NHL's new rules are silly and stupid

[Timberwolf]

Patrick Reusse, the Star Tribune columnist, made some great points that I agree on.

I agree with him about having shootouts after overtime if the game is tied. That is the stupidest thing I heard. It does not make sense. I believe teams need to continue to play even if the team is still tied after the first overtime so that fans don't have to feel cheated when they go to the games or watching the game on television. You know coaches will always go for the tie instead of going for the loss in overtime which is one of the reasons why the sport has become a joke. Unless the league have a rule in which teams needs to play past overtime if the game is still tie, coaches will continue to go for the tie as players just skate in circles. Also I feel there are not that many good hockey players out there as it used to be when the sports was popular in the early 90s.

Expanding the goaltenders net or decreasing the pads won't solve problems either. In fact expanding the net is as stupid as having a shootout in overtime. I think what the NHL needs is better players. There are not that many stars in the NHL as you see in other sports. That's the sport biggest problem not the blue line or the nets and all.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/508/5497954.html

[Durango53]

I would love to see the shoot out after the first OT. But not in playoff games.

Also I think the players are better than they have ever been. You have more players that are the same talent level. Along with that they are bigger and when you watch the teams like Detroit or New Jersey they can play that trapping game and lock down a offense.

I am for making the ice bigger and making more room for skating.

[I Are Baboon]

Make the trap defense illegal and the game will open right up. :thumbsup:

Whoever invented that (Jacques Lemaire?) should be shot. :D

[rockin500]

I'd rather have a shootout than a tie game.

and i agree with the trap defense point, babs. that does make for borrrrring hockey. :(

[Timberwolf]

Durango: Shootouts, expanding the ice, and more room for skating is not going to help IMO. The problem with hockey is that there are way too many role players and not enough stars out there. There may be couple of teams that have superstars and that's it. That's the problem right there. It comes down to not many exciting players out there. There may be only 10 best exciting players at best and that's it. NFL, MLB, and the NBA have way more than that which is why those three are popular and why the NHL is not.

I like the Devils, but I find them to be boring. They got too many role players. There is a reason why the Devils don't draw well at East Rutherford. No one in their right mind would go waste crazy money to watch role players. I know I would never do that.

Maybe things will change once the league somehow get good young players to build around. Sidney Crosby, the next NHL's must-see, is a great place to start in revitalizing the sport. As far as I am concerned, Crosby, Fleury (that goaltender in Pittsburgh), Kovalchuk, and Rick Nash are the face of the league now. The league need more guys like that though.

[Dream machine]

Here are all the rules.

Some of the rule changes that will take effect for the 2005-06 NHL season:

- Allowing the two-line pass (no red line) like international hockey;

- Reduction in size of goalie equipment;

- Using the AHL crease and limits on goaltender puck handling;

- No tie games; using a penalty shootout after overtime; After a five minute overtime, three players will be selected from each team for the shootout. If still tied, it will then be a sudden death shootout;

- No-touch icing;

- Bringing back tag-up offside;

- Move nets back two feet towards end boards;

- Reducing the size of the neutral zone;

- A team that ices the puck cannot make a line change prior to the ensuing face-off;

- Officials will have the discretion to wave off icing if it is deemed to be the result of an attempted pass;

- A player that instigates a fight in the final five minutes of a game will receive a game misconduct and automatic one-game suspension;

- Zero tolerance on interference, hooking and holding/obstruction

- Delay of game penalties for any players shooting the puck over the glass in his defensive zone.

[imgreat95]

the only one which i would say that I dont like would be the No Touch icing.... that and the whole shootout idea. I dont think there should be ties, but i do think it should be decided on the ice...

[Tigers#1]

I don't understand most of the new rules, but the game was really starting to get dull. And i obviously wasn't the only one who thought that. They had to do something.

[imgreat95]

kyle.. just curious.... what in the new rules dont you understand??

[Tigers#1]

Pretty much anything that has to do with the lines, and zones.

[awefullspellare]

Meh what a fricking horrible avatar you have there jerkface.

[imgreat95]

Basically, in the NHL, as we knew it, you had 3 lines in the center of the rink. Two blue lines, and a white line. You were not allowed to pass a puck to a team mate where it crossed two of those lines. Basically, this slows the game down because you really cant open up the ice. You have to stay close enough to the man with the puck to not be in danger of being too many lines away. It causes things to get bunched up, and makes for some very boring hockey.

By getting rid of the center line, you allow for a little bit more room to develop a play. International hockey rules have played without the center line for many many years.

The area in the middle of the ice between the two blue lines is the Neutral Zone. Not totally sure what the reasoning is in making it smaller, as I would think that would help to negate some of the open ice you just created by getting rid of the center line.

[Teddy Ballgame]

- I have mixed feelings on the more than a dozen rule changes proposed for the coming NHL season. They are being sold as creating a brand new game that is more wide open and high scoring and exciting when in reality they are mostly mere tweaking of the exisiting rules including returning to the way the game used to be in some respects (e.g. the no red line for the purposes of two line passing is simply a return to the rule that existed prior to the 1944/45 season). Indeed, most of the rule changes were tested last season in The American Hockey League and had no more than a marginal impact on scoring.

- But I understand the league's dilemma - after a year without hockey, they need to try to pacify and recapture a posse of pissed off fans and they also need to break through into their US markets much more successfully with future TV contracts the big prize. So they felt the need to come out with this marketing schtick about it being a whole new game with the great end to end rushes and dipsy doodles and passing plays and above all scoring that the game had at its peak in the mid 80s.

- So what could they do? Well, scoring has declined by three goals a game since the NHL's scoring peak of the mid 80s with Gretzky, Messier, The Oilers, Lemiuex, Bossey, et al. The players continue to grow and the average player today - and particularly the average goalie! - makes the superstars of yesteryear (the Rocket at 5'9", 160 pounds) look like Karen Carpenter in her final days of anorexia. But the ice surface is still the same size, much smaller than the rinks in Europe where hockey is still free wheeling, end to end and skating and passing are the premium skills. It doesn't take a hockey expert or even Paris Hilton or Forrest Gump to figure out that if you continue to make the players bigger and bigger, and especially the goalies, and you also make the equipment bigger and bigger while still having the same size playing surface and scoring area, then it will get increasingly impossible to go end to end, to thread the needle with pin point passes, and to get the puck past a gargantuan goalie into a tiny net.

- OK, the options seem to include the following:

1/ Expand the ice surfaces to be at least as large as the European rinks. This is a non-starter because it means building expensive new stadiums and/or taking out profitable seating and replacing it with ice space in thirty different locations. As the owners proved during their lock out of the players, for most it is all they can do to maintain their existing crummy old buildings let alone to start building new ones.

2/ Hire only small players, perhaps midgets or Asian hockey pros (Japan and S. Korea and now China have some half decent players). This, too, for a number of perfectly good reasons is a non-starter.

3/ Have fewer players on the ice, thereby opening up the playing surface for the four left on each team to skate and pass without as much interference and obstruction. They are trying this in overtime as part of their rule changes. Depending on how it works and is received by the fans, four on four and three on three may eventually become more regular features during regular time as well as overtime. The owners already love it because it would reduce rosters and therefore payrolls by another 20% on average.

4/ Make a large bunch of flashy looking changes designed to confuse some and excite others and launch a slick marketing program claiming that it is a brand new game with more skating and passing and scoring and excitment than ever before. This is what they've done.

For me, what I'd have done would have been two things. One is to introduce true zero tolerance for obstruction - referees would instantly call penalties on any hooking, holding, spearing, tripping, interference, etc. This, more than any other rule and/or equipment change, would open up the ice again for the Super Marios and other stars by eliminating the trap style of defence and this would thereby lead to more playmaking, scoring and excitment. The NHL has included this in their rule changes but I don't believe they mean it. If they do mean it, all the other dicking around won't matter much because this will revitalize the game as it was in the mid 80s. If they don't mean it, all the other dicking around won't amount to (in the immortal words of FDR's 1st VP named James Vance Garner commenting on the value of a vice president) "a pitcher of warm spit". The other is to make a 10% across the board reduction in ticket prices and a 20% reduction in the prices of the cheapest seats. Too many Toronto hockey fans I know (one I see every morning in the mirror) are too pissed off to want to spend $600 for two platinum seats, parking, two beers and a hot dog - for two - to attend one mediocre game of grabbing and holding. We will not be screwed again unless and until they at least kiss us first!

[Trots]

I'm not crazy about shootouts, either. Other than that, let's play by these new rules for a season and see what happens. (For the record, the two options I would have chosen would have been eliminating obstruction and reducing the goalie pads.) If they fail to produce the desire results, change them again. The NFL alters its rules almost annually. Why couldn't the NHL?

I could not disagree more with the idea that the league doesn't have enough stars. The league actually has a number of potential stars, but they are unable to shine due to the widespread use of interference and the league's overall trend towards defense.

Given the right circumstances, I think you could see a number of 100 pt. scorers, again. Let's hope the league has done just that.

TB- Maybe its just a Canadian thing, but none of the hockey fans I know are really mad. (James, being the notable exception.) Disappointed? Yes, but not mad. The diehards are still diehards. They just want their team back. Those that didn't care, still don't.

I completely concur, however, that the league should reduce ticket prices. However, it should begin at 20%. This league is still horribly overpriced across the board. That's not going to happen, though. Most teams will claim they were losing money before, so why would the lower ticket prices to maintain that situation? (I would also suggest dropping the Center Ice TV package price. I would call myself a casual fan of the NHL. I won't buy the cable package at $150, but I might at $75. They won't lower it anywhere near that level, if at all.)

I also think its time for the league to act, well, small. They need to recognize that a big time US television deal is not in the offing. Maybe, just maybe, if scoring zooms up to 1980 levels, some of the major US markets are doing well (NY, CHI, DET, LA) and have marketable stars, then the league might be able to make some decent money on a cable deal. That's years down the road, though.

Right now, they should just get the games on a decent US cable station at almost any cost.