getting inside position, being strong on pucks and keep your feet moving and not by acting and diving.

Edited March 25 by RJCF96

[King Heffy]

22 hours ago, RJCF96 said:

I would like to see more embellishment penalty gets called on its own. For players who dives/snaps their head back with the stick not hitting them on the face/falls down easily when someone barely touches them etc. they should be the only one going to the box. They will also receive additional fines after the game. We need to get diving out of this league, it is an embarrassment watching some players dive and draw a penalty. Penalties should be drawn by hard work, getting inside position, being strong on pucks and keep your feet moving and not by acting and diving.

Agreed, although I'd go further. Automatic 5 and a game with a 1 game suspension, doubling with each subsequent infraction.  Make it such a severe penalty that coaches and teammates make sure this garbage is eradicated from the game.  If the ref misses an obvious dive, suspend them.

Edited March 26 by King Heffy

[HKSR]

On 3/19/2024 at 12:10 PM, HKSR said:

I like the reviewable high stick rule change.  So many times it's not an actual infraction.  I'd be curious to see if they extend this to embellishment.  I recall times when guys snap their head back when the stick didn't even touch their face (a la Bonino). 

Yup... really could have used a rule change to allow video review of high stick embellishment tonight.