New Rules?

This is the sixties all over again: America - Love It or Leave It. A band that calls itself the purists or true fans dislikes change and argues, "If you don't like the game, go found your own league." You could dislike change and keep out change all the way down to where there are no fans left.

None of these changes are so extreme as basketball's shot clock. The NBA started in 1954 and the NCAA with the deliberate speed of southern states moving on Brown vs. Board of Ed got around to it 30 years later after Tennessee beat Temple 11-6 and - what's the rush, boys? - made it 45 seconds, then 35 seconds a decade later. Purists also freaked out over the ABA's 3-point field goal that the NBA added in 1979. All of that adds scoring.

A 1-0 title game might be exciting for purist hockey fans but a steady diet of low-scoring games is not going to move the sport forward if "forward" means attracting fans.

billhoward
A 1-0 title game might be exciting for purist hockey fans but a steady diet of low-scoring games is not going to move the sport forward if "forward" means attracting lowest common denominator American fans.

FYP.

If basketball still had 11-6 games, I might be interested in watching more than the last 15 seconds, which can take 20 minutes anyway.

RichH

billhoward
A 1-0 title game might be exciting for purist hockey fans but a steady diet of low-scoring games is not going to move the sport forward if "forward" means attracting lowest common denominator American fans.

FYP.

If basketball still had 11-6 games, I might be interested in watching more than the last 15 seconds, which can take 20 minutes anyway.

That's a straw man; nobody's arguing that hockey needs to have triple-digit goals. Some people are arguing that a couple extra goals per game would be nice; others are arguing that a winner per game would be nice; others are arguing that other areas of the game -- totally unrelated to points -- could be improved, and if there are a couple extra goals per game as a byproduct, it's not the end of the world.

Food for thought: if you had a couple more goals a game, there'd probably be fewer ties, which would then lessen the pressure to turn those ties into wins/losses via a shootout. The purists might cry fowl on this argument, noting their favorite option of "do neither," but they should then be prepared to be disappointed by two rule changes rather than one. (I suspect they won't really be disappointed, because they'll have a great consolation prize in being able to whine about it for years, probably as they yell at kids to get off their lawn.)

ftyuv
The purists might cry fowl on this argument

Ba-COCK!

After a bunch of thought, you're probably right that I'm making too much of this. As long as the basics of the game are preserved, a minor rule change here or there is probably not that huge a deal. I think mostly what I bristle at are attempts to change the rules to chase a demographic that is currently uninterested in hockey, in the hopes that "GOALZ!" will make them instant fans. In the limit, the evidence is that hockey could slowly morph into football and be more popular, but should that really be the aim?

Kyle Rose

ftyuv
The purists might cry fowl on this argument

Ba-COCK!

After a bunch of thought, you're probably right that I'm making too much of this. As long as the basics of the game are preserved, a minor rule change here or there is probably not that huge a deal. I think mostly what I bristle at are attempts to change the rules to chase a demographic that is currently uninterested in hockey, in the hopes that "GOALZ!" will make them instant fans. In the limit, the evidence is that hockey could slowly morph into football and be more popular, but should that really be the aim?

I mean, the fear is legit, and it's good that people think through every rule change and make sure that that's not where we're heading. But I still think the puck gets frozen too much -- as a problem in its own right, not because it reduces scoring.

Is this our kumbaya moment, when we all remember that we're on the same side, the side of keeping hockey the best sport that doesn't involve tricking ships into wrecking on a private island and then hunting their passengers? (<-- I'm not pyscho, it's a literary reference!)

ftyuv

RichH

billhoward
A 1-0 title game might be exciting for purist hockey fans but a steady diet of low-scoring games is not going to move the sport forward if "forward" means attracting lowest common denominator American fans.

FYP.

If basketball still had 11-6 games, I might be interested in watching more than the last 15 seconds, which can take 20 minutes anyway.

That's a straw man; nobody's arguing that hockey needs to have triple-digit goals. Some people are arguing that a couple extra goals per game would be nice; others are arguing that a winner per game would be nice; others are arguing that other areas of the game -- totally unrelated to points -- could be improved, and if there are a couple extra goals per game as a byproduct, it's not the end of the world.

Food for thought: if you had a couple more goals a game, there'd probably be fewer ties, which would then lessen the pressure to turn those ties into wins/losses via a shootout. The purists might cry fowl on this argument, noting their favorite option of "do neither," but they should then be prepared to be disappointed by two rule changes rather than one. (I suspect they won't really be disappointed, because they'll have a great consolation prize in being able to whine about it for years, probably as they yell at kids to get off their lawn.)

Oh, of course it is a straw man. My intent was more of a snarktastic commentary of basketball. My real opinion is that the peak of NHL popularity in the US, when the NHL seemed to be judged as a "cool" sport (as opposed to "ha ha, you like hockey? I didn't think anybody did" ), was from the early '80s to the early '90s. Peak Gretzky-Lemieux. And it's no suprise to see that that era routinely had multiple players with 120-point seasons and 8-6 games.

I've only recently started watching more NHL games, as the '04-'05 lost season also lost me as an active fan. The talent level isn't lower; forwards today are astounding playmakers. I think advancements in equipment technology and injury-prevention materials has allowed enhancement of defenders' skills (shot-blocking, etc.) as well goaltenders' overall performance. It's a tremendously entertaining game for me given the pace and the remarkably skillful offenses, compared to the peak of the "trap" era. Let it also be known that minor rule adjustments like the two-line pass elimination and the hybrid icing rule have improved that aspect of the game. Funny how those were implemented in the college game prior.

Do I think a higher-scoring game will make the sport more "popular?" Yeah, I guess. Will it necessarily make it "better?" No, I think it would be about the same, at least for me. Adding wacky rules like a shoot-out and 4x4 gimmicks actually lessens my enjoyment.

Another comment on "popularity": I feel that what ESPN covers also drives average-sports-fan interests to an extent. If the network wants to promote the sports/leagues with which it has broadcast contracts and therefore genterate interest to drive those event ratings, it has the power to make sure more of the news/highlight shows showcase those leagues.

Deadspin's Bristolmetrics was valuable in breaking this down:
[deadspin.com]

We might like to ignore the unwieldy device as its appendages flail and sparks burst from exposed wires, but its broadcast dictates the narratives of the day. If SportsCenter decides to force Tim Tebow on you, you—or at least the people with whom you talk sports—will be thinking and talking about Tim Tebow. No hockey on SportsCenter? Hockey doesn't exist.

Other commentary:
[deadspin.com]
[nhl.si.com]

The NHL stakeholders should give NBC loads of thanks for the Vs. acquisition and the rebranding to NBCSN making the NHL its centerpiece. Now I can watch a good chunk of the playoffs on my OTA antenna with the games they throw to the main NBC network. At least now the "Hockey? What channel is that on?" herpa-derpa jokes have vanished.

There can be some significant departures to the basic rules that one might "bandy" around and yet it still seems like ice hockey to me:

[en.wikipedia.org]

I am not sure what my point is but you gotta respect a sport that apparently includes an offical action called "stroke-off".

upprdeck
basketball got rid of the jump ball after every score, why cant hockey be progessive.

Being progressive is fine (I'm on board with, for example, hybrid icing), but I don't see why "progress" is always (in hockey rules discussions) assumed to be an equivalent concept to "more goals".

Edit to add: or "eliminating ties".

RichH
It's a tremendously entertaining game for me given the pace and the remarkably skillful offenses, compared to the peak of the "trap" era.

You see, Devils fans? Your team made Rich not enjoy hockey. If that's not a mortal sin, I don't know what is.

I got over the DH so I think I can endure some rule changes to put a few more pucks in the net.

RichH

billhoward
A 1-0 title game might be exciting for purist hockey fans but a steady diet of low-scoring games is not going to move the sport forward if "forward" means attracting lowest common denominator American fans.

FYP.

If basketball still had 11-6 games, I might be interested in watching more than the last 15 seconds, which can take 20 minutes anyway.

Put me down as another one who would enjoy an 11-6 basketball game - but only if it was because they changed the rules to actually allow defense. Basketball players barely have to work for a shot - just becomes a game of who has better shooting statistics.

Here they are. I like them, especially the little tweaks toward offense and the warning track.

Jim Hyla
Here they are. I like them, especially the little tweaks toward offense and the warning track.

I love the 10" goal peg move. Union's net used to be "secured" using tabs resting in a small depression. I could sneeze from the upper bleachers and get it to dislodge.

Jim Hyla
Here they are. I like them, especially the little tweaks toward offense and the warning track.

I generally do too, except for:

Faceoff Location – Offensive Scoring Opportunity: If the offensive team is attempting to score and the puck goes out of play — the faceoff will remain in the attacking zone.

This to me is counterintuitive, and I generally disagree with rules that are counterintuitive. If an attacking player takes a slap shot from the blue line, and the shot is horrible and goes over the glass, the attacking player put the puck out of play and shouldn't be rewarded with an offensive zone faceoff.

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Here they are. I like them, especially the little tweaks toward offense and the warning track.

I generally do too, except for:

Faceoff Location – Offensive Scoring Opportunity: If the offensive team is attempting to score and the puck goes out of play — the faceoff will remain in the attacking zone.

This to me is counterintuitive, and I generally disagree with rules that are counterintuitive. If an attacking player takes a slap shot from the blue line, and the shot is horrible and goes over the glass, the attacking player put the puck out of play and shouldn't be rewarded with an offensive zone faceoff.

Yeah, that is a bit odd. On the other hand it doesn't make much sense to punish an attacking team for setting up a good scoring opportunity off a deflection that happens to go up into the netting. I mean, these guys are good, but deflections are pretty hard to control. I'm guessing the deflection case is more common than the ridiculously poor pass/shot case at the college level, so in practice I suspect this will work out pretty well.

Tom Lento

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Here they are. I like them, especially the little tweaks toward offense and the warning track.

I generally do too, except for:

Faceoff Location – Offensive Scoring Opportunity: If the offensive team is attempting to score and the puck goes out of play — the faceoff will remain in the attacking zone.

This to me is counterintuitive, and I generally disagree with rules that are counterintuitive. If an attacking player takes a slap shot from the blue line, and the shot is horrible and goes over the glass, the attacking player put the puck out of play and shouldn't be rewarded with an offensive zone faceoff.

Yeah, that is a bit odd. On the other hand it doesn't make much sense to punish an attacking team for setting up a good scoring opportunity off a deflection that happens to go up into the netting. I mean, these guys are good, but deflections are pretty hard to control. I'm guessing the deflection case is more common than the ridiculously poor pass/shot case at the college level, so in practice I suspect this will work out pretty well.

That's true, and I know the really bad shot right into the stands was an extreme example, but conceptually it's no different from a deflection that goes out of play without hitting a defending player. It went out of play off the attacking team and the faceoff should be outside the zone, regardless of whether the attacking team was "attempting to score". We no longer give defenders an benefit of the doubt regarding "intent" when assessing a delay of game penalty for shooting the puck out of play; you put the puck out of play, you get a penalty, your intent doesn't matter. If an attacking player puts the puck out of play, why does it matter that his/her "intent" was "better"?

Josh '99

Tom Lento

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Here they are. I like them, especially the little tweaks toward offense and the warning track.

I generally do too, except for:

Faceoff Location – Offensive Scoring Opportunity: If the offensive team is attempting to score and the puck goes out of play — the faceoff will remain in the attacking zone.

This to me is counterintuitive, and I generally disagree with rules that are counterintuitive. If an attacking player takes a slap shot from the blue line, and the shot is horrible and goes over the glass, the attacking player put the puck out of play and shouldn't be rewarded with an offensive zone faceoff.

Yeah, that is a bit odd. On the other hand it doesn't make much sense to punish an attacking team for setting up a good scoring opportunity off a deflection that happens to go up into the netting. I mean, these guys are good, but deflections are pretty hard to control. I'm guessing the deflection case is more common than the ridiculously poor pass/shot case at the college level, so in practice I suspect this will work out pretty well.

That's true, and I know the really bad shot right into the stands was an extreme example, but conceptually it's no different from a deflection that goes out of play without hitting a defending player. It went out of play off the attacking team and the faceoff should be outside the zone, regardless of whether the attacking team was "attempting to score". We no longer give defenders an benefit of the doubt regarding "intent" when assessing a delay of game penalty for shooting the puck out of play; you put the puck out of play, you get a penalty, your intent doesn't matter. If an attacking player puts the puck out of play, why does it matter that his/her "intent" was "better"?

Depending on how the rule is interpreted, it could be that the refs apply little or no judgement in determining whether the offending team is attempting to score -- that is, it could be that it's assumed they are. In that case, the two rules are pretty consistent if you favor offense over defense, just a bit:

• defender shoots puck out: either they were actually trying to delay the game, or the offense got them so scrambled that they messed up that badly; punish the bad defense (or alternatively, reward the good defense)
• forward shoots the puck out: assume they weren't trying to delay the game (why would they in that situation?), so reward (or at least don't punish) the attempted scoring opportunity

There are situations in both cases that go against the assumptions and therefore cause the "wrong" thing to happen, but by and large, the rules will shake out that way. I can't think of any times that a forward intentionally tries to stop play when they're in the offensive zone, and I can't think of many times that a defender shot the puck out without significant pressure. (The latter case does happen of course, but I don't think it's often enough to warrant making it a judgement call.)

ftyuv

Josh '99

Tom Lento

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Here they are. I like them, especially the little tweaks toward offense and the warning track.

I generally do too, except for:

Faceoff Location – Offensive Scoring Opportunity: If the offensive team is attempting to score and the puck goes out of play — the faceoff will remain in the attacking zone.

This to me is counterintuitive, and I generally disagree with rules that are counterintuitive. If an attacking player takes a slap shot from the blue line, and the shot is horrible and goes over the glass, the attacking player put the puck out of play and shouldn't be rewarded with an offensive zone faceoff.

Yeah, that is a bit odd. On the other hand it doesn't make much sense to punish an attacking team for setting up a good scoring opportunity off a deflection that happens to go up into the netting. I mean, these guys are good, but deflections are pretty hard to control. I'm guessing the deflection case is more common than the ridiculously poor pass/shot case at the college level, so in practice I suspect this will work out pretty well.

That's true, and I know the really bad shot right into the stands was an extreme example, but conceptually it's no different from a deflection that goes out of play without hitting a defending player. It went out of play off the attacking team and the faceoff should be outside the zone, regardless of whether the attacking team was "attempting to score". We no longer give defenders an benefit of the doubt regarding "intent" when assessing a delay of game penalty for shooting the puck out of play; you put the puck out of play, you get a penalty, your intent doesn't matter. If an attacking player puts the puck out of play, why does it matter that his/her "intent" was "better"?

Depending on how the rule is interpreted, it could be that the refs apply little or no judgement in determining whether the offending team is attempting to score -- that is, it could be that it's assumed they are. In that case, the two rules are pretty consistent if you favor offense over defense, just a bit:

• defender shoots puck out: either they were actually trying to delay the game, or the offense got them so scrambled that they messed up that badly; punish the bad defense (or alternatively, reward the good defense)
• forward shoots the puck out: assume they weren't trying to delay the game (why would they in that situation?), so reward (or at least don't punish) the attempted scoring opportunity

There are situations in both cases that go against the assumptions and therefore cause the "wrong" thing to happen, but by and large, the rules will shake out that way. I can't think of any times that a forward intentionally tries to stop play when they're in the offensive zone, and I can't think of many times that a defender shot the puck out without significant pressure. (The latter case does happen of course, but I don't think it's often enough to warrant making it a judgement call.)

Yeah, I imagined it would be something like this, or even a more specific exclusion for any puck loosely directed at the net, similar to what Lacrosse does for backing up shots that go out of bounds. If it is always up to official discretion on any individual play that's a bad change, and I agree with Josh that the rule isn't as clear and will be inconsistently applied. If it isn't discretionary at all whether or not it makes sense depends on your initial assumptions, as ftyuv points out here.

upprdeck
these basic hockey rules are already far different than the basic hockey rules of even 10-20 years ago..

Three periods, single runners, one puck, net 6x4, check but not injure, helmets always, face protection for a generation. The big changes seem to have come from equipment, conditioning, coaching.

The approved rules changes.

Jim Hyla
The approved rules changes.

Good. Nothing stupid.

Although more discretionary penalties is a bit concerning.

Faceoff location (high stick/hand pass): In these cases, the ensuing faceoff will be one zone closer to the offending team’s goal.

Does that mean a high stick in your defensive zone turns into a faceoff in the crease?

ftyuv

Faceoff location (high stick/hand pass): In these cases, the ensuing faceoff will be one zone closer to the offending team’s goal.

Does that mean a high stick in your defensive zone turns into a faceoff in the crease?

I guess this wasn't an appropriate smiley for that remark

Nice discussion by Adam on the New NCAA.

Sort of a primer on new rules, a story and a video and rules outline.

In The Chicago Tribune Philip Hersch decries attempts to eliminate ties.

Forget 3-on-3 overtimes, what's wrong with old-style NHL ties?

Item: the NHL has decided to play 3-on-3 instead of 4-on-4 during overtime of regular-season games to try to avoid shootouts.

What's the matter with a tie?

One of the best hockey games I ever have seen ended in one.

It matched Boston University, unbeaten and No. 1 in the country, against Cornell, unbeaten and ranked No. 2 with future Hockey Hall of Famer Ken Dryden in goal, in the final of the old Boston Arena Christmas tournament.

The regulation game ended 3-3. Still tied after one 10-minute overtime of what was their third game in three days, the teams agreed to play one more.

It was after midnight. The gravel-voiced PA announcer let everyone know the last subway train from nearby Symphony Station was about to depart.

Almost no one left the building before a second overtime that did not change the outcome. The teams were declared co-champions.

I bet no one who was there left unsatisfied, even if many of us were left scrambling to find a way home. The tie did not diminish the quality or memories of the game.

Then he turns to the NHL...

IMHO he goes too far in the other direction, basically advocating the method used in soccer: no overtime in the regular season and a non-zero-sum 3-1-0 points system. Honestly I think the way college does it now is ideal: a short overtime so that a team fighting to tie at the end of regulation still has a chance to win. And of course keep the points system zero sum.

jtwcornell91
IMHO he goes too far in the other direction, basically advocating the method used in soccer: no overtime in the regular season and a non-zero-sum 3-1-0 points system. Honestly I think the way college does it now is ideal: a short overtime so that a team fighting to tie at the end of regulation still has a chance to win. And of course keep the points system zero sum.

I agree with you, but he did bring back nice memories. The Cornell-Clarkson ECAC playoff game, that I've discussed before, is another great tie. Of course it gave us the series, so that made it sweeter.

Goalie interference has been amended.

Not a rule change for us, but NCHC has approved 3 on 3 OT. Here's CHN's article and USCHO's.

Pretty interesting that a penalty called during 3 on 3 OT results in a player ADDED TO the ice by the fouled team instead of the penalized team having a player come off (I assume the penalized player sits but is replaced.)

Still seems kinda junk-hockey to me.

so if you add a player and the penalty runs out how do you get him back off the ice if the play stays live?

upprdeck
so if you add a player and the penalty runs out how do you get him back off the ice if the play stays live?

My guess is you play 4x4 until stoppage.

Trotsky

upprdeck
so if you add a player and the penalty runs out how do you get him back off the ice if the play stays live?

My guess is you play 4x4 until stoppage.

Which makes the whole thing sillier than the DH rule. My worry is that with all of these gimmicky new rules taking hold, the next generation of hockey fans will consider them the normal state of affairs, like I did with the DH until I got older and though critically about what I'd grown up with.

so in theory you could get a 5 min power play in OT if the puck stays alive

Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

Jim Hyla
Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

Reading the end-of-period reminder, and checking the rule book for any additional material, I am struck that the rule does not distinguish between the end of the last period (regular or overtime) that marks the end of the game and the ends of the other periods. While the rule makes sense for the earlier periods, I don't think the intention would have been to have it apply to the last period. As written, however the rule would preclude the traditional handshakes, not to mention the Cornell stick tapping and so forth. Of course a delay of game penalty is meaningless after the game is over, but the sloppy writing bothers me.

David Harding

Jim Hyla
Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

Reading the end-of-period reminder, and checking the rule book for any additional material, I am struck that the rule does not distinguish between the end of the last period (regular or overtime) that marks the end of the game and the ends of the other periods. While the rule makes sense for the earlier periods, I don't think the intention would have been to have it apply to the last period. As written, however the rule would preclude the traditional handshakes, not to mention the Cornell stick tapping and so forth. Of course a delay of game penalty is meaningless after the game is over, but the sloppy writing bothers me.

I can understand why that bothers you. I take things quite literally too. I agree that could have been written in a way that would leave no room for ambiguity.

That being said, I'm willing to give the authors of the memo the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the difference between "end of the period" and "end of the game" is implied, and that it is understood that the section in question does not to apply if it is the "end of the game."

andyw2100

David Harding

Jim Hyla
Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

Reading the end-of-period reminder, and checking the rule book for any additional material, I am struck that the rule does not distinguish between the end of the last period (regular or overtime) that marks the end of the game and the ends of the other periods. While the rule makes sense for the earlier periods, I don't think the intention would have been to have it apply to the last period. As written, however the rule would preclude the traditional handshakes, not to mention the Cornell stick tapping and so forth. Of course a delay of game penalty is meaningless after the game is over, but the sloppy writing bothers me.

I can understand why that bothers you. I take things quite literally too. I agree that could have been written in a way that would leave no room for ambiguity.

That being said, I'm willing to give the authors of the memo the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the difference between "end of the period" and "end of the game" is implied, and that it is understood that the section in question does not to apply if it is the "end of the game."

I certainly don't blame the authors of the memo. The language is straight out of the rule book, whose authors I do blame. I give sports writers slack (up to a point). I don't give rule book writers slack. If you can't take the language a rule book literally, why bother with a rule book.

David Harding
I don't give rule book writers slack. If you can't take the language a rule book literally, why bother with a rule book.

That's a fair point. Agreed!

David Harding

andyw2100

David Harding

Jim Hyla
Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

Reading the end-of-period reminder, and checking the rule book for any additional material, I am struck that the rule does not distinguish between the end of the last period (regular or overtime) that marks the end of the game and the ends of the other periods. While the rule makes sense for the earlier periods, I don't think the intention would have been to have it apply to the last period. As written, however the rule would preclude the traditional handshakes, not to mention the Cornell stick tapping and so forth. Of course a delay of game penalty is meaningless after the game is over, but the sloppy writing bothers me.

I can understand why that bothers you. I take things quite literally too. I agree that could have been written in a way that would leave no room for ambiguity.

That being said, I'm willing to give the authors of the memo the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the difference between "end of the period" and "end of the game" is implied, and that it is understood that the section in question does not to apply if it is the "end of the game."

I certainly don't blame the authors of the memo. The language is straight out of the rule book, whose authors I do blame. I give sports writers slack (up to a point). I don't give rule book writers slack. If you can't take the language a rule book literally, why bother with a rule book.

The penalty for the infraction is a "delay of game" bench minor. If the game is over, I think the home team can salute the fans and take the penalty.

4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

• The committee proposed moving the hash marks on the faceoff circles in the offensive and defensive zones from the current 4 feet to 5 feet, 7 inches, so there is more separation between players. This new width will be a preferred distance, which allows flexibility in compliance. However, in NCAA championship competition, the wider hash marks will be used.

Which I like.

Jim Hyla
4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

Love the rule. Hurts Cornell, but love it as a fan of speed and skill.

Jim Hyla
4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

• The committee proposed moving the hash marks on the faceoff circles in the offensive and defensive zones from the current 4 feet to 5 feet, 7 inches, so there is more separation between players. This new width will be a preferred distance, which allows flexibility in compliance. However, in NCAA championship competition, the wider hash marks will be used.

Which I like.

jtwcornell91

Jim Hyla
4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

Tabled for a year. Whew.

[www.ncaa.com]

jtwcornell91

jtwcornell91

Jim Hyla
4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

Tabled for a year. Whew.

[www.ncaa.com]

BOOOOOOOOOOOO