NHL Board of Governors to vote on 2 rule changes (high sticks, no TO after icing)

[Roboturner913]

If a team gets in such a hole that they have to waste their only timeout after an icing call, then that serves as its own consequence if you ask me.

If you want to deter a bunch of intentional icings happening at the end of a game, simply institute a minor penalty on a team pinned in their own zone after a 3rd consecutive icing call.

 

[RipsADrive]

If a team gets in such a hole that they have to waste their only timeout after an icing call, then that serves as its own consequence if you ask me.

If you want to deter a bunch of intentional icings happening at the end of a game, simply institute a minor penalty on a team pinned in their own zone after a 3rd consecutive icing call.

Agreed.

The timeout is especially valuable now that it's needed to challenge a goal so I don't really see a need for this rule.

 

[mouser]

I wouldn't mind the change, but at the end of the day we're still talking about each team only having one timeout per game. Not especially impactful.

On the bonus side using that timeout on an icing might save us from more coaches challenges.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think the rule change is intended to address the situation where you're at the very end of the game, and a team is playing prevent defense, so they just sling the puck down the ice, slowly creep back to the faceoff circle, and then call timeout. Their players get almost a regular shift's worth of time to recover and play prevent defense.

The spirit of icing is that you don't get to have that sort of unearned break, so this helps ensure the integrity of the rule.

It's not a bad idea, except that it's a trifling little non-issue compared to the obviously broken aspects of the game right now.

 

[IamNotADancer]

Its not referring to hitting a player with a high stick- its for when a player plays the puck with a high stick.

thanks, should have read.

 

[Stuzchuk]

I can tell you that with sports that demand extensive endurance, the risk of injury is higher when the muscles are fatigued and under stress...

I'd skip on this if I were there (well those who actually cares about the game)

 

[Ducks in a row]

Challenge Rule

In Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals, there was a penalty on the play, but it wasn't called and the Pens scored, it's not the first time that it happens. The new rule I am proposing is that you can challenge that there was a penalty on the play and the goal should not count. What do you guys think about the new challenge rule?

Powerplay Rule

The NHL has said that they want to increase scoring, I know a way that it can. The new rule would be that you would stay in the penalty box for the whole time. If you get a 2 minute penalty and the team on the powerplay scores 30 secs in, you are still in the box for another 1 min and 30 secs, you have to stay in the box the whole penalty, even double minors, if they score 30 secs in a 4 minute penalty, you still have 3 mins and 30 secs left. What do you guys think? I think players wouldn't try to lift sticks as much because they would be worried about getting a 4 min penalty.

Thoughts?

So lets make bad reffing able to have even bigger effect on games

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

No word on eliminating the brutal offside challenges?

 

[KingBran]

Lets change things that don't really matter just for the sake of changing things. More rules, more confusing for the common fan.

 

[SEALBound]

I mean...I guess. Doesn't solve the major issues of the game.

Call obstruction. End of story.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I have been saying for years that calling a timeout after an icing goes against what the intent was since a team couldn't change lines.

 

[VoidCreature]

The game will never be the same.

 

[TaLoN]

Call me a noob but what is the purpose of no TO after a high stick?

Is it an attempt at trying to prevent a player from blading themselves to get a more severe penalty on the opposing team?

Its not referring to hitting a player with a high stick- its for when a player plays the puck with a high stick.

Read the OP - the high stick portion is talking about faceoff location if the offending player playing the puck with a high stick is on the PP in the offensive zone. It's in the tweet.

They are not saying "no timeout after a high stick" - that's just poor thread title wording.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Changed the title to hopefully alleviate some confusion.

 

[tony d]

I like the changes but they should have done something about the offsides coaches challenge.

 

[DJJones]

Don't care about these. Gotta start calling Slashes though. Do they need to make a rule change or do they just tell the refs to pull their heads out of their ***** to start the year?

 

[Paperbagofglory]

Don't care about these. Gotta start calling Slashes though. Do they need to make a rule change or do they just tell the refs to pull their heads out of their ***** to start the year?

Don't forget the crosschecks, those are normal hockey plays now.