[Yzerfan]

Forgive my ignorance, but how are wider blue lines an improvement? I'm not saying that they're not, I'm just clueless on this one.

[viperstar]

I only agree with the no-touch icing, the blue lines being made larger and possibly the line behind the goal line if it doesn't obstruct the view of the game.

[Daryl Shilling]

Originally Posted by Yzerfan

Forgive my ignorance, but how are wider blue lines an improvement? I'm not saying that they're not, I'm just clueless on this one.

The idea behind is to create more room in both the neutral AND offensive zone, the thinking being that the extra room should help offense.

Daryl

[VICE™]

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

Bigger goal crease

Allows the goaltender more movement in their net. I don't see the need for this one, but if they're going to be consistent with the calls, then I'll be okay with it.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

Wider blue lines

I like it.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

Painted line change zones in front of the benches.

If it cuts down on 'too many men' calls where the puck just hits a player that's headed to the bench, I like it.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

Face-off dots added to the middle of the ice.

Why is this needed? And when would it be used? If a goaltender freezes the puck perpendicular to his net? No thanks.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

A "verification goal line" behind the existing goal line.

Gimmick.

Teams would have to move the above-net cameras so that they're all in the same position to view the 'verification line' perfectly. However, if they moved the cameras to the correct position, then it would solve a lot of the problems that currently exist.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

The players will not be allowed to ice the puck while killing penalties.

Stupid.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

Face-off violators will be moved further back from the dot, rather than be replaced by a teammate.

Stupid gimmick.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

During OT, teams will switch ends, in hopes of creating more off-man chances due to the longer line change.

Sure, why not?

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

One of the two referees will be stationed off-ice.

Just make it so that the referee in the other end than where the play is can only call major penalties and I'm happy. Maybe have a referee up in the video booth that can negate the call on the ice if it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

A form of no-touch will be tested. If, in the linesman's judgement, it is clear that the defensive player will win the race, icing will be blown down without having to touch the puck.

Interesting take on no-touch icing, this is one I need to see in action first.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

On offside infractions, the face-off will be moved to the offending team's zone, with no line change permitted.

So.. basically they make every offside call an intentional offside? Just calling intentional offside once in a while would probably reach the same result, which would be less players taking a chance on it.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

On face-off infractions, the centre can choose his opponent.

This is just a plain stupid idea.

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

On delayed penalties, the play won't be whistled down until the offending team clears the puck from their zone.

I don't really see the need, but it could definitely create more scoring chances and be interesting. I'm interested in how this one would work in a game.

[Yzerfan]

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

The idea behind is to create more room in both the neutral AND offensive zone, the thinking being that the extra room should help offense.

Daryl

Ahh, I get it it now. I wonder how much wider they're considering.

[cityStatic]

My rule change suggestions:

Get rid of the goddamn trapeziod

If the puck goes over the bench in the players' own zone, it's delay of game aswell.

Abolish the Leafs

Find a new commissioner

[CrossCheck]

Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling

The players will not be allowed to ice the puck while killing penalties.
Why don't they just award a goal to the other team and skip the entire penalty killing process instead? Teams already start the PK in their end without the benefit of a line change. I think the NHL should leave well enough alone here.

Any team with a good penalty kill is boring as hell to watch. I wanna see something done with the penalty kill... but that's not it.

This is obviously a push for more goals, but there must be easier ways to increase production without major modifications (i.e., rink expansion to meet European sizes).

You'd think a big think-tank of supposed hockey experts would be able to think of a way to increase goals, but also, shouldn't they also realize that there's other parts to the sport than just goals?

[insje]

The no-touch rule change could bring more speed tot the game, lets just hope it will be called fairly. Very interested to see how this would affect the game.

The delayed penalty rule change is interesting. It definitely would bring more scoring opportunity, which indeed is what most of the new rules seem to lead towards. Personally I think games where it is hard to score are more exciting to watch. Take the NBA, I also love bbal, but most of the games only get me going in the fourth quarter when the scoring difference is minimal. The actual scoring before the final quarter doesn't do so much for me because people score so much. What I love about hockey is that scoring does happen, but is much harder to do and less common. Keeps the game interesting from start to finish.

[Daryl Shilling]

If the league wants more excitement in the game, getting rid of the Overtime Loss point would go some way in that direction, and wouldn't require silly gimmicks like choosing your faceoff opponent, etc.

Since the OTL point was introduced the number of games going to overtime has gone up by an average of 25%, reaching its highest last season, 28% (as I said it would when it was announced). That's a hell of a lot. The NHL claimed that the rule change was designed to lower the number of ties, but how could guaranteeing a point for the loser reduce tied games?

It's obvious that the NHL did this to create the illusion of parity across the league. By increasing the point totals for losing in OT, thus tightening the standings, the NHL can claim that the league is more competitive than it really is.

Now, this isn't really even the problem. The real problem is that coaches are playing for overtime, because the incentives are so high. You can't blame them for playing the game the league set up, but it makes it terrible for the viewing public. For a gate driven league, I don't see how that's good.

Here are some scary numbers: since the league introduced the OTL point, scoring is down in the last 3 minutes of the 3rd period by 1/3, and last year was *really* bad: scoring was down by over 60% in that situation!

Year - G/60 - G/60 last 3 mins
2006 - 6.17 - 4.27
2007 - 5.89 - 3.04
2008 - 5.57 - 4.64
2009 - 5.83 - 3.43
2010 - 5.68 - 2.05

The numbers are clear: teams stop taking any chances whatsoever, because the reward for getting to OT significantly outweighs the risk of losing because you took some chances.

It seems to me that if the league wants to change a rule that would help bring some additional thrills for the fans, they would get rid of this rule, which has been a plague on scoring and excitement.

Daryl

[LiAmTrAnSdEmOn]

Agreed completely with Daryl. It's kind of pathetic that the NHL rewards a team for "almost" winning or extending the time it takes to lose.

IMO, a league shouldn't be looking at rule changes unless there is a good reason for it. I can't find a reason to be making any of these changes. Take a cue from the NFL and see how their rules committee looks at this stuff. They take prime examples from actual games for reasoning to make rule changes for the good of the sport, not just looking around and finding ways they can bump up the scoring.