NHL New Rule Discusssions/New Schedule Format

[jbmagic]

Some of the rule changes that will take effect for the 2005-06 NHL season:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=131130&hubName=nhl

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.



i would love them to let them continue the power play the full time regardless if someone scores.

[sovereignstar]

ooo, you're sure to get some scrutiny for this one.

[rkmsuf]

any sport that has a mock lottery needs something.

[Johnny93g]

any sport that has a mock lottery needs something.

guess the nba is pretty screwed up then, cuz they have lots of mock lotteries in the days leading upto the actual lottery

[JeeberD]

- Bringing back tag-up offside

What exactly is tag-up offsides?

[rkmsuf]

guess the nba is pretty screwed up then, cuz they have lots of mock lotteries in the days leading upto the actual lottery


I've never seen a mock lottery.

A mock draft yes. A prediction of what order the ping pong balls come out...never.

Show me the people reading lots of mock lotteries.

Hold on...I'm doing a mock lottery for tonites pick 4.....3 7 2 5 will be the numbers.

[JeeberD]

I've seen NBA lottery simulators before where you press a button and it randomly spits out a draft order...

[jbmagic]

What exactly is tag-up offsides?


http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/18801


Tag-up offside rule: enables players already inside the offensive zone before the puck crosses the blue line to peel back and touch the blue line to become onside. Less time spent in the neutral zone regrouping to avoid offside.

Current offside rule: Players cannot pass the puck across two lines on the ice. Players cannot pass to a player in the offensive zone from outside the offensive zone.

Infraction of the offside rule leads to a face-off inside the defensive zone of the team at fault.

The tag-up rule has been blamed for what some see as the diminished skill level among defencemen who need not worry about puck handling in the neutral zone -- they can simply dump the puck and wait as their forwards ''tag-up'' and play continues. However, in recent years, with the neutral zone trap defensive system much more rampant, this rule is suggested to increase offense and help eliminate the trap.

[bronconick]

What exactly is tag-up offsides?
If you're across the line, you can just skate back across the blue line and back in and attack on the forecheck, instead of giving the other team a free out to the blueline.

[rkmsuf]

I've seen NBA lottery simulators before where you press a button and it randomly spits out a draft order...


I'm coming out with my randomly generated NHL mock draft in a few days.

The fans should love it.

[gstelmack]

I've seen NBA lottery simulators before where you press a button and it randomly spits out a draft order...
This year one of the sports pages (ESPN or CNNSI, I forget which) had an interactive mock draft page that would re-run the lottery, and then re-do the mock draft based on the results of the mock lottery.

[rkmsuf]

This year one of the sports pages (ESPN or CNNSI, I forget which) had an interactive mock draft page that would re-run the lottery, and then re-do the mock draft based on the results of the mock lottery.


Now that makes sense. This "I think Vancover's one ping pong ball will prevail" is poppycock.

I can see saying X team as X chance of getting #1, but to actually predict it in a "mock lottery" format is teh suck.

Sorry for the rant. Hockey may resume now.

[jbmagic]

the shootout is in place now.

i love that new rule.

[bob]

the shootout is in place now.

Does this mean no overtime, or shootout after the first overtime?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Does this mean no overtime, or shootout after the first overtime?
Shoout out follows the 5 minute 4 on 4 OT.

[bob]

Wonder if all these rule changes will be in the new console games this year. I'm not holding my breath....

No way the CBA changes are there.

[jbmagic]

Does this mean no overtime, or shootout after the first overtime?

- 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;.

[TazFTW]

- A team that ices the puck cannot make a line change prior to the ensuing face-off;I don't like this rule. You're going to see some really tired players on the ice, which could lead to an increased amount of injuries.

[Maple Leafs]

Wonder if all these rule changes will be in the new console games this year. I'm not holding my breath....

No way the CBA changes are there.
I was wondering this too.

More importantly, will the new rosters be in there?

[sabotai]

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

I like this

- Reduction in size of goalie equipment;

Thumbs down!

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

Wait and see how this works out

- 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;

BOO!!! 5 minutes is too short if they have to have a winner. Why not extend it to 10 or a full 20 minutes of 4 on 4 before shootout? 5 minutes just isn't enough (I've never thought it was enough, especially now if they have to have a winner

- No-touch icing;

Bout time. Never made sense to me to not have this rule

- Bringing back tag-up offside;

Wait and see about this one

- Move nets back two feet towards end boards;

mmmm

- Reducing the size of the neutral zone;

Another wait and see but my initial reaction is negative

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

Good rule for real life, but that would suck for my ESPN NHL strat. :D

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

I hope this makes it into the console games!

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

Can't really argue with that I guess. I don't know exactly what problem they are trying to solve though. Not sure there were that many fights at the end of games that were instigated. Perhaps trying to stop end of game brawls? That would actually kind of suck since when they happened, since they are rare, they were fun!

- Zero tolerance on interference, hooking and holding/obstruction

*hit the Mad Money button that plays "HAAAAA-LLELUIAH!" But how many times have we heard that one before?

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

Thumbs up

Overall: If they are trying to increase scoring, they did it right. Instead of increasing the net (and hopefully they don't decrease the goulie pad size too much), they changed some things that simply help offenses that have talent and hurt defense without talent. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer situation (instead it's a good situation). In other words, garbage defenses won't be able to do things like shoot the puck into the crowd or intentially ice when they are tired in order to get out of trouble. The rules don't hurt the good defensive players and they don't help the bad offensive players. That's really what I wanted. I would really have hated it if all they did was change the rules in a way they globally inflated scores (although the reduction in goalie pad size comes close to doing that).

I just hope the shootout goals don't get added to the final score or count for regular goal stats.

[sabotai]

I don't like this rule. You're going to see some really tired players on the ice, which could lead to an increased amount of injuries.
I like it since it will stop players from intentially icing the puck because they are tired. Get the puck down the ice the right way. Besides, icing doesn't happen that much anyway.

[Johnny93g]

I've never seen a mock lottery.

A mock draft yes. A prediction of what order the ping pong balls come out...never.

Show me the people reading lots of mock lotteries.

Hold on...I'm doing a mock lottery for tonites pick 4.....3 7 2 5 will be the numbers.

espn does it every year on their website....i remember another site doing it, cant remember which one though

[JonInMiddleGA]

Good Lord, what a load of crap. Why don't they just get rid of goalies altogether, it looks like they've decided to go after the Arena Football crowd with some of this stuff.

If I want to see 13-11 games, I'll either watch low minors hockey (a lot cheaper) or the All-Star game (cause once a year is about all of that I can stand).

[korme]

No more ties. That is certainly a drastic NHL change.

[jbmagic]

NHL SCHEDULE FEATURES
RIVALRY-BASED FORMAT

NEW YORK (July 22, 2005) - The National Hockey League is returning with an exciting new regular-season schedule format that emphasizes division rivalries.

Format

* Each club will play eight games against each of its four division rivals (32 total).

* Each club will play four games against each of the 10 non-division clubs in its conference (40 total).

* Each club will play 10 inter-conference games, hosting one game each against all five clubs from a designated division and traveling for one game each against all five clubs from a different division. For the 2005-06 season, Northeast Division clubs will host the Pacific Division and visit the Northwest; Atlantic Division clubs will host the Northwest and visit the Central; and Southeast Division clubs will host the Central and visit the Pacific. Division vs. division assignments will rotate annually.

Features

* The new schedule strengthens division rivalries; division rivals played each other six times under the previous schedule.

* The new schedule maintains integrity of the conference-based playoff format; each club continues to play 40 games against non-division, intra-conference opponents.

* The new schedule allows for continued exposure of teams and star players from the other conference.

* The new schedule allows for more compelling television matchups, thanks to the combination of stronger division rivalries with continued intra- and inter-conference play.

[Pumpy Tudors]

About the teams not being able to make a line change prior to face-off after icing the puck, icing the puck leads to a face-off anyway unless... OH GOD.

Are they seriously going to implement this against shorthanded teams? It's not penalty enough that the team is a man down, but now they have to try to get the puck and skate past center ice before dumping the puck to the other end? Their four guys are supposed to get the puck past five guys all the way up to center ice? If this is the way the league is planning to handle power plays, they ought to at least let teams dress more players for each game so they can have extra players dedicated just to the PK unit. As it looks now, the PK guys are going to die out there.

I can hear it in the huddle now: "Don't take any bad penalties, kid, or our defensemen are going to drop dead!"

[JeffR]

About the teams not being able to make a line change prior to face-off after icing the puck, icing the puck leads to a face-off anyway unless... OH GOD.

Are they seriously going to implement this against shorthanded teams?

No, icing the puck while shorthanded is still allowed. There won't be any faceoff in that case, play continues. But if you ice it while you're at even strength, the guys who were on the ice when you iced it have to *stay* on the ice. No more icing to get a line change if you're tired.

[Johnny93g]

No, icing the puck while shorthanded is still allowed. There won't be any faceoff in that case, play continues. But if you ice it while you're at even strength, the guys who were on the ice when you iced it have to *stay* on the ice. No more icing to get a line change if you're tired.

I like that idea, it will lead to mistakes in the defensive zone and more goals...

[JeffR]

- No-touch icing;

That's wrong, it'll still be touch icing. The change is, if the linesman rules it was an attempted pass that missed its target and went down the ice, it's not icing anymore.

That, plus the elimination of two-line passes, should mean more a lot more tries for the long pass leading to a breakaway.

[Pumpy Tudors]

No, icing the puck while shorthanded is still allowed. There won't be any faceoff in that case, play continues. But if you ice it while you're at even strength, the guys who were on the ice when you iced it have to *stay* on the ice. No more icing to get a line change if you're tired.
Ah, I get it. This is OK to me. I just misunderstood the wording.

[jbmagic]

That's wrong, it'll still be touch icing. The change is, if the linesman rules it was an attempted pass that missed its target and went down the ice, it's not icing anymore.

That, plus the elimination of two-line passes, should mean more a lot more tries for the long pass leading to a breakaway.


it was listed on
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=131130&hubName=nhl

[Joe Canadian]

I love the new rules...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Good Lord, what a load of crap. Why don't they just get rid of goalies altogether, it looks like they've decided to go after the Arena Football crowd with some of this stuff.

If I want to see 13-11 games, I'll either watch low minors hockey (a lot cheaper) or the All-Star game (cause once a year is about all of that I can stand).
I don't think any of the rules changes are that drastic. If they had changed the sizes of the nets I would be right there with you calling this Arena Football like. Shaving a few inches here and there off goalie equipment is fine. The stuff had gotten way out of control. Take a look at Garth Snow and Giguere and compare what they look like to what any goalie in the mid-to-late 80's looked like in goal. It's shocking.

The rest of the changes are really more cosmetic than anything. Tweaking here and there. I am fine with it. Moving the goaline back is only undoing what they did a few years back.

As for 10 or 20 minute OTs in the regular season, that way lies madness. Madness. That's a lot of extra hockey to be played over the course of an 82 game regular season that's far too long as it is. No one wants regular season games ending at 11:00 pm. Five minutes is fine as is the shoot-out. They've kept the play-off system as is and that's all that matters.

[RPI-Fan]

Wait, so are these official rule changes, or did I totally miss the boat? It sounded like Shanahan and Campbell explained why they shot down no-touch???

Also, they didn't mention the no line changes after icing (which I happen to love) -- where is the confirmation on this??

~rpi-fan

[RPI-Fan]

Good Lord, what a load of crap. Why don't they just get rid of goalies altogether, it looks like they've decided to go after the Arena Football crowd with some of this stuff.

If I want to see 13-11 games, I'll either watch low minors hockey (a lot cheaper) or the All-Star game (cause once a year is about all of that I can stand).

I think you're going overboard here... the goalies can still play the puck very liberally, and their equipment is smaller. The big thing is, pretty much all of the changes are aimed at increasing the flow of the game, and the only one that has a direct effect on the shooting percentage is equipment, which was out of hand.

Tag-up, obstruction, etc. are all aimed at improving the play to increase CHANCES, not necessarily goals. That, in tandem with the now somewhat reasonable goaile equipment should lead to a better game.

~rpi-fan

[JeffR]

it was listed on NHL.com

NHL.com now says "'Touch' icing will remain the practice, although the Linesman will have discretion to wave off apparent icing infractions if they are deemed the result of an attempted pass. Providing the discretion to the Linesman also should have the effect of reducing the number of situations in which a race for the puck might result in an injury to a player."

[Draft Dodger]

it was listed on NHL.com

from NHL.com


"Touch" icing will remain the practice, although the Linesman will have discretion to wave off apparent icing infractions if they are deemed the result of an attempted pass. Providing the discretion to the Linesman also should have the effect of reducing the number of situations in which a race for the puck might result in an injury to a player

too bad. would have liked to see touch icing go away

[Draft Dodger]

or, what JeffR said...

[JeffR]

Wait, so are these official rule changes, or did I totally miss the boat? It sounded like Shanahan and Campbell explained why they shot down no-touch???

Also, they didn't mention the no line changes after icing (which I happen to love) -- where is the confirmation on this??

http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/rules_changes072205.html

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think you're going overboard here... the goalies can still play the puck very liberally, and their equipment is smaller. The big thing is, pretty much all of the changes are aimed at increasing the flow of the game, and the only one that has a direct effect on the shooting percentage is equipment, which was out of hand.

Tag-up, obstruction, etc. are all aimed at improving the play to increase CHANCES, not necessarily goals. That, in tandem with the now somewhat reasonable goaile equipment should lead to a better game.

~rpi-fan
You have spoken many truths in this post. A good summary of the reasoning behind the rules changes.

[Draft Dodger]

I think you're going overboard here... the goalies can still play the puck very liberally, and their equipment is smaller. The big thing is, pretty much all of the changes are aimed at increasing the flow of the game, and the only one that has a direct effect on the shooting percentage is equipment, which was out of hand.

Tag-up, obstruction, etc. are all aimed at improving the play to increase CHANCES, not necessarily goals. That, in tandem with the now somewhat reasonable goaile equipment should lead to a better game.

~rpi-fan

he's from middle Georgia. he doesn't even belong in this thread to begin with.

/yeah, I'm from Barstow. so what?
:p

[jbmagic]

Wait, so are these official rule changes, or did I totally miss the boat? It sounded like Shanahan and Campbell explained why they shot down no-touch???

Also, they didn't mention the no line changes after icing (which I happen to love) -- where is the confirmation on this??

~rpi-fan

there official the ones i post on the first post.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=131130&hubName=nhl


i guess there wrong with no touch icings.

[Joe Canadian]

too bad. would have liked to see touch icing go away

Problem with bringing in both no-touch icing & no red line, is that the amount of missed passes you'll get will dramaticlly increase whistles from icing.

[RPI-Fan]

I abso-freaking-lutely LOVE the no line changes after icing!!!

[Draft Dodger]

so, what's the deal with the player buyouts that are about to begin. are they going to get their full salary? or a percentage? if they sign with a new team, do they lose any buyout cash?

I'm misconfused.

[Draft Dodger]

Problem with bringing in both no-touch icing & no red line, is that the amount of missed passes you'll get will dramaticlly increase whistles from icing.

good point, I guess.

[RPI-Fan]

so, what's the deal with the player buyouts that are about to begin. are they going to get their full salary? or a percentage? if they sign with a new team, do they lose any buyout cash?

I'm misconfused.

Thought that the players get 2/3's, and that for players with multi-year contracts, the years after 05-06 count against the cap.

Didn't hear about any restrictions on signing with new teams.

[jbmagic]

That's wrong, it'll still be touch icing. The change is, if the linesman rules it was an attempted pass that missed its target and went down the ice, it's not icing anymore.

That, plus the elimination of two-line passes, should mean more a lot more tries for the long pass leading to a breakaway.


ok thanks


looks like TSN.ca is wrong.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=131130&hubName=nhl

[Honolulu_Blue]

so, what's the deal with the player buyouts that are about to begin. are they going to get their full salary? or a percentage? if they sign with a new team, do they lose any buyout cash?

I'm misconfused.
The buyout costs 2/3s of the player's salary.

For example, a player's current contract (after the 24% roll back) gives him $3 million over the course of the next three years. So, $9 million it total.

A team can buy the player's contract out for 2/3 of that $9 million, or $6 million. The player gets the $6 million up front and that player's salary is off the team's books for good. It will not count against the cap.

A player who is bought out is now free to sign with any other team, for any amount (so long as it's under the proscribed 20% rule), other than the team who bought him out. For example, if Colorado bought out Blake's contract, he couldn't re-sign with Colorado. In fact, he can't play for Colorado at any time during the 05-06 season at all: not through trade, waivers, anything.

[jbmagic]

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?

[RPI-Fan]

...

A team can buy the player's contract out for 2/3 of that $9 million, or $6 million. The player gets the $6 million up front and that player's salary is off the team's books for good. It will not count against the cap.

...

I heard that multi-year buyouts DO count against the cap? Not sure that it's right, just wondering if you've heard definitely that what you said is correct (I think that hockeyrumors site was where I saw the multi-year thing -- but that Eklund guy has been dead-on lately, especially with the new schedule format).

[RPI-Fan]

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?

No.

[Honolulu_Blue]

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?
No.

[MikeVic]

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?

No.

[Pumpy Tudors]

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?No.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I heard that multi-year buyouts DO count against the cap? Not sure that it's right, just wondering if you've heard definitely that what you said is correct (I think that hockeyrumors site was where I saw the multi-year thing -- but that Eklund guy has been dead-on lately, especially with the new schedule format).
No, I haven't heard anything definitive, but everything I have ever read (never checked hockeyrumors) has said that if you buy a player out his contract is off the books. Though this rule only pertains to players who are bought out over the course of the next week or so.

I did hear that after this year, in fact, I think after the end of next week, buyouts will count against the cap, but because of special circumstances (the new CBA), the NHL is giving teams a sort of one time "get out of contract free" card.

[JeffR]

Problem with bringing in both no-touch icing & no red line, is that the amount of missed passes you'll get will dramaticlly increase whistles from icing.

Missed passes aren't icing anymore, though (depending on how liberal the linesmen are about making that call, I guess.)

[sovereignstar]

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?

I'm not sure exactly. Maybe someone else will be able to answer this for you.

[jbmagic]

I'm not sure exactly. Maybe someone else will be able to answer this for you.


they have 4 times :)

"NO"

[Easy Mac]

so if i get this correct:
soccer: shootouts are dumb, its not how the game is played.
college fb: the get it from the 25 yard line is dumb, thats not how the game is played.
pro football: coin flip is unfair and not how the game is played.
hockey: shootouts are awesome!

i don't think i understand the minds of sports fans.

[sabotai]

As for 10 or 20 minute OTs in the regular season, that way lies madness. Madness. That's a lot of extra hockey to be played over the course of an 82 game regular season that's far too long as it is. No one wants regular season games ending at 11:00 pm. Five minutes is fine as is the shoot-out
Well, first off, I disagree that no one wants games ending at 11:00pm. I for one wouldn't mind it. Just as long as they ended at 11pm so I could still watch Adult Swim. But an extra couple of minutes every once in awhile is "a lof of extra hockey"? Hardly.

Secondly, shootouts are teh suk. I HATE THEM! An extra 5 minutes in OT would make a lot of them not happen. The only good thing they do is eliminate teams playing for the tie, so now hopefully both teams will play to win in OT and the shootouts won't need to happen as much.

Which brings up a point. Now that there are no ties, do we need Points in the standings anymore? Are they keeping the 1 point for an OT Lose?

[sabotai]

so if i get this correct:
soccer: shootouts are dumb, its not how the game is played.
college fb: the get it from the 25 yard line is dumb, thats not how the game is played.
pro football: coin flip is unfair and not how the game is played.
hockey: shootouts are awesome!

i don't think i understand the minds of sports fans.
I don't either. If John Galt was here, he'd say that shootouts were gay!

[Honolulu_Blue]

so if i get this correct:
soccer: shootouts are dumb, its not how the game is played.
college fb: the get it from the 25 yard line is dumb, thats not how the game is played.
pro football: coin flip is unfair and not how the game is played.
hockey: shootouts are awesome!

i don't think i understand the minds of sports fans.
I can't speak to the football aspect, but there is a key difference between hockey and soccer. Hockey shootouts are awesome, well I wouldn't say "awesome", but perfectly acceptable, so long as they are limited to regular season games ONLY and follow some sort of overtime period. They should not be used to determine the winner of a play-off game. In soccer (and international hockey), World Champions are crowned as a result of a shootout. That's just not right.

The NHL got this one right, I think.

Does that help give you some insight into, at least, the mind of this sports fan?

[TazFTW]

Well, first off, I disagree that no one wants games ending at 11:00pm. I for one wouldn't mind it. Just as long as they ended at 11pm so I could still watch Adult Swim. But an extra couple of minutes every once in awhile is "a lof of extra hockey"? Hardly.

Secondly, shootouts are teh suk. I HATE THEM! An extra 5 minutes in OT would make a lot of them not happen. The only good thing they do is eliminate teams playing for the tie, so now hopefully both teams will play to win in OT and the shootouts won't need to happen as much.

Which brings up a point. Now that there are no ties, do we need Points in the standings anymore? Are they keeping the 1 point for an OT Lose?
2 pts for regulation or overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss.

[jbmagic]

Which brings up a point. Now that there are no ties, do we need Points in the standings anymore? Are they keeping the 1 point for an OT Lose?


yes

you win in regular regulation, overtime or shootout you get 2 points in the standing.


you lose in regulation you get no points

you lose in overtime or shootout you get 1 point.

[Joe Canadian]

Missed passes aren't icing anymore, though (depending on how liberal the linesmen are about making that call, I guess.)

I know, I was just telling DD why they went with a semi-NTI rule...

[Maple Leafs]

hockey: shootouts are awesome!
Most (but not all) hockey fans hate shootouts. They're similar to using a HR derby to decide a tied baseball game -- not a good or fair tie-breaker, but the sort of thing that generates excitement among casual non-fans.

Given that the NHL needs a lot of those casual and non-fans to come back, and given how damn boring the games are these days, shootouts are probably a necessary evil even though in theory it's a brutally stupid way to decide a game.

[vtbub]

Hate the shootout, would rather see a 10 minute OT with 4 on 4 the second five minutes.

The rest sounds good.

[bronconick]

A shootout isn't the end of the world, if they actually pull off opening the game up before that. If there are 25 solid scoring chances for each team because the obstruction is down, the number of games that end in ties is going to drop anyway. It's a lot easier to tie a game 1-1 when each team only gets 15 shots and 3 chances then tie a game 4-4 with 60 shots on net between the team and the goalies playing acrobaticly.

[Wolfpack]

That's unfortunate that they're still using points if every game is win/lose. It should be all-or-nothing. Use regulation wins vs. OT/SO wins as some sort of tiebreaker instead. It would also simplify the standings for the casual fan.

[klayman]

The shootout means that the less talented teams will play for the draw in hopes of winning the 50-50 shootout and the two points. Especially when it comes to overtime. Why take chances in the 5 min overtime, when you get at least a point, and an equal chance to win the game?

[Pumpy Tudors]

I just don't think that anything's wrong with tie games, but I'm not upset about the shootouts at all. As long as we don't have the scores like JonInMiddleGA mentioned (13-11 or something like that), I think everything will be fine.

[RPI-Fan]

I think the ideal system would have been:

3 points for regulation or overtime win, 2 points for shootout win, 1 for OT/SO loss, 0 for regulation loss.

But people would have whined about that being too complicated.

[ice4277]

I can't see how we are going to have crazy scores now. All the league will do is start to actually enforce rules on how big goalie equipment can be. The goalies have been over-protected the last few years. As was mentioned earlier, compare equipment from the 80's or early 90's to what some of them wear today and its sick.

As for the other rule changes, I'm for pretty much all of them, except penalty shots to decide tie games. Personally it feels pretty bush-league to me, but I can understand the mindset behind it, and it probably will be exciting, to some degree. But I still would rather have gone without them. Other than that, the league and players did a great job with most of the other new rules.

[Suicane75]

Until they put teams back in Winnipeg, Hartford and Quebec the NHL can kiss my big black ass.

CFB overtime and Hockey and Soccer shootouts can kiss my big black ass too.

[Joe Canadian]

Most (but not all) hockey fans hate shootouts.

I fell in this category before last season, I hated the idea of a shoot-out. But after seeing live throughout last years AHL season, I became a supporter... and I think ALOT of minds will change as well after the 2005-06 NHL season.

[ISiddiqui]

Most of the rules are good aside from the dumbass shootout rule. What the fuck is wrong with having a tie? Jeez, Louise! I also dislike the new 'trapezoid' where goalies can't handle the puck. Bah... let them handle it!

[General Mike]

I think the ideal system would have been:

3 points for regulation or overtime win, 2 points for shootout win, 1 for OT/SO loss, 0 for regulation loss.

But people would have whined about that being too complicated.

I agree. And I don't think it's too confusing.

[Maple Leafs]

Do we know for sure that both teams are guaranteed a point from a shootout? The last article I saw on the subject, before this week, said that it would be two points to the winner and zero to the loser regardless of how the game ended. I haven't seen anything in the coverage of the new rules that has it one way or the other, does anyone have a link?

[TazFTW]

http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/shootout072205.html

The League will award two points to a team that wins in regulation, overtime or the shootout; one point to a team that loses in overtime or the shootout; and no points to a team that loses in regulation.

[Maple Leafs]

Brutal.

[RPI-Fan]

Most of the rules are good aside from the dumbass shootout rule. What the fuck is wrong with having a tie? Jeez, Louise! I also dislike the new 'trapezoid' where goalies can't handle the puck. Bah... let them handle it!

If they were going to let goalies handle the puck freely, they absolutely HAD to become free game in terms of getting checked. And there was no way the NHLPA would let that happen, so I think you should consider yourself lucky that Brodeur will get to handle the puck in the trapezoid. Wouldn't surprise me if goalies soon can't handle the puck behind the goal line at all (soon = 06-07), and it would be a welcome change for me.

[Galaxy]

Will we see changes in the style and type of players teams will play and use?

Will their be less of a physical game, and more of an European-style game that foceses on speedsters and puckhandling more then physical play?

[Maple Leafs]

Will their be less of a physical game, and more of an European-style game that foceses on speedsters and puckhandling more then physical play?
For whatever it's worth, while elite-level international tourneys feature a lot of skill and speed, your average European league features even more clutch-and-grab garbage than the NHL.

[ISiddiqui]

If they were going to let goalies handle the puck freely, they absolutely HAD to become free game in terms of getting checked. And there was no way the NHLPA would let that happen, so I think you should consider yourself lucky that Brodeur will get to handle the puck in the trapezoid. Wouldn't surprise me if goalies soon can't handle the puck behind the goal line at all (soon = 06-07), and it would be a welcome change for me.
I still don't see what was wrong with the old rule with goalies. And I doubt they'll prohibit the goalies from handing behind the net entirely any point in the near future.

[RPI-Fan]

I still don't see what was wrong with the old rule with goalies. And I doubt they'll prohibit the goalies from handing behind the net entirely any point in the near future.

You don't see what was wrong with it? That they were given immunity when having control of the puck, while all 10 other players were fair game to be checked?

:rolleyes:

[Honolulu_Blue]

For whatever it's worth, while elite-level international tourneys feature a lot of skill and speed, your average European league features even more clutch-and-grab garbage than the NHL.

Exactly. People rarely seem to get this point. They always bring up the Olympics and how great that hockey is. They focus on the wider ice surface as being the reason. It's not. The reason is (1) it's the best players in the game on a handful of teams, so the talent and skill levels are off the charts and (2) it's the Olympics: they matter. A regular season NHL game with the wider ice-surface would not be all that different than a regular NHL game with the ice as it is now. I watched some games in Europe. While the games were less physical, they weren't necessarily more fluid/exciting, etc. I don't want a less physical NHL. I like the hitting and checking, but the clutching, grabbing and such should go.

It will be interesting to see if this gets accomplished. They tried before and there were like 12 power-plays per team per game. That wasn't much better.

[Joe Canadian]

For whatever it's worth, while elite-level international tourneys feature a lot of skill and speed, your average European league features even more clutch-and-grab garbage than the NHL.

BINGO. Many also seem to forget that the dreaded trap origniated in Europe, because of the large ice surfaces.

[Karim]

The only rule I dislike is limiting the goalie's ability to handle the puck. A goalie that can stickhandle is not only an asset defensively but offensively, being able to headman the puck when the other team makes a line change. It's removing skill from the game.

I guess teams playing New Jersey, Dallas and the Islanders will be the primary benficiaries. I guess it must have been working in the AHL or it wouldn't have been introduced. I'll have to see it for myself.

[ISiddiqui]

You don't see what was wrong with it? That they were given immunity when having control of the puck, while all 10 other players were fair game to be checked?

:rolleyes: And...?

There is a usually a price, when the goalie goes out of the net, he leaves the goal unguarded. A wrong pass, and it could be an incredibly easy goal.

Furthermore the old rule minimized the viability of playing a dump and chase style of hockey (a good thing, IMO).

I guess teams playing New Jersey, Dallas and the Islanders will be the primary benficiaries. Beneficiary?

[Honolulu_Blue]

And...?

There is a usually a price, when the goalie goes out of the net, he leaves the goal unguarded. A wrong pass, and it could be an incredibly easy goal.

Furthermore the old rule minimized the viability of playing a dump and chase style of hockey (a good thing, IMO).

Beneficiary?
I don't mind the dump & chase all that much.

Beneficiaries, yes. Broduer (NJ), Turco (Dal), and DePietro (NYI) are all goalies with very good stickhandling skills.

[ISiddiqui]

Beneficiaries, yes. Broduer (NJ), Turco (Dal), and DePietro (NYI) are all goalies with very good stickhandling skills.
Ah.. I wasn't aware of Turco's and DePietro's stickhandling. I just know their shot stopping.

[RPI-Fan]

And...?

There is a usually a price, when the goalie goes out of the net, he leaves the goal unguarded. A wrong pass, and it could be an incredibly easy goal.

Furthermore the old rule minimized the viability of playing a dump and chase style of hockey (a good thing, IMO).

Beneficiary?

My team is one that benefits from free stickhandling (Islanders) and I'm totally for the new rule.

The dump-and-chase style is an exciting offensive style if it is able to be executed. With goalies getting immunity, it wasn't viable. See, I would agree with you that there was a price to pay of leaving the net unguarded, however goalies rarely made terrible passes because they are under NO time pressure.

I'd be cool with letting goalie play the puck, as long as they were fair game to be checked. But to me, I don't think you should be able to have it both ways (no checking AND play the puck whenever).

[Solecismic]

Instead of shootouts, I think they should challenge each other to a Pillsbury Bake-Off to settle tied games.

Because that has about as much to do with hockey as a shootout.

I'll never consider soccer a sport worthy of any attention, because their grand prize - supposedly the biggest tournament in all of sports - is settled with a shootout. Call me when Brandy Chastain goes without the sports bra.

[JeffR]

Nah, they just need to incorporate something else into the shootout so the finesse teams don't have too much of an advantage: if it's tied after 3 shots, each team sends its goon out and they fight. First man down or cut loses. Now that's old-time hockey.

[ISiddiqui]

My team is one that benefits from free stickhandling (Islanders) and I'm totally for the new rule.

The dump-and-chase style is an exciting offensive style if it is able to be executed. With goalies getting immunity, it wasn't viable. See, I would agree with you that there was a price to pay of leaving the net unguarded, however goalies rarely made terrible passes because they are under NO time pressure.

I'd be cool with letting goalie play the puck, as long as they were fair game to be checked. But to me, I don't think you should be able to have it both ways (no checking AND play the puck whenever).
Eh.. I've ALWAYS hated dump and chase and thought it a product of an untalented team (ie, kind of like a trap for the offense - for teams that have a plan, it can be very nice, but a lot of teams just dump it because they can't bring it up otherwise). With tag up offsides and elimination of two line passes, I think it's a mistake to limit goalie stickhandling.

[ice4277]

One thing I am not very happy with is the new schedule format. Playing divisional rivals 8 times? C'mon, thats a few too many. Its especially ridiculous that over an 82-game season, teams will not even play 2/3 of the other conference. I hate baseball's unbalanced schedule and I am no fan of this one either.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Instead of shootouts, I think they should challenge each other to a Pillsbury Bake-Off to settle tied games.

Because that has about as much to do with hockey as a shootout.

I'll never consider soccer a sport worthy of any attention, because their grand prize - supposedly the biggest tournament in all of sports - is settled with a shootout. Call me when Brandy Chastain goes without the sports bra.

Now that's just silly. Though I would like to see teams have to invest salary cap space on a baking specialist. Perhaps they would replace the "enforcer."

Given that shootouts wont be used in the playoffs, I tolerate them.

[RPI-Fan]

One thing I am not very happy with is the new schedule format. Playing divisional rivals 8 times? C'mon, thats a few too many. Its especially ridiculous that over an 82-game season, teams will not even play 2/3 of the other conference. I hate baseball's unbalanced schedule and I am no fan of this one either.

I agree... I'm willing to give it a shot this one year, however, since it is an Olympic season (schedule is compressed). I would much rather it be 6 games verse division rivals, and play the other conference more.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I agree... I'm willing to give it a shot this one year, however, since it is an Olympic season (schedule is compressed). I would much rather it be 6 games verse division rivals, and play the other conference more.

I am torn on this. I like the idea of building up divisional rivalries. Familiarity breeds contempt, so it could make for some great home-and-home series. Then again, this willl mean that the Wings play Nashville EIGHT times a season and could years without ever playing Toronto. That hurts. Then again Wings/Tampa, Wings/Panthers, and the like never did much for me.

[RPI-Fan]

I am torn on this. I like the idea of building up divisional rivalries. Familiarity breeds contempt, so it could make for some great home-and-home series. Then again, this willl mean that the Wings play Nashville EIGHT times a season and could years without ever playing Toronto. That hurts. Then again Wings/Tampa, Wings/Panthers, and the like never did much for me.

Exactly -- instead of having a clearly defined system, I'd rather have some judgement used, and see the Isles play each Western team at least once.

[ice4277]

At least with regards to teams in other conferences, it is a change of scenery. Wings/Panthers may not bring much to the table, but at least you get to see them once. Wings/Predators, or what have you, will likely get boring after a while.

[Karim]

I'm in favour of the schedule. The best games have always been against divisional rivals. I really don't care if Toronto, Montreal, or New York don't play us every year, let alone Florida or Carolina. If I want to watch someone in particular (Crosby), it will definitely be on TV.

[General Mike]

What happened to the 3 minutes of 3-on-3 after the 1st OT that I heard about somewhere?

[Honolulu_Blue]

What happened to the 3 minutes of 3-on-3 after the 1st OT that I heard about somewhere?
It was an idea that was floated, but not implemented.

[JeffR]

I'm in favour of the schedule.

We'll see if you still think so after watching Minnesota eight times. Rule changes or no, you know Lemaire's going to find a way to make his team boring. ;)

Nice to know that the western teams will only have to put up with a building full of annoying Ontario-refugee Leaf fans once every three years, though.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'm in favour of the schedule. The best games have always been against divisional rivals. I really don't care if Toronto, Montreal, or New York don't play us every year, let alone Florida or Carolina. If I want to watch someone in particular (Crosby), it will definitely be on TV.
I agree for the most part. I have nothing against 8 games again both Chicago and St. Louis. It will be nice to rekindle those rivalries. I think a Detroit/Columbus rivalry would be great, should be natural given there is some groundwork already for that given the whole Michigan/Ohio State thing.

Not sure if I will ever get excited by Nashville, but you never know. But more Colorad/Vancouver, Calgary/Edmonton, Tonronto/Ottawa, etc. That's all good.

[Karim]

We'll see if you still think so after watching Minnesota eight times. Rule changes or no, you know Lemaire's going to find a way to make his team boring.
Good point. I still think 24 games against Vancouver, Edmonton and Colorado will make up for 8 against Minnesota.

[klayman]

Nice to know that the western teams will only have to put up with a building full of annoying Ontario-refugee Leaf fans once every three years, though.
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif exactly!

Now if we can only find a way of keeping Flames fans away :)

[TurnerONU22]

I agree for the most part. I have nothing against 8 games again both Chicago and St. Louis. It will be nice to rekindle those rivalries. I think a Detroit/Columbus rivalry would be great, should be natural given there is some groundwork already for that given the whole Michigan/Ohio State thing.

Not sure if I will ever get excited by Nashville, but you never know. But more Colorad/Vancouver, Calgary/Edmonton, Tonronto/Ottawa, etc. That's all good.

I think the whole Det/Columbus thing is heating up for a few reasons:

1) Columbus is becoming much more competative, and are a couple good D-men away from the playoffs (Aucoin, Rafalski??????)

2) Most of the hockey fans in this city were Red Wing fans and Detroit fans travel well down to Columbus, so we've seen the building full of red too much.

3) The ending of the last couple games in 03-04(Maltby putting Klesla into the door to the bench AND the Wings fans throwing octopi on the ice in our building, then the CBJ's beating Det up at the Joe to end the season)

4) Ray Whitney, thanks for saving us money :D

5) tOSU v. Michigan

However, we've been heating up with Nashville as well (Tootoo biting Wright's finger), and I think these extra games will help.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Some of the rule changes that will take effect for the 2005-06 NHL season:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=131130&hubName=nhl

Allowing the two-line pass (no red line) like international hockey;I like this one.

- Reduction in size of goalie equipment;

- Using the AHL crease and limits on goaltender puck handling;No arguments with these; I haven't seen the AHL crease and limits in action.

- 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;I enjoy shootouts, they're fun to watch, but I'm not thrilled with using them for standings-related stuff.

- No-touch icing;In my opinion, you need this as a part of the risk/reward that goes along with two-line passes, which will lead to another comment later.

- Bringing back tag-up offside;I'm neutral on this, although with both offsides changes and no-touch icing, the NHL wipes out several rules differences with college.

- Move nets back two feet towards end boards;

- Reducing the size of the neutral zone;Neutral.

- A team that ices the puck cannot make a line change prior to the ensuing face-off;I'm very negative about this. I don't like it at all.

- Officials will have the discretion to wave off icing if it is deemed to be the result of an attempted pass;I don't like this idea; icing adds an element of risk/reward to attempting long passes, which this rule will remove. Cherry-picking will be encouraged.

- Zero tolerance on interference, hooking and holding/obstructionI'm in favor of this, but there's going to be a lot of idiots complaining about all the power plays if they actually go through with it. College went through that last year.

- Delay of game penalties for any players shooting the puck over the glass in his defensive zone.I don't have a problem with this, assuming they basically apply the rule for goaltenders to the other players as well.

[Karim]

I'm in favor of this, but there's going to be a lot of idiots complaining about all the power plays if they actually go through with it. College went through that last year.
According to the NHL:

"Public complaints or derogatory comments toward the game also will result in fines."
http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/rules_changes072205.html

[Mr. Wednesday]

They won't be able to fine the idiot commentators or idiot fans, which will be the biggest problem.

[John Galt]

I don't either. If John Galt was here, he'd say that shootouts were gay!

Ummmm . . . yeah . . . shootouts are gay.