Holy (potential) rule changes, Batman!

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2010/08/06/sp-nhl-research-camp.html?ref=rss

Too many to mention all. Unfortunately the article does not conveniently list them all. I'll try to, from memory:
- bigger crease
- wider blue lines
- line-change zone (I assume a "safe" area near the bench where you cannot be called for too many men)
- center gets to pick his opponent on a face off violation
- no touch icing (about friggin' time)
- no icing while short-handed (don't like that one)
- no line-change on offside
- 4-on-4, 3-on-3 and 2-on-2 OT before shootout

You guys know what to do. Have at it.

I don't understand the wider blue lines... do they mean thicker lines? Or moving the lines back further to increase the offensive zone?

No touch icing will save a lot of heartache and injury. But when they say no icing short handed, do they mean the team on the man advantage can also ice the puck? That's weird... so the defending short-handed team creates an odd man rush and has the PP team on their heels and then they ice it and the tired short handed team has no relief? So much for rewarding hard work.

The centers are just going to choose the defenceman for the draw won't they?

No line changes for an off side I get - it's almost like a delay of game since it can be avoided most times.

Also sounds like if they want to do 3 rounds of OT that they don't like the SO.

And the safe zone for lien changes is good if you are a Sens fan whose team committed likely a league leading violations in that category.

2-on-2 in OT would be hilarious.

No icing when shorthanded is silly, don't line that. The rest have some merit.

Would the line change zone be a marked area on the ice? Not sure how that would work.

Dash wrote:I don't understand the wider blue lines... do they mean thicker lines? Or moving the lines back further to increase the offensive zone?

No touch icing will save a lot of heartache and injury. But when they say no icing short handed, do they mean the team on the man advantage can also ice the puck? That's weird... so the defending short-handed team creates an odd man rush and has the PP team on their heels and then they ice it and the tired short handed team has no relief? So much for rewarding hard work.

The centers are just going to choose the defenceman for the draw won't they?

No line changes for an off side I get - it's almost like a delay of game since it can be avoided most times.

Also sounds like if they want to do 3 rounds of OT that they don't like the SO.

And the safe zone for lien changes is good if you are a Sens fan whose team committed likely a league leading violations in that category.

Wider blue lines is just that. They are thicker, coming in towards centre ice more. It actually increases the rink size (Edit: I should say playing area), because the offensive zone becomes bigger as the puck needs to travel further to get out of the zone. Coming into the offensive zone doesn't change because the side of the blue line closest to the defensive zone doesn't change. Hopefully that explains it, as I understand it. This idea was floated around a few years ago I remember.

It's a nice way to give the players more space in the offensive zone, while keep the actual rinks the same. I don't know how receptive some teams would be to having to do renos to increase rink size. This is a great idea imo.

shabbs wrote:Would the line change zone be a marked area on the ice? Not sure how that would work.

My thinking is it would be a rectangle of other-color ice near the bench gates. As long as the guy you are replacing is in that "safe zone" you can jump on the ice, and even if the puck touches the other guy it's not an automatic.

SpezDispenser wrote:No icing when shorthanded is silly, don't line that. The rest have some merit.

Back in the day the powerplay would go for the full two minutes, regardless of any goals scored, and icing rules were the same as during even-handed situations. So this isn't really silly. Not that I disagree with you -- this is not a rule I want rescinded.

wprager wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:No icing when shorthanded is silly, don't line that. The rest have some merit.

Back in the day the powerplay would go for the full two minutes, regardless of any goals scored, and icing rules were the same as during even-handed situations. So this isn't really silly. Not that I disagree with you -- this is not a rule I want rescinded.

Those were the days the Habs would put up 5 or 6 goals on a single power play alone. Man... crazy times.

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:No icing when shorthanded is silly, don't line that. The rest have some merit.

Back in the day the powerplay would go for the full two minutes, regardless of any goals scored, and icing rules were the same as during even-handed situations. So this isn't really silly. Not that I disagree with you -- this is not a rule I want rescinded.

Those were the days the Habs would put up 5 or 6 goals on a single power play alone. Man... crazy times.

With Gonchar and Karlsson on the back end, our powerplay will be ... nah, I can't finish that sentence; not even with Sens-colored glasses on.

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:No icing when shorthanded is silly, don't line that. The rest have some merit.

Back in the day the powerplay would go for the full two minutes, regardless of any goals scored, and icing rules were the same as during even-handed situations. So this isn't really silly. Not that I disagree with you -- this is not a rule I want rescinded.

Those were the days the Habs would put up 5 or 6 goals on a single power play alone. Man... crazy times.

With Gonchar and Karlsson on the back end, our powerplay will be ... nah, I can't finish that sentence; not even with Sens-colored glasses on.

Dare to dream...

On the other hand, our powerplay will surely improve. Think about it -- we've got two of the league's best PP specialists in Gonchar and Kovalev. They may not be as young as they used to be, but we are not talking about speedskating or barreling your way through 220 lbs defensemen. Kovalev can still dangle with the best of them, and Gonchar's accuracy in passing and getting the puck on-goal have not decreased.

I think this has all the makings of a new thread.

Another possible change (not a rule change, per se) is the addition of the yellow line 3" behind the goal line. In overhead reviews, if any part of the puck touches the line it's in:

wprager wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2010/08/06/sp-nhl-research-camp.html?ref=rss

Too many to mention all. Unfortunately the article does not conveniently list them all. I'll try to, from memory:
- bigger crease
- wider blue lines
- line-change zone (I assume a "safe" area near the bench where you cannot be called for too many men)
- center gets to pick his opponent on a face off violation
- no touch icing (about friggin' time)
- no icing while short-handed (don't like that one)
- no line-change on offside
- 4-on-4, 3-on-3 and 2-on-2 OT before shootout

You guys know what to do. Have at it.

I friggin love this idea. I absolutely hate shootouts (there would basically be none if this rule was in place).

A Spezza back pass would NOT be good on a 2 on 2 though, lol.

Big Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2010/08/06/sp-nhl-research-camp.html?ref=rss

Too many to mention all. Unfortunately the article does not conveniently list them all. I'll try to, from memory:
- bigger crease
- wider blue lines
- line-change zone (I assume a "safe" area near the bench where you cannot be called for too many men)
- center gets to pick his opponent on a face off violation
- no touch icing (about friggin' time)
- no icing while short-handed (don't like that one)
- no line-change on offside
- 4-on-4, 3-on-3 and 2-on-2 OT before shootout

You guys know what to do. Have at it.

I friggin love this idea. I absolutely hate shootouts (there would basically be none if this rule was in place).

A Spezza back pass would NOT be good on a 2 on 2 though, lol.

Who says Spezza would still be on the ice?