3 rule changes the NHL consider implementing in the future
Last week, general managers from all 32 NHL teams met to discuss potential rule changes, but there are quite a few more changes that must be discussed.
Last week, the NHL’s general managers met and discussed potential rule changes, with one in particular being immediately implemented. Whether you agree with the new change and potential changes is up to you and completely subjective, but there were also quite a few that, at least to my knowledge, went undiscussed.
We can all make up our own twists and turns to the current rulebook, as the NHL, like every sport, owns its fair share of controversial rules. For example, fighting in hockey is rather polarizing, but I’m not here to talk to you today about whether it should or shouldn’t be taken out of the game.
Instead, I’m presenting three rules that I have long wanted to see either added, changed, or completely taken out. Again, what you will read in the following slides is just my subjective opinion and nothing more.
NHL should at least seriously consider changing a few rules
I thought about some of what the league did not discuss at last week’s meeting and brainstormed some “unproposed rules” that may never be implemented. However, they would add a level of fairness to the game and should also raise the stakes, especially the first proposed rule change that I’ve wanted to see implemented for years.
Another potential change addresses a hot topic that just about every hockey fan has their own opinion on. The third one is a rule that I’ve never really agreed with since its implementation, and I also added a unique twist to it that could change the trajectory of a game based on a particular choice a coach would face.
So, which rules would add a level of higher stakes to the game and, hopefully, make it even more entertaining than it already is? Here are three changes the NHL should implement sometime down the road and how they would add another level of excitement, plus an increased risk-reward factor.
Power play and penalty kill
Something about the man advantage I’ve never liked is that a power play is negated if a team scores at 6-on-5 during the delay portion of a minor penalty. Instead, even if a team with six skaters on the ice scores, why not still give them the power play and have a chance to go up by two scores, as opposed to this only being the case with double minors?
That alone would be fun enough, and again, it adds that layer of risk. Another rule change in this realm could be if a team scores within the first minute of a power play, they are ‘awarded’ to stay on the man advantage for the following minute.
Meanwhile, if a team scores a short-handed goal, the power play is nullified - somethingsimilar to what we see in the PWHL - and the two teams return to full strength. This would award a penalty kill unit while the team on the man advantage would not get the benefit of 5-on-4, adding a level of accountability for them, too.
In the case of a double-minor, if the short-handed team scores in the first two minutes of the penalty, then why not turn the double-minor into a minor? Further, if a short-handed team scores in the final two minutes of a double-minor, then let both teams return to full strength.
Overtime rules are still not up to par
Ask any hockey fan about the current 3-on-3 overtime rules, and you will get a plethora of unique opinions. I’ve always liked the suggestions of making 3-on-3 overtime more like basketball, where teams would be charged for a “backcourt violation” or even a certain number of seconds for the puck to cross into the offensive zone.
We could do this in one of two ways: Either reward the non-offending team with a 4-on-3 power play, or reward them with a faceoff in the offensive zone. Further, only the non-offending team would be allowed to make a line change, while the offending team must continue with the players currently on the ice.
To add more intrigue, a thirty-second “possession clock” would also be a cool add. This would, through a maximum of five minutes of overtime, give each team a chance to possess the puck following a certain time frame.
Once the 30 seconds are up for Team A, a faceoff will ensue at the center dot, giving Team B a chance to possess the puck. Every 30 seconds, the puck could change, forcing teams to come up with a faster play to get a shot off to the net.
There would also be a higher likelihood the team possessing the puck makes a mistake and turns it over, which would reset the “possession clock.”
Modify the delay of game rule for losing challenges
The current rules call for a delay of game penalty if a team loses a coach’s challenge. This is a rule I was never on board with, as teams with weaker penalty kill units are at an immediate disadvantage and, therefore, a higher risk factor than those with strong units.
Instead of automatically charging teams losing a challenge a delay of game penalty, why not let them pick between the following: Roll with the two-minute delay of game, allow the opponent to try for a penalty shot, or lose what could be a valuable timeout?
In the event of subsequent challenges, here is more intrigue: If a coach loses a second challenge, they cannot choose the same “penalty” as they did earlier. So if they lost a challenge and selected for their opponent to take a penalty shot, they must choose between delay of game or losing a timeout should they lose a subsequent challenge.
This adds more fairness to the game, and more intrigue, as a coach’s decision could change the entire scope of the contest. It may sound like a gimmick, but there is, nonetheless, quite a good deal of strategy involved.
feed