10 Rule Changes The NHL Must Implement To Improve The Game

10. Ban head contact

The NHL has slowly started to realize that head contact is ruining the lives of many of its players. Yet, they have done a very minimal amount to reduce the impact of brain injuries.

Players are still allowed to punch opponents in the face as many times as they want, and can return to the game five minutes later. Players are still allowed to body check other players and make contact to their head.

The only thing they aren’t allowed to do is run a guy from the blindside at a high rate of speed and elbow him in the head with extreme force. It sounds fairly obvious, but it was actually deemed legal in 2010, just ask Marc Savard.

While there has been progress, there needs to be a lot more done immediately. Not only should you not be allowed to “Matt Cooke” someone, but you also should not be allowed to make contact to anyone’s head. Ever. Call it a head contact penalty. The IIHF does it. Why can’t the NHL?

In lower levels of hockey, there are penalties for head contact based on intent and the degree of impact. If you try to initiate a legal body check but in the process make contact to the opponent’s head you get a minor penalty. Should the initial point of contact be the head, or there is intent to hit the opponent in the head, the penalty becomes a double-minor. If the degree of impact is deemed to be severe, the penalty becomes a major.

The NHL needs to institute similar rules. They also need to enforce them strictly. It’s easy for a referee to let a guy get away with it when he gives someone a punch to the head after a whistle.

However, if it was called regularly in October and November next season, players would be safer on the ice, body checkers would need to be more in control, useless scrums would be reduced to a minimum, and skilled players would rule the roost once again by Christmas.

9. Stop Calling Back So Many Goals

The NHL could use more scoring. Sure, a huge save is exciting. A big, clean hit is great. Watching a player stickhandle through traffic get you to the edge of your seat. However, the one thing that really gets thousands of fans in a building and around the world fired up is a goal.

The NHL does a great job stifling goal scoring. From microscopic offsides that bring back a goal to reviewing scoring plays to make sure a player didn’t knock it in with his shin. The league goes to great distances to make sure pucks enter the net in a very specific manner.

To boil the rule down and point out where it currently makes no sense, is that you can accidentally put the puck in with any part of your body, but you can’t intentionally propel it in with anything but your stick. Except, you are allowed to deflect it with anything you want. So, you can turn your body and allow it to “accidentally” hit your foot and go in. However, you can not put the puck in with your knee.

Huh? Why not just let players knock the puck into the net any way they can. I can see players not being allowed to throw it into the net. But that’s because you aren’t allowed to close your hand on the puck anyway. However, if someone is skilled enough to bat a puck out of the air with his elbow and knock it in, they should count it.

Allow me to introduce some video evidence to illustrate the foolishness of this rule. These goals all count.

But this one is disallowed?

So, if Kris Draper gets hit in the mandible because he didn’t see the puck coming and it ends up in the net, that’s fine. But when Andrew Shaw shows unbelievable hand (head)-eye coordination and jumps into the air and headbutts a puck in the net, that’s illegal? Come on, that Shaw goal should not only count but should be on every highlight reel in the world to this day.

To that end, just let players kick the puck in as well. It’s supposedly dangerous to allow that, but it’s not like these players are going to be pulling bicycle kicks like Pele. And if they do, give them a goal, that’s freaking amazing. They can kick the puck anywhere else on the ice, so why not into the net?

8. Allow video review for major penalties

The 2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs have shown us many things. The St. Louis Blues are the real deal. Jordan Binnington is a legit Conn Smythe candidate. Craig Berube is going to get paid. Zdeno Chara is not human (oh wait, we knew that like 24 years ago). And NHL referees need some help.

Reffing a National Hockey League game is about as thankless a job as you can find. If you are absolutely perfect and call the greatest game ever, no one mentions you at all. You could get 12 calls in a row that are a fraction of an inch offside and get them all correct. Crickets. Heck, you’d probably get booed if any of them go against the home team.

However, if after everyone watching at home gets to see a play 14 times on slow-motion instant replay and they finally realize the high stick you called actually only hit the guy in the upper chest and he snapped his head back, you are a complete moron. Clueless.

The officials working in the Stanley Cup Playoffs are the best on the planet. There is no question about that. They are being asked to do an impossible job to perfection. And then fans go on social media and rip them apart like they kicked a dog when they interpret a hooking call differently.

And then the same fans wonder why we can’t develop better officials. Uhhhh, maybe because thousands of teenagers tried it out, got yelled at and called out on social media for missing a tripping penalty in a peewee game so they quit?

I digress, kinda.

The refs currently working in the postseason are the ones who have literally been called every name in the book and continued on, were deemed competent enough by countless supervisors to make it to the NHL and then stood out at that level.

And they still make huge mistakes from time to time.

So we could rip them apart, or admit the job is too difficult for four guys on skates. It’s time to allow more instant replay. There is nothing more frustrating than a controversial call being made, and then the replay is showed on television where it is clear the refs made a mistake. Meanwhile, the refs are huddling at center ice trying to determine what happened.

Everyone watching on tv, and even the fans in the stands can watch the replay on the big screen! The officials are literally standing underneath it and aren’t allowed to review the play. Why can’t the refs use replay on a call that could result in a major penalty!? It makes no sense at all.

Just let the refs review whatever the heck they want. They already do it in NCAA and they should do it in the NHL. The only downside is it takes more time. If you think that’s a problem, just keep reading, I’ll have games done in two hours in a couple of slides.

7. Call all illegal uses of a stick

Remember when I just said we are going to speed the game up dramatically here? Well, not yet. At least not initially with this rule change. However, I was just talking about how difficult the job of an NHL official is and this would make it a lot easier.

Call a penalty literally every time a player makes contact on their opponent with their stick. Sticks are designed for shooting pucks, stick handling and passing. Somewhere along the line, we also allowed it to be used for slashes, cross-checks, and hooks as long as they aren’t too severe.

We call high sticking no matter the degree of impact. Why not do the same with slashing and cross-checking? It often leaves me scratching my head when a defenceman in front of his own net crosschecks a guy four times and the fourth one is a penalty. So, you can do it three times, but if the opponent stumbles on the fourth, it’s a penalty?

There are many superstars who have their skills diminished every time they touch the puck. Every time Connor McDavid cuts to the net, he has to put up with little slashes and cross checks that are deemed fine.

“If we called them all, there’s going to be 100 calls per night” is about the only refrain I hear from people who don’t like this idea. To that I rebut – no, if we called them all, defencemen would have to stop slashing and cross-checking Connor McDavid. He scored 116 points with Zach Kassian on his line and putting up with abuse every time he goes near the puck or the net.

Imagine what hockey’s best players could do if they were allowed to fully display their skills? In basketball, if a player is attempting a shot, there is absolutely no contact allowed. The same should apply in the NHL if they truly want to showcase their stars skills.

6. Eliminate offsides

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Open the game up, show off the player’s skill, let’s see more goals. Defensive defensemen don’t get accolades and it’s because they are the least exciting players on the ice. Zdeno Chara sold a lot more tickets when he was shooting the puck 108 miles per hour. No one is paying just to see him play smart positional hockey today.

I did not mention the offside rule at all earlier when I was talking about expanding video review. In fact, I hate video review for offsides. It’s just an excuse to take a goal away from a team. It kills all momentum in a building after so many goals because fans are expecting a review.

So, not only do I think the league should stop reviewing offsides, I think they should stop calling them altogether. It sounds ridiculous, I know. This rule was created at the same time as the no forward passing rule. We got rid of that one, didn’t we? It’s taken a lot longer, but it’s time to get rid of offsides.

This would change the look of the game dramatically. The puck carrier wouldn’t need to lead the rush. Players could take off as soon as a smooth skating defenceman gets control of the puck and set up in the offensive zone. Stretch passes would be the norm, icings would be nearly non-existent as offensive players would already be deep in the zone to take the pass.

It would lead to a quicker transition from one zone to the other when a turnover happens. The bottleneck in the neutral zone would be gone. We would trade in battles on the boards in between the blue lines for a defenceman who is down by a goal blocking a shot and firing the puck 150 feet to a teammate who is on a one on one.

More fast breaks, less grinding it out along the boards. More excitement and less waiting. Sign me up for that.

5. Stop allowing teams that are shorthanded to ice the puck.

Imagine you are talking to someone who never heard of the game of hockey before. They are very interested in learning more and ask you to explain to them what literally all of the rules are. So you start going through them all.

You explain what penalties are and that if a team takes one, they have to play with four skaters for two minutes. The new fan finds this interesting because you don’t really see that in any other sport. A team playing with one less player would be very fun to watch.

Then you explain the icing rule. The new fan also thinks this is a cool idea. I mean, you don’t want a team on defense to just smash the puck down the ice when they get in trouble. That would be boring. You see it in soccer all the time and it kills any momentum a team had on offense.

Then the new fan points out that the team that is shorthanded would be in big trouble if they can’t just shoot the puck down the ice. It must be very difficult to change and must lead to lots of goals on the powerplay.

Then you explain, oh, they are allowed to ice the puck while shorthanded, duh. And she says, that is the stupidest. And she is right. Why are you allowed to break a clearly written rule just because you’ve broken a different rule in the last few minutes?

This makes no sense. Allowing shorthanded teams to ice the puck makes it far easier to kill penalties. That means it is far easier for them to stop goals from happening. We want goals!! Why doesn’t the NHL know we want goals?

Sure, this would make it harder to kill penalties. But the point of killing a penalty isn’t for it to be easy. It’s supposed to be a punishment, not a minor inconvenience.

4. Make all powerplays 4-on-3.

A lot of people would like to see all the powerplays last the full two minutes. I like that idea, but then I looked into a bit more and realized it wouldn’t make a huge difference. Why not? Well, let’s do a little math because everyone loves that!

There were 1,466 power play goals scored this season. That means the NHL’s 31 teams averaged about 47 power play goals this season. That means each team on average had 47 of their power plays end early. So, if the full two-minute rule were in effect, they’d get about 50 more minutes with the man advantage assuming they scored their goals with an average of one minute left on the penalty.

That’s the equivalent of an extra 25 powerplays per team per season. The average conversion rate on the PP is about 20%. 20% of 25 is five. Therefore, each team would average five more powerplay goals per season if players were forced to serve a full two minutes on each penalty.

That doesn’t excite me that much. Plus, my idea for actually calling stick infractions would give every team way more than 25 extra powerplays next season. You want Brad Marchand to think twice before punching an unsuspecting opponent in the back of the head well after the whistle? Well, first, you institute the head contact penalty, and then you give that team a 4-on-3 power play.

Overtimes have become far more exciting since it was changed to 3-on-3. An overtime powerplay makes that 4-on-3 and as often as not, the team converts on that powerplay to win the game. We want more goals, we need more 4-on-3 to get them.

3. Get rid of the salary cap floor

Let me preface this one with a couple of things. First, I like math more than you do so there’s going to be more, sorry. Second, I don’t hate Gary Bettman as much as you do but I can’t understand why he doesn’t do this.

Okay, I don’t feel sorry for NHL players who on average make about $3.5 million per year. Most of them do amazing things with that money and don’t ask for publicity. The number of charities that have benefited from National Hockey League players is unfathomable, so I’m all for these guys making as much money as they can.

And they make a ton of money. But they complain an awful lot about escrow, which is basically a clawback on a portion of their salary, sometimes as much as 15%. It stems from the collective bargaining agreement that sees the NHL players and the owners share NHL revenues 50-50.

The problem is, players agree to their contracts before the season starts, but the league doesn’t know how much revenue it generates until the end of the season. So they make projections at the start of the year based on player salaries and determine the players are in line to make more than 50% of projected revenue.

In comes escrow, which is a chunk of the player’s salary that gets put aside until the end of the season. Then, they crunch the final numbers and decide how to split it to ensure players and owners both end up with half.

Players hate it, oh so much. Again, they aren’t starving so we shouldn’t start a gofundme page to support them, but it does sting.

I think there is a simple solution. Just get rid of the salary floor. Everyone knows what a salary cap is, it’s the maximum a team can spend on player salaries. The NHL also has a minimum amount teams can spend, known as the salary floor.

This is meant to keep teams competitive and allows them to qualify for revenue sharing. However, if teams were allowed to spend as little as possible, a few teams (looking at you Arizona and Florida) would drastically reduce spending. That sucks for the fans of those teams. Luckily, there are no fans of those teams.

Spending would go down quite a bit, but those teams can’t draw flies, so revenue would remain fairly static. Hence, escrow comes down because there are fewer teams finding ways to spend $70 million on player salaries.

2. No line changes on whistles.

Okay, I need to preface this one a bit as well. I ref relatively low levels of hockey which has me out of the house many nights and I also have a nine-month-old daughter. This means the evenings I actually am home, I’m probably busy when the puck drops on a lot of games.

Now, I can’t miss the game so I record it and watch it when I can. This has led to a minor obsession with “wasted time” in a hockey game. By that I just mean when a whistle occurs, I know exactly how long it will be until they drop the puck and I fast forward the recording for that amount of time.

I’ve come to the conclusion that if teams were not allowed to change lines after a whistle, games would be reduced by an average of 22 minutes. Don’t believe me? Either take my word or listen to more math. If you didn’t want the math option, skip the next two paragraphs.

Montreal Canadiens players took 4,932 face-offs lasts season. That is just over 60 per game. Not every single whistle requires a line change but the majority of them do. There are exceptionally long delays after goals obviously and penalties, but on average, the puck hits the ice 35 seconds after the whistle.

So it takes 35 seconds of downtime, on 60 occasions per game. That’s 35 minutes of downtime per hockey game waiting for the puck to drop. When teams don’t change, the average time until the puck drops is just 20 seconds. This could be reduced even further if the referee doesn’t need to do a line change procedure.

Not only would this drastically cut down the amount of time games take, but it would also increase offense because defensive players would be stuck on the ice for long periods of time. More mistakes by tired defenders lead to more scoring chances, which leads to more goals, which leads to more excitement per hockey game.

More excitement in less time I might add. I like that math.

1. Eliminate restricted free agency

Take a quick look at the number of excellent players that are restricted free agents this summer. You’ll see a plethora of superstars like Mitch Marner, Brayden Point, Mikko Rantanen, Matthew Tkachuk, Jacob Trouba, Sebastien Aho, Kyle Connor, Timo Meier, Brock Boeser, and Patrik Laine.

The list actually goes on, it’s incredible. It’s hard to imagine all those players are free agents at the same time. Now, imagine they were actually free. Like, free to sign wherever they want to for next season. Don’t tell me they already can, because the restrictions on restricted free agents are so strict no one dares to approach them from another team.

If someone actually wanted to steal one of the top RFA’s like Marner or Point this summer from their current teams, it would cost them four first-round draft picks. Four!! That’s absurd. The Pittsburgh Penguins would trade Sidney Crosby to your favorite team tomorrow morning if they offered four first-round picks.

It won’t happen. We will not see an offer sheet of that significance. That’s why calling them free agents is absurd. I think they should let them be actual free agents. Yeah, three years into the league and bam, you’re on the open market.

This would lead to a few things, all of which are exciting for fans. First of all, superstars would be hitting the open market at an unprecedented rate. It’s always fun for fans to speculate on who their favorite teams may sign in the offseason.

Second, drafting would still be important of course, but rosters would turnover quickly, and the best way to build a team may be through free agency, so draft picks would be dealt more frequently than Pokemon cards.

Sure, your favorite team would lose a top draft pick every now and then at the age of 21. That would sting. However, they would also sign awesome players that your most hated team drafted three years ago and that would be amazing.