Instead of the shootout we have another period of OT with 2 pucks
Hockey
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
List of Team-Specific Communities:
Metropolitan Division
- Carolina Hurricanes
- Washington Capitals
- Columbus Blue Jackets
- New Jersey Devils
- New York Islanders
- New York Rangers
- Pittsburgh Penguins
- Philadelphia Flyers
Atlantic Division
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Montreal Canadiens
- Boston Bruins
- Ottawa Senators
- Tampa Bay Lightning
- Buffalo Sabres
- Detroit Red Wings
- Florida Panthers
Central Division
- Chicago Blackhawks
- Winnipeg Jets
- Nashville Predators
- Arizona Coyotes
- Dallas Stars
- St Louis Blues
- Minnesota Wild
- Colorado Avalanche
Pacific Division
- Los Angeles Kings
- Edmonton Oilers
- Calgary Flames
- Anaheim Ducks
- Vancouver Canucks
- San Jose Sharks
- Vegas Golden Knights
- Seattle Kraken
The number of OT periods is the number of additional pucks.
I'd like to combine this with the other guy's suggestion of having fewer players for each OT round.
Round four, 1v1 with four pucks, should go pretty quick
And both are glowing.
I'd bring back the old 1-8 seeding for the playoffs, seeing some of the best teams face off in round 1 or 2 sucks compared to the old method IMO.
It wouldn’t change much, but a defender clearing the puck over the glass should be treated the same as icing. If the team clears the puck over the glass before exiting their zone after the subsequent face off then call a Delay of Game.
I can’t stand the Delay of Game rule for accidental pucks over the glass, though. It doesn’t feel in the spirit of what Delay of Game means to me, at least not anymore than intentionally icing the puck.
Agreed. Even in the dead puck era it just didn't happen that often. Time to lighten the punishment
I think I'd agree. You would have to treat icing the same way; a delay of game for either icing the puck or tossing it over the glass a second time without clearing the zone.
Any call is reviewable, for any reason in the rulebook. You still go on a penalty if you lose, but you can call anything. The difference is, the decision is made by the on-ice refs in under 2 minutes, without using slow-mo or pausing. If you can't see it in that time using regular speed, it should stand. Keep the game moving
Oh, and refs are now required to have after-game media availability. If they don't want that, they're welcome to retire
In this day and age, where sports are as much about betting as players, any league that DOESN'T put their referees in public display is just asking for manipulation and problems and any smart fan (and owner) should see red flags.
Imagine a league where the refs are subject to public criticism... Doesn't mean a bad job gets fired, but they should drive more training and classes to get consistency right (nobody should lose their job unless they really can't cut it).
Anyway, that won't happen. They don't care about the fans, they care about the revenue.
Oh, and I'd like some sort of positive reinforcement for sportsmanship. I saw cricket does something like that. So give each ref one standings point per year (as an example) and let them award it when they see something especially good. They know the written and unwritten rules, it'd be cool to let them reward dudes that play the right way. And imagine the crowd and both teams going nuts for some 4th liner getting a Lady Byng Point or whatever.
I like this one
Add another ref who sits just off the ice, and is a "video ref" looking at as many screens as he chooses, of the available cameras, and has the power to whistle his own penalties or overturn the penalties from the ref on the ice. There's no reason to deliberately not use the technology available to us rather than the randomness of whether something happens to get challenged for video review.
Nobody named Bettman allowed in / around / watching the NHL
All these suggestions are DUMB!
2 goalies in each net, but only one set of equipment. They have to share.
Drop the shootout in OT and replace it with the following
- 5 mins of 4v4 (as it is now)
- 5 mins of 3v3
- 5 mins of 2v2
- 5 mins of 1v1
- if still no one scored, then the goalies meet in center ice for a good ole goalie fight. Winner of the fight wins the game for their team.
OT is currently 3v3 in the NHL
Dumb mistake on my part
Perhaps we can arm home goalie with nets and a Trident, visitor gets spear and shield.
...But refs have to stand in a circle around the combatants and hold hands.
Get rid of Shootout. 3 on 3 for as long as it takes.
Move the Nordiques back to Quebec.
Can we have second Nordiques
make the nets wider by just a few inches. Increases scoring, goalies can keep there armor. what do we lose?
Get rid of the offside rule. It'll make the defending team have to defend space instead of just a line. Should create more rush chances.
I'd be happy if they made it not reviewable.
It'll also make the game strategically like basketball, where you have one person surveying and bringing it in, lightly guarded, while everyone else tried to set up their plays and angles. It'd get even more set-play based and able to be followed by new fans, IMHO
Plus you won't have to explain what it means to someone who doesn't watch hockey. Actually, get rid of icing too!
Institute review of embellishment/diving after games and penalize with 10 minute misconducts to suspension for the following game. It's unsportsmanlike like dirty hits and should be treated as such IMO.
I want a system like dodge ball where if you have a man in the box and are up against a power play, you can do a specific action to get your man back.
Hell, go the extra mile. Anything that would put you in the box, sends you to the other team. Power plays would go from 5v4 to 6v4. Oughta cut down on fighting, since if you fight you gotta help the other team for 5 minutes or until your team can win you back.
Have players payed by performance for the complete season. Would maybe motivate the Habs lol.