Changes to the game you would like to see ...

[uncleben]

Keep the critiquing to ideas, not other users themselves.

 

[Rubi]

1. Get rid of the shoot out. More 3 on 3 in overtime.

2. Start calling slashing to the hands and wrists. Its in the rules. Call it! Before lazy or slow players used to hold... now the holding has been replaced by slashing because they know they won't get called on it unless they break the other players stick. Whats with that? Break his stick... off to the sin bin for 2 minutes. Break his hand... no problem.

 

[ToMaLe]

If you didn't act so thin skinned to responses that don't go your way you would have seen that I took the time (I have no idea why though) to put down some feedback to proposed changes (non-changes).

If you don't like people calling your ideas bad perhaps a message board is not best for you. Be prepared to defend it and not just "neenaneenaneeana you are a poopyhead".

The idea of counting a goal just by "breaking the plane" is atrocious for the simple fact that you would have to adjust every single line rule. You will have to adjust offsides, icing, the trapezoid. It will change the whole game, and certainly not for the better.

Call soccer boring all you want, it doesn't hurt me.
I played it for decades and agree, it's boring. It won't change anything about American Football being even worse in the entertainment department. Maybe if you cant read a thread title and follow it then maybe a message board is not for you.

Compared to Soccer, American Football rivals chess in sleep inducing action.

So yes, breaking the plane is stupid and unnecessary.

Like it or not soccer IS closer to hockey than Football can ever dream of.

Hockey is like soccer on steroids with sticks, protection and ice. Same dynamics (a lot faster), same goal, similar layout.
Stomp your foot all you want, those are undeniable facts.

Now go ahead and start insulting people personally while completely avoiding the actual posts.

ok hockey is exactly like soccer, there you happy!Im 100% wrong and your 100 % right. Thats what you want to hear so there you should feel better now. Maybe if you cant understand a thread title and follow it a message board is not for you ! Most in here gave their ideas what they want to see changed yet you cant understand that for some reason.

 

[BogsDiamond]

#1 - MAKE THE GOALIE EQUIPMENT SMALLER!!!!!

#2 - outlaw leaving your feet to block shots or passes.
#3 - Get rid of the bluelines (at least try it in preseason).
#4 - call the damn rulebook from September to June!!!
#5 - No icing when on the PK.
#6 - No OT or SO. Play until there's a winner. Coaches will be forced to go for the win, instead of playing for 0-0 ties.
In an era where everyone hates participation medals why do teams get rewarded just because they came close to winning?
If you lose in the 17th inning, you get NOTHING! The same should be true for hockey.
And just watch how much more aggressive coaches will be in the 1st period, instead of playing grab-ass praying for that sissy point.

 

[OldCraig71]

Make the goalie equipment smaller
Get rid of the trapezoid
Get rid of the loser point in OT(false playoff races)

 

[Akrapovince]

There should be a rule that in three on three, once you enter the zone, you can't wheel back.

 

[Last Gleaming]

#6 - No OT or SO. Play until there's a winner. Coaches will be forced to go for the win, instead of playing for 0-0 ties.
In an era where everyone hates participation medals why do teams get rewarded just because they came close to winning?
If you lose in the 17th inning, you get NOTHING! The same should be true for hockey.
And just watch how much more aggressive coaches will be in the 1st period, instead of playing grab-ass praying for that sissy point.

There's never going to be unlimited OT in the regular season. We don't need a winner every single game. It's good that it's unique to the playoffs. The disparate schedules of each team mean that the random instance of a multiple-OT game could have overly negative knock-on effects for teams that are in a dense segment of their schedule. Should upcoming opponents benefit from a team's having had to play 80, 100, or more minutes the previous night? And there's a possible (though unlikely) farcical situation where a team that doesn't really need a win decides to score on themselves to end the game rather than log a bunch of extra minutes for an uncertain outcome. It'd be a rational but deservedly unpopular action.

Now, a system that would have the positive effects you cited above would be to get rid of the shootout, limit OT to 10 minutes (and go back to playing it 5-on-5, for God's sake), and rank teams only by wins in the standings. Ties would be tallied, but not worth anything. The standings columns would be wins, losses, and ties - no points. Most wins, then fewer losses if wins are equal, then whatever tiebreaker comes next (head-to-head?).

This system could be implemented without any other rule change, and immediately, teams would start taking more risks to gain offensive chances, leading to the appearance of more space since teams wouldn't be hunkering down as much. I think the most beneficial change would be near the end of regulation in a tie game: teams sending out their most talented forwards and d-men to try to win the game then and there. A loss is a loss whether in OT or regulation, and a tie's about as good as a loss, so...just go for it. No holding back. 10-minute overtime periods under a "win-only" system, at 5-on-5 nonetheless, would make for amazing highlights. Even if nobody manages to net a winner.

 

[Last Gleaming]

There should be a rule that in three on three, once you enter the zone, you can't wheel back.

Such a rule would be pretty much an admission of the reality that straight-up 3-on-3 often doesn't give players enough options (particularly in overlapping combination plays) to try to beat the defense. They're acting rationally when they, at times, retreat from the offensive zone.

Alongside "wheeling back", the way 3-on-3 tends to become a continual exchange of 2-on-1 rushes makes it very uninteresting to watch in the long term. It'd possibly be better to start going straight to the shootout after regulation if we're not going to move away from the "no ties" mantra.

 

[Rec T]

(not reading the whole thread but what I did read seems (mostly) reasonable...)

Get rid of the offside coach's challenge. This microscopic was/wasn't it over the line 1/16th of a second before the other player crossed it COMPLETELY violates the spirit of the challenge (perhaps a challenge if, say, more than 2 seconds passed before the puck entered the zone after player 'x' did)

While goalie pads should be smaller, more importantly the other player's pads shouldn't be armor/able to be weapons of war. Protect the players certainly but if they go for a devastating shoulder/elbow hit, they should feel some pain too rather than just skating happily away from the crumpled player on the ice.

The Dept of Player Safety really needs to be about player safety rather than just the Dept of Random 'Justice' that it is now....sigh

/puts well worn soapbox away
//doesn't want to get into the whole shootout thing again. Ties would be fine but understands the 'someone has to win' mentality

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Many of these have already been said but here goes:

#1 - get rid of the offsides challenge. 99% of the time if a player is a half a step offside it didn't have any actual effect on the play, and it just wastes time.

#2 - 4-4 OT for 10 minutes, Then ties. (no loser point, standings based on win/loss record)

#3 - If the shootout doesn't go away, do 2pts for ROW, 1 pt for shootout win and 0 for any loss

#4 - if no change in the point system, just rank teams according to ROW. Points can be a tie breaker. Every year a team who has no business in the playoff race is in the mix because they have an absurd amount of OT losses.

#5 go back to 1v8 playoff seeding in each conference with the same divisions. Each division winner is guaranteed home ice on the first round (1-4 seed). Two years in a row the #4 seed in the Metro Division had an easier match up than the #2 and #3 seeds. Why even care about the regular season if it doesn't actually help you in the playoffs?

 

[Bumpus]

I'm completely fine with the NHL as is.

 

[BogsDiamond]

There's never going to be unlimited OT in the regular season. We don't need a winner every single game. It's good that it's unique to the playoffs. The disparate schedules of each team mean that the random instance of a multiple-OT game could have overly negative knock-on effects for teams that are in a dense segment of their schedule. Should upcoming opponents benefit from a team's having had to play 80, 100, or more minutes the previous night? And there's a possible (though unlikely) farcical situation where a team that doesn't really need a win decides to score on themselves to end the game rather than log a bunch of extra minutes for an uncertain outcome. It'd be a rational but deservedly unpopular action.

Now, a system that would have the positive effects you cited above would be to get rid of the shootout, limit OT to 10 minutes (and go back to playing it 5-on-5, for God's sake), and rank teams only by wins in the standings. Ties would be tallied, but not worth anything. The standings columns would be wins, losses, and ties - no points. Most wins, then fewer losses if wins are equal, then whatever tiebreaker comes next (head-to-head?).

This system could be implemented without any other rule change, and immediately, teams would start taking more risks to gain offensive chances, leading to the appearance of more space since teams wouldn't be hunkering down as much. I think the most beneficial change would be near the end of regulation in a tie game: teams sending out their most talented forwards and d-men to try to win the game then and there. A loss is a loss whether in OT or regulation, and a tie's about as good as a loss, so...just go for it. No holding back. 10-minute overtime periods under a "win-only" system, at 5-on-5 nonetheless, would make for amazing highlights. Even if nobody manages to net a winner.

I like the cut of your jib.
Unfortunately, this will never happen. The NHL loves it's Sissy Point because teams winning percentages are artificially inflated.
In a recent season, I believe it was the Avs brass that bragged about having a 90-point season.
Meanwhile, they had less than 40 wins and were 13th in the Western conference, missing the playoffs.
It's a way for ownership to sell their fanbase that they dressed a winning team.

Just look at my pathetic Detroit Red Wings.
They had 79 points, but "Hey, we were only 3 points under .500 everyone!!!"
But in reality, they were 9 wins under .500 and only recorded 17 regulation wins out of their 33 'victories'.
Think about that peeps; 17 'real' wins in 82 games. And they were only 3 points from a .500 record.

And that's why the NHL is way too defensive today. Jeff Blashill (and he's not the only one) went into every game playing for OT. "Lets get that sissy point boys and go home and kiss our sisters!"

If there were no ties, games would look infinitely different.

I also understand your argument against extra time on ice over a long, packed 82-game season.
But honestly, I really believe that once that crutch is removed from the table, coaches will make sure to come out guns blazing.

Baseball isn't nearly as physically taxing as hockey (duh), but they play 162 games in 190 days and are forced to finish each game.
I'd just love to see what coaches like Blashill would do if they knew they had to finish games.

BTW, another change I'd make is reduce the schedule to 70 games and start in mid-sept.
Now there's lots more down time, you can get in full games, and the Cup is hoisted by May 24-weekend.