45
submitted 1 year ago by Oneeightnine@feddit.uk to c/hockey@lemmy.ca

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago

I'd bring back the old 1-8 seeding for the playoffs, seeing some of the best teams face off in round 1 or 2 sucks compared to the old method IMO.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] servingtheshadows@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago

Instead of the shootout we have another period of OT with 2 pucks

[-] senicar@social.cyb3r.dog 16 points 1 year ago

The number of OT periods is the number of additional pucks.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I'd like to combine this with the other guy's suggestion of having fewer players for each OT round.

Round four, 1v1 with four pucks, should go pretty quick

[-] ryan213@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

And both are glowing.

[-] VerbTheNoun95@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] jawsua@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] justhach@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SatouKazuma@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Jesse@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

Add another ref who sits just off the ice, and is a "video ref" looking at as many screens as he chooses, of the available cameras, and has the power to whistle his own penalties or overturn the penalties from the ref on the ice. There's no reason to deliberately not use the technology available to us rather than the randomness of whether something happens to get challenged for video review.

[-] SatouKazuma@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Ya know, I've always wondered how the fuck this isn't a thing already. It's honestly a bit bizarre, if you ask me.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Adapting someone else's football review plan for hockey. There should be one ref, and one team advocate for each team, if 2/3 agree on a penalty/review then it happens. The window for agreement needs to be 2-3 seconds at the most. All should be trained to some degree in watching replays, and how various angles change perspective, because video review is a totally separate skill from real time refereeing.

[-] jawsua@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago

Any call is reviewable, for any reason in the rulebook. You still go on a penalty if you lose, but you can call anything. The difference is, the decision is made by the on-ice refs in under 2 minutes, without using slow-mo or pausing. If you can't see it in that time using regular speed, it should stand. Keep the game moving

Oh, and refs are now required to have after-game media availability. If they don't want that, they're welcome to retire

[-] jawsua@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

Oh, and I'd like some sort of positive reinforcement for sportsmanship. I saw cricket does something like that. So give each ref one standings point per year (as an example) and let them award it when they see something especially good. They know the written and unwritten rules, it'd be cool to let them reward dudes that play the right way. And imagine the crowd and both teams going nuts for some 4th liner getting a Lady Byng Point or whatever.

[-] akp@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

I like this one

[-] Vathsade@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

In this day and age, where sports are as much about betting as players, any league that DOESN'T put their referees in public display is just asking for manipulation and problems and any smart fan (and owner) should see red flags.

Imagine a league where the refs are subject to public criticism... Doesn't mean a bad job gets fired, but they should drive more training and classes to get consistency right (nobody should lose their job unless they really can't cut it).

Anyway, that won't happen. They don't care about the fans, they care about the revenue.

[-] ryan213@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

All these suggestions are DUMB!

2 goalies in each net, but only one set of equipment. They have to share.

[-] dishpanman@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

Institute review of embellishment/diving after games and penalize with 10 minute misconducts to suspension for the following game. It's unsportsmanlike like dirty hits and should be treated as such IMO.

[-] will@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

Nobody named Bettman allowed in / around / watching the NHL

[-] bgb_ca@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Drop the shootout in OT and replace it with the following

  1. 5 mins of 4v4 (as it is now)
  2. 5 mins of 3v3
  3. 5 mins of 2v2
  4. 5 mins of 1v1
  5. if still no one scored, then the goalies meet in center ice for a good ole goalie fight. Winner of the fight wins the game for their team.
[-] JaCrispy@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

OT is currently 3v3 in the NHL

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Vathsade@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Perhaps we can arm home goalie with nets and a Trident, visitor gets spear and shield.

...But refs have to stand in a circle around the combatants and hold hands.

[-] snota@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

If the winning team commits a penalty/s in the last two minutes, the game doesn't end until the penalty/ies are over.

It requires that they be within a drawable margin of course.

[-] Oneeightnine@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

I actually really like this idea in theory. It's far too easy for a team to make a game saving play in the final seconds by slashing the stick away, or taking a guys legs. This would actually allow some pushback in those instances. I say we make it happen.

[-] Vathsade@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Pretty glaring oversight in the current rules, isn't it?

Goalie goals are worth 2

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Remove the instigator penalty.

Or

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

[-] jawsua@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

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'

[-] SatouKazuma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] zdrvr@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Get rid of Shootout. 3 on 3 for as long as it takes.

[-] DerveHall@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

make the nets wider by just a few inches. Increases scoring, goalies can keep there armor. what do we lose?

[-] Tired8281@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Move the Nordiques back to Quebec.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] polystyrene_man@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] cosmo1517@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Eliminate the loser point and have the records as W-L only, with goal differential/head-to-head as the tie breakers.

[-] SatouKazuma@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I'd rather personally see the 3-point system like exists in Europe for this. At least the whole system would be zero-sum at that point.

[-] shamrt@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Plus the last 10 minutes of every game won't be so bloody conservative. Teams will want to go for it

[-] SatouKazuma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Precisely. We'd see a few track meets like the Canes-Panthers OT, which was straight up insane.

[-] jawsua@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Can you please explain how that works?

[-] SatouKazuma@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

3 points for a win in regulation, 2 for a win in OT, 1 for a loss in OT, and 0 for a loss in regulation. Because the OT winner would lose a point compared to winning in regulation, you wouldn't have games that are suddenly worth more, compared to the current system where a game yields a total of 3 points if it goes to OT, and 2 if it doesn't.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I believe it's basically what hock already has, but regulation wins are three points.

As far as I know giving regulation wins 3 points to keep number of points possible per game constant would never have changed the standings in a meaningful way.

[-] ericjmorey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'd add relegation for any team that doesn't make the playoffs.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Where are you getting 16 more teams from?

[-] jawsua@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

Maybe it should only be one team dropped and one promoted. That'll also do a lot for the coach carousel too, while fighting teams tanking too hard and better aligning the AHL with the NHL in play style and value. I think it wouldn't take long before the billionaire owners would buy their AHL teams and take care of them better

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

It would take some rule tweaks from the AHL, but relegation might not be a bad thing.

[-] jawsua@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

Can you imagine the Oilers having a bad year and McDavid gets dropped to the A? I'm cackling

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
45 points (97.9% liked)

Hockey

2262 readers
1 users here now

Rules

List of Team-Specific Communities:

Metropolitan Division

Atlantic Division

Central Division

Pacific Division

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS