# Rules of Hockey



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

How many times do you shake your head when a fast moving game is bogged down due to the imposition of some obscure rule, or a challenge that has been invoked? Actions once common in hard hitting hockey are now being called as penalties. The game has changed, it has become slower and less physical. Fewer goals are being scored. Players are tripping as soon as a stick touches their legs.

If you could change the current slate of rules to improve hockey, what would you do?


----------



## doriangrey (Mar 29, 2011)

I don't know how you could say that the game has gotten slower - the players are faster than ever. Or are you referring to how long it takes to watch a game?


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

doriangrey said:


> I don't know how you could say that the game has gotten slower - the players are faster than ever. Or are you referring to how long it takes to watch a game?


It seems that there are so many delays...challenges, penalties, icings. I know they are necessary to the game, but somehow the action seems to get bogged down more these days. In the days past many of today's infractions weren't called and continuous play extended for longer periods.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Larger European sized ice surfaces, in my opinion, would do a TON to open up the game. Players are bigger and faster, as noted, why not give them a little extra space to operate. Also quit limiting the goalies' mobility outside the crease, let them be (more) a part of keeping the puck moving.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

keto said:


> Larger European sized ice surfaces, in my opinion, would do a TON to open up the game. Players are bigger and faster, as noted, why not give them a little extra space to operate. Also quit limiting the goalies' mobility outside the crease, let them be (more) a part of keeping the puck moving.


Man, do I ever miss watching Hasek defending everything on his side of the blue line.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

No offsides.
No trapezoid, let goalies play the puck as much as they want, usually to their own demise.
Bigger ice.
Make the crease a no-fly zone. Goalies receive no penalties for anything they do to someone within it. I want to see the crease run red.
Game misconduct for retaliation for legal hits.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Dbl post


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

cboutilier said:


> Man, do I ever miss watching Hasek defending everything on his side of the blue line.


This is what's missing from the game,....personalities that could not just play but entertain. Hasek, Roenick, etc
It's an era of robots now


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Get rid of the shootout.
I don't hate tie games.

We don't need more goals per se, but the rules should encourage offense--so scoring chances--a great defensive move or a great save to prevent a goal can be just as exciting.
There were some low scoring games in the last winter Olympics & they were among some of the most exciting games I've seen.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

zontar said:


> Get rid of the shootout.
> I don't hate tie games.
> 
> We don't need more goals per se, but the rules should encourage offense--so scoring chances--a great defensive move or a great save to prevent a goal can be just as exciting.
> There were some low scoring games in the last winter Olympics & they were among some of the most exciting games I've seen.



I switch off shoot outs and just consider the game a tie. I fully agree, I see nothing wrong with ties. All of this post third period crap was inserted into the sport to try to win over fans in the lower half of the US. When Bettman said that fans hate ties, he likely didn't bother to talk to any.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

keto said:


> Larger European sized ice surfaces, in my opinion, would do a TON to open up the game. Players are bigger and faster, as noted, why not give them a little extra space to operate. Also quit limiting the goalies' mobility outside the crease, let them be (more) a part of keeping the puck moving.


Couldn't agree more. I've been saying this since 1988.

The Saddledome was designed to allow for both NHL and Olympic-sized ice (as it was called then). This was a requirement, if I recall correctly, to host the games. That was also the Oly's that allowed this first pro/NHL players in (one per team, we had Jim Peplinski). But going to Olympic ice lost 2 rows of seating all around the arena - or a total of 200 or so lower bowl seats - or a total of a few million dollars a year, @ $5k / season ticket. If the building wasn't designed to be used as Oly size from the outset, the financial implications were disastrous. So no one's gone to great lengths to get the format changed, and I will note that some of the recent Olympics have been played on NHL sized ice now. So I doubt we will ever see the most significant change that is required to make the game better and faster again.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

One perplexing situation that exists is the whole aspect of the delay of game penalty where the puck is shot over the glass. It solves a real problem, because at one time players did it to dampen their opponents' momentum and give their team some breathing time.

But now too many players are penalized for accidentally making wild passes, often during the most stressful time of the game. I think a two minute minor is too harsh as it is not an offence against an opposing player, but more of a player mistake. I can't think of a more lenient solution although one is justified. And simply moving the resulting face off down to the guilty player's end of the rink will not work because the infraction may have taken place there.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Yeah, I have thought for a while the officials should be making judgement calls on them. Guy takes a swing at a bouncing puck, it hits the top of his blade and careens out - 99% no penalty unless he was lined up for and follows through towards the top of the glass. Judgement. Defenceman alone/nobody near him/accidentally gets too much wood on it and hooks it out? Nah, faceoff in the D zone but not 2 min. Same situation but he's under heavy forecheck pressure, probably send him to the box.

But then, of course, the media would go apeshit crazy the first time they thought the officials got it wrong. And it would happen in a closely contested Stanley Cup final, and one way or the other result in the winning goal (or lack of ability to capitalize on a mistake). HANG THEM ALL DAMMIT


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

Krelf said:


> One perplexing situation that exists is the whole aspect of the delay of game penalty where the puck is shot over the glass. It solves a real problem, because at one time players did it to dampen their opponents' momentum and give their team some breathing time.
> 
> But now too many players are penalized for accidentally making wild passes, often during the most stressful time of the game. I think a two minute minor is too harsh as it is not an offence against an opposing player, but more of a player mistake. I can't think of a more lenient solution although one is justified. And simply moving the resulting face off down to the guilty player's end of the rink will not work because the infraction may have taken place there.


I believe it's only a penalty when somebody puts over the glass while they are in their own end. So, you can fire the puck over the glass so long as you are not inside your own blue line. With that said, I'm too lazy to look it up so I could be wrong.

Things change and we adapt. I remember when they removed the two line pass and thought it would be a disaster. My weekly shinny game even fought against implementing for a year or two but now I can't imagine playing with the redline.

I like the idea of bigger ice but the point about arenas not being setup for it and owners losing money make that a big stretch. The other option would be to play 4 on 4 which would create more without increasing the rink size but the players would be against that so I doubt that ever happens. Maybe messing with the position of the blue lines and making the neutral zone smaller could have an effect with more room for teams to manoeuvre??


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

zontar said:


> Get rid of the shootout.
> I don't hate tie games.
> 
> We don't need more goals per se, but the rules should encourage offense--so scoring chances--a great defensive move or a great save to prevent a goal can be just as exciting.
> There were some low scoring games in the last winter Olympics & they were among some of the most exciting games I've seen.


Agree with all except th shootout. I like it. It's fine.
Before,I sat through too many double or triple OT games that ended anticlimacticly due to a bad penalty, missed call, or one players blunder due to fatigue. Hardly indicative of a "team effort" or time well spent . Fuck it, it's a game, the fate of the world doesn't depend on the outcome....they can have a dance-off at centre ice to determine a winner, for all that i care. It's all just entertainment.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Diablo said:


> Agree with all except th shootout. I like it. It's fine.
> Before,I sat through too many double or triple OT games that ended anticlimacticly due to a bad penalty, missed call, or one players blunder due to fatigue. Hardly indicative of a "team effort" or time well spent . Fuck it, it's a game, the fate of the world doesn't depend on the outcome....they can have a dance-off at centre ice to determine a winner, for all that i care. It's all just entertainment.


The fate of the world doesn't depend on it--I agree.
So why then is a tie a bad thing?
And seeing the blunders & flukes in an extended OT comes out of game play--so I hardly find it anticlimactic

but they'll never please everybody.
I would prefer the shootout gone.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

zontar said:


> The fate of the world doesn't depend on it--I agree.
> So why then is a tie a bad thing?
> And seeing the blunders & flukes in an extended OT comes out of game play--so I hardly find it anticlimactic
> 
> ...


I'm not sure who/why decided that games shouldn't end in ties. Maybe it was more problematic for points calculations for standings? I dunno. It definitely didn't bother me in the days of ties. My hunch is, most rules changes are so bettman can dumb the sport down to make it more marketable to southern Americans....I don't think ties are common in football or basketball.

Curious, as a lot of ppl don't like shootouts....how do you feel about penalty shots as a punitive call? Is it a waste of time, would time in the box be a more appropriate instead?


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

Am I the only one on the edge of my seat when 3-on-3 starts?! I love it!


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

@Diablo "Curious, as a lot of ppl don't like shootouts....how do you feel about penalty shots as a punitive call? Is it a waste of time, would time in the box be a more appropriate instead?"

Maybe i'm the wrong person to answer... I don't mind the shootout, could take it or leave it. Penalty shots however need to stay, if you lose a breakaway by interference from another player who's only play is to illegally remove that scoring opportunity by hooking, tripping, chopping you down at at the ankles etc. An appropriate penalty is to award a penalty shot; a 4 on 5 can lead to scoring opportunities but it is not guaranteed. 

I like the 5 mins of 3 on 3 as well, it opens up the ice and is pretty exciting most of the time.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Diablo said:


> Curious, as a lot of ppl don't like shootouts....how do you feel about penalty shots as a punitive call? Is it a waste of time, would time in the box be a more appropriate instead?


Within the context of game play--I am good with them--as long as they are good calls.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Krelf said:


> How many times do you shake your head when a fast moving game is bogged down due to the imposition of some obscure rule, or a challenge that has been invoked? Actions once common in hard hitting hockey are now being called as penalties. The game has changed, it has become slower and less physical. Fewer goals are being scored. Players are tripping as soon as a stick touches their legs.
> 
> If you could change the current slate of rules to improve hockey, what would you do?



Not a rule, but I would stop equating goals with excitement. A well played 1-0 game is more exciting than a sloppy 6-5 game.

One thing I would lie to see are fewer bullshit fights after a good hit. If someone does something cheap then sure, but whatever happened to keeping your head up and, if you got nailed, taking his number and getting him back later?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

keto said:


> Larger European sized ice surfaces, in my opinion, would do a TON to open up the game. Players are bigger and faster, as noted, why not give them a little extra space to operate.


The costs would be astronomical. Every arena would have to be reconfigured, which would be expensive, and the owners would lose a ton of revenue due to many of the most expensive seats being permanently lost.




> Also quit limiting the goalies' mobility outside the crease, let them be (more) a part of keeping the puck moving.



I agree completely. Gary Butthead wants the games to be more exciting but brought in rules to stifle goalies who are good puck handlers (specifically Brodeur). He clearly doesn't grasp that allowing goalies more freedom to play the puck would open up the game.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> No offsides.


That's just silly. Offsides have been called forever, even back when the game was more freewheeling. If they didn't hamper the game then how are they hampering it now?




> Game misconduct for retaliation for legal hits.



While I dislike fights after legal hits, that would be impossible to implement. How do you prove someone started a fight over a hit rather than something that happened five shifts before?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

colchar said:


> That's just silly. Offsides have been called forever, even back when the game was more freewheeling. If they didn't hamper the game then how are they hampering it now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh ya, if it's been done forever, it must be perfect as it is....no need to change anything, end thread.
Great argument!

As to your second point, I can tell you, refs DO use an informal kind of discretion .
That's inherent in the job. It's why certain players known for diving often get "missed" calls or those known for instigating are quicker to be handed penalties vs those known to be cleaner.
Your example doesn't make sense anyways. A retaliation is a retaliation, whether it was for a hit 5 shifts before or the one at the moment. It's usually pretty obvious anyways. It's not a murder trial requiring a tremendous burden of proof,


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

Agree about discretion calls for puck over glass, it can't be any worse than diving call discretion.
Not related to rules, but I don't think anyone has mentioned commercial time outs (sorry if I missed it). I don't think anything slows down the game as much. Not sure if there is any way around that though.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

jb welder said:


> Agree about discretion calls for puck over glass, it can't be any worse than diving call discretion.
> Not related to rules, but I don't think anyone has mentioned commercial time outs (sorry if I missed it). I don't think anything slows down the game as much. Not sure if there is any way around that though.


Commercial time outs didn't exist in the early days of televised hockey. The game just went on, and if we missed a goal too bad. But why not cut back on the talking heads between periods and play the ads about "talk about trucks" "you'll need to really work" " the engagement ring in the snow and the"dogs were real, not actors" then. At least the momentum would continue. 

As for the penalty for delaying the game by shooting the puck over the glass, teams are now faking or exaggerating injuries, and goalies are slow to get up or claiming mask breakage. So teams can just delay the game in ways that won't get penalized. So many players that looked like they would be out for the next six months are playing three minutes later.

And talk about a lamebrain rule. I think it was in the US-Russia World junior game when a US player nudged the goalie's stick back to him with his stick. He got a two minute minor. But if he picked it up and handed it to him it would have been legal. The dumb rule was probably made because someone shot a stick half way across the rink presenting a tripping hazard. In this case it was about 3 feet. This is where discretion is needed.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

colchar said:


> Not a rule, but I would stop equating goals with excitement. A well played 1-0 game is more exciting than a sloppy 6-5 game.


when the score gets higher, sometimes it gets boring as it doesn't take as much to score-(sometimes, not always, but sometimes)-but when the score is low due to big saves & big defensive plays--it can be exciting--as goals are rare, but are worth the price of admission themselves.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Well it looks like face-off tactics were decided to be the biggest concern for this year.....hmmm...I dunno. Sure, faceoffs have gotten kind of scrummy in recent years. But the way it's being handled seems geared to a petty "lawyer-ball" way of officiating that slows down the game and leads to cheap power plays.
The league seems to have decided that "solution" to too few goals, is more short handed play. 
"One of my favourite parts of the game, is a good clean face-off....it just adds to the overall excitement of the game. Hockey should be more like fencing"- said no one, ever.


----------



## DaddyDog (Apr 21, 2017)

The face off officiating is slowing the game for now, but it will sort itself out quickly. The line markings have been at the face off dots for years, but not enforced. Here's a new idea: PLAY BY THE RULES.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> Oh ya, if it's been done forever, it must be perfect as it is....no need to change anything, end thread.
> Great argument!


It is a perfectly valid argument - offsides were called even during the freewheeling '80s. If they eliminate offsides all it will do is encourage cherry picking.




> As to your second point, I can tell you, refs DO use an informal kind of discretion .


Of course they do.



> Your example doesn't make sense anyways. A retaliation is a retaliation, whether it was for a hit 5 shifts before or the one at the moment. It's usually pretty obvious anyways. It's not a murder trial requiring a tremendous burden of proof,


The point is that you cannot prove retaliation because you don't know what the player was thinking. If game misconducts are given for retaliation when there wasn't any retaliation then the refs could effectively be deciding the outcome of a game. They can already do that, but their opportunities to do so should be minimized.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

DaddyDog said:


> The face off officiating is slowing the game for now, but it will sort itself out quickly. The line markings have been at the face off dots for years, but not enforced. Here's a new idea: PLAY BY THE RULES.



But it is too subjective. Look at the first Toronto vs. Ottawa game. Brown got a penalty for a faceoff but video showed that the Ottawa player was over the line the entire time. So a Toronto player got thrown out, and a second got a penalty, while the Ottawa player was breaking the rule the entire time he was standing there and the officials did nothing.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

DaddyDog said:


> The face off officiating is slowing the game for now, but it will sort itself out quickly. The line markings have been at the face off dots for years, but not enforced. Here's a new idea: PLAY BY THE RULES.


Ya, just what we need another "slightly over the line/no, he wasn't over the line" debate slowing down the game. Hey, maybe we can get video review for faceoffs too, to really make sure they're PLAYING BY THE RULES.
Newsflash, successful players straddle the edge of the rules. Even the games ambassador, Sid. They will all do what they can get away with. No one abides by them completely. I dont see how this face off thing is such a big deal. Refs always could throw out over eager guys from the circle. But fans generally preferred that they just drop the puck and get the game going again.
As a I said before, this isn't about fair play. It's a backhanded way to increase scoring by creating shorthanded situations out of nothing.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I think it's good for the game, and the little bit of humility is good for the players. Both the face off thing and the hands slash thing. Straddling rules is fine, just don't whine when you get caught crossing. Also think more power plays and offense is good, though if it comes at the expense of longer delays/games I'm not sure how it goes over.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

The NHLPA would never go for it, but cut the roster size down to 16 or so. If you can only roll 3 lines, nobody will carry goons & 4th line "energy" players who don't have the ability to play at both ends of the ice.

+1 on letting goalies handle the puck


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Roryfan said:


> The NHLPA would never go for it, but cut the roster size down to 16 or so. If you can only roll 3 lines, nobody will carry goons & 4th line "energy" players who don't have the ability to play at both ends of the ice.
> 
> +1 on letting goalies handle the puck


Goons are so y2k.
The rules already got rid of them. Today, they're replaced by rats...skilled players who dive, hack and slash but have actual talent....Kadri, Gallagher, Shaw, Burrows, Marchand, and to some extent, even Crosby. Fighting by and large has been taken out of the game.

I'd personally like to see the game opened up with a bigger ice surface. Couldn't care less about goals....watching a 7-2 game earlier verified it for me. It's only fun if your team is winning and even then it feels like a mismatch. But more wide open offensive play that would result from bigger ice, would be more exciting.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

No drawing blood during overtime.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Diablo said:


> I'd personally like to see the game opened up with a bigger ice surface. Couldn't care less about goals....watching a 7-2 game earlier verified it for me. It's only fun if your team is winning and even then it feels like a mismatch. But more wide open offensive play that would result from bigger ice, would be more exciting.


Bigger ice surface
Not more goals--but more scoring opportunities---a great defensive or big save is as exciting as a goal.

Remember the last winter Olympics--some of the late round & some of the medal round games were low scoring & close--and among some of the most exciting games I've ever seen.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Roryfan said:


> The NHLPA would never go for it, but cut the roster size down to 16 or so. If you can only roll 3 lines, nobody will carry goons & 4th line "energy" players who don't have the ability to play at both ends of the ice.


Some top end offensive players don't play at both ends of the ice.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

colchar said:


> Some top end offensive players don't play at both ends of the ice.


And I think that's acceptable in some cases. Although some fans like to villainize them for it. More than 1 coach has ruined a pure scorer by distracting him with the need to compensate for inept defence and poor goaltenders.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> And I think that's acceptable in some cases. Although some fans like to villainize them for it. More than 1 coach has ruined a pure scorer by distracting him with the need to compensate for inept defence and poor goaltenders.



It has nothing to do with inept defence or poor goaltenders, and everything to do with each player having a defensive assignment/responsibilities. If some high scoring forward gets to ignore defensive responsibilities then the opposition might as well have a power play as they will be playing 5 on 4.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

colchar said:


> Some top end offensive players don't play at both ends of the ice.





Diablo said:


> And I think that's acceptable in some cases. Although some fans like to villainize them for it. More than 1 coach has ruined a pure scorer by distracting him with the need to compensate for inept defence and poor goaltenders.


My gripe was about the guys who can do little more than clutch & grab, land the odd body check & block shots. Bring back the freewheeling style of the 70s Habs & 80s Oilers* where speed & skill reigned supreme. 

*Yes, I know about Esa Tikkanen.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

colchar said:


> It has nothing to do with inept defence or poor goaltenders, and everything to do with each player having a defensive assignment/responsibilities. If some high scoring forward gets to ignore defensive responsibilities then the opposition might as well have a power play as they will be playing 5 on 4.


I disagree....I think defensive lapses can be forgiven if a players offensive talents warrant it. Phil Kessel for example, had so little to offer defensively that distracting him from being a pure scorer, often resulted in him being the worst of 2 worlds....mostly because TML was so poor on defense. Fix your defense, and then you can cut loose guys like that to do what they do best. not every team has to play like the Devils of the early 2000's. Not every player is versatile.
We don't expect every goalie to play the puck like Martin Brodeur and setup offensive plays, do we?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> I disagree....I think defensive lapses can be forgiven if a players offensive talents warrant it. Phil Kessel for example, had so little to offer defensively that distracting him from being a pure scorer, often resulted in him being the worst of 2 worlds....mostly because TML was so poor on defense. Fix your defense, and then you can cut loose guys like that to do what they do best. not every team has to play like the Devils of the early 2000's. Not every player is versatile.
> We don't expect every goalie to play the puck like Martin Brodeur and setup offensive plays, do we?


No matter how good a player is offensively, they have defensive responsibilities and if they don't uphold those their team is at a disadvantage.


----------

