New Rules?

[RichH]

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:
http://deadspin.com/what-i-learned-from-a-year-of-watching-sportscenter-5979510

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:
http://deadspin.com/5907393/espn-vp-on-hockey-fandom-it-doesnt-translate-to-television
http://nhl.si.com/2013/07/26/does-espns-sportscenter-really-hate-hockey-and-the-nhl/

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.

[Roy 82]

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandy

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

[Josh '99]

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".

[Josh '99]

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.  :-}

[Towerroad]

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

[Robb]

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.

[Jim Hyla]

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

[RichH]

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.

[Josh '99]

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.

[Tom Lento]

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.

[Josh '99]

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"?

[ftyuv]

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.)

[Tom Lento]

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.

[billhoward]

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.

[Jim Hyla]

The approved rules changes.