Instead of the shootout we have another period of OT with 2 pucks
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
45 points (97.9% liked)
Hockey
2550 readers
1 users here now
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
List of Team-Specific Communities:
Metropolitan Division
- Carolina Hurricanes
- Washington Capitals
- Columbus Blue Jackets
- New Jersey Devils
- New York Islanders
- New York Rangers
- Pittsburgh Penguins
- Philadelphia Flyers
Atlantic Division
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Montreal Canadiens
- Boston Bruins
- Ottawa Senators
- Tampa Bay Lightning
- Buffalo Sabres
- Detroit Red Wings
- Florida Panthers
Central Division
- Chicago Blackhawks
- Winnipeg Jets
- Nashville Predators
- Arizona Coyotes
- Dallas Stars
- St Louis Blues
- Minnesota Wild
- Colorado Avalanche
Pacific Division
- Los Angeles Kings
- Edmonton Oilers
- Calgary Flames
- Anaheim Ducks
- Vancouver Canucks
- San Jose Sharks
- Vegas Golden Knights
- Seattle Kraken
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
The number of OT periods is the number of additional pucks.
I'd like to combine this with the other guy's suggestion of having fewer players for each OT round.
Round four, 1v1 with four pucks, should go pretty quick
And both are glowing.
I'd bring back the old 1-8 seeding for the playoffs, seeing some of the best teams face off in round 1 or 2 sucks compared to the old method IMO.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It wouldn’t change much, but a defender clearing the puck over the glass should be treated the same as icing. If the team clears the puck over the glass before exiting their zone after the subsequent face off then call a Delay of Game.
I can’t stand the Delay of Game rule for accidental pucks over the glass, though. It doesn’t feel in the spirit of what Delay of Game means to me, at least not anymore than intentionally icing the puck.
Agreed. Even in the dead puck era it just didn't happen that often. Time to lighten the punishment
I think the big difference is the potential for injury.
Intentionall icing just sends the puck down the ice, intentional puck-over-the-glass could really hurt someone, especially if its a kid or an older person.
I think keeping it as a penalty makes sense to discourage its use as a tactic to relieve the pressure like you do with icing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm probably getting rid of the trapezoid. I'd love to see what Shestyorkin could do without that limitation.
Any call is reviewable, for any reason in the rulebook. You still go on a penalty if you lose, but you can call anything. The difference is, the decision is made by the on-ice refs in under 2 minutes, without using slow-mo or pausing. If you can't see it in that time using regular speed, it should stand. Keep the game moving
Oh, and refs are now required to have after-game media availability. If they don't want that, they're welcome to retire
In this day and age, where sports are as much about betting as players, any league that DOESN'T put their referees in public display is just asking for manipulation and problems and any smart fan (and owner) should see red flags.
Imagine a league where the refs are subject to public criticism... Doesn't mean a bad job gets fired, but they should drive more training and classes to get consistency right (nobody should lose their job unless they really can't cut it).
Anyway, that won't happen. They don't care about the fans, they care about the revenue.
Oh, and I'd like some sort of positive reinforcement for sportsmanship. I saw cricket does something like that. So give each ref one standings point per year (as an example) and let them award it when they see something especially good. They know the written and unwritten rules, it'd be cool to let them reward dudes that play the right way. And imagine the crowd and both teams going nuts for some 4th liner getting a Lady Byng Point or whatever.
I like this one
Add another ref who sits just off the ice, and is a "video ref" looking at as many screens as he chooses, of the available cameras, and has the power to whistle his own penalties or overturn the penalties from the ref on the ice. There's no reason to deliberately not use the technology available to us rather than the randomness of whether something happens to get challenged for video review.
Ya know, I've always wondered how the fuck this isn't a thing already. It's honestly a bit bizarre, if you ask me.
Adapting someone else's football review plan for hockey. There should be one ref, and one team advocate for each team, if 2/3 agree on a penalty/review then it happens. The window for agreement needs to be 2-3 seconds at the most. All should be trained to some degree in watching replays, and how various angles change perspective, because video review is a totally separate skill from real time refereeing.
All these suggestions are DUMB!
2 goalies in each net, but only one set of equipment. They have to share.
Institute review of embellishment/diving after games and penalize with 10 minute misconducts to suspension for the following game. It's unsportsmanlike like dirty hits and should be treated as such IMO.
Nobody named Bettman allowed in / around / watching the NHL
Drop the shootout in OT and replace it with the following
- 5 mins of 4v4 (as it is now)
- 5 mins of 3v3
- 5 mins of 2v2
- 5 mins of 1v1
- if still no one scored, then the goalies meet in center ice for a good ole goalie fight. Winner of the fight wins the game for their team.
Perhaps we can arm home goalie with nets and a Trident, visitor gets spear and shield.
...But refs have to stand in a circle around the combatants and hold hands.
OT is currently 3v3 in the NHL
Dumb mistake on my part
Goalie goals are worth 2
If the winning team commits a penalty/s in the last two minutes, the game doesn't end until the penalty/ies are over.
It requires that they be within a drawable margin of course.
I actually really like this idea in theory. It's far too easy for a team to make a game saving play in the final seconds by slashing the stick away, or taking a guys legs. This would actually allow some pushback in those instances. I say we make it happen.
Pretty glaring oversight in the current rules, isn't it?
Get rid of Shootout. 3 on 3 for as long as it takes.
make the nets wider by just a few inches. Increases scoring, goalies can keep there armor. what do we lose?
Remove the instigator penalty.
Or
Restrict reviews for disallowing goals to the period 3 seconds prior to the goal.
I agree with the limit on offside goal calls. If you can't stop them by 15-30 seconds then it didn't materially affect play. None of this 'oh 2 minutes ago one dude didn't grag his leg enough, no goal'
Removing the instigator would lead to a lot of guys just straight up getting jumped, no?
It more just allows fighting to happen more, it's less about preventing players getting jumped, and more about making fighting expensive to a team based on a highly subjective call by the refs.
Move the Nordiques back to Quebec.
Can we have second Nordiques
Get rid of the offside rule. It'll make the defending team have to defend space instead of just a line. Should create more rush chances.
I think it would lead to more 4v4 with someone waiting by the goal for a quick shot opportunity more than rushes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Eliminate the loser point and have the records as W-L only, with goal differential/head-to-head as the tie breakers.
I'd rather personally see the 3-point system like exists in Europe for this. At least the whole system would be zero-sum at that point.
Plus the last 10 minutes of every game won't be so bloody conservative. Teams will want to go for it
load more comments
(1 replies)
Can you please explain how that works?
3 points for a win in regulation, 2 for a win in OT, 1 for a loss in OT, and 0 for a loss in regulation. Because the OT winner would lose a point compared to winning in regulation, you wouldn't have games that are suddenly worth more, compared to the current system where a game yields a total of 3 points if it goes to OT, and 2 if it doesn't.
I believe it's basically what hock already has, but regulation wins are three points.
As far as I know giving regulation wins 3 points to keep number of points possible per game constant would never have changed the standings in a meaningful way.
view more: next ›