Sports WI: a number of NHL rules are never adopted

And by those I mean:
  • No shootout (a complete blight on the game, IMO)
  • No regular season overtime (leave it a creature of the playoffs where a winner is mandatory; same doesn't hold during the season)
  • No instigator rule
  • No delay-of-game rule for a puck going out of play without touching the glass/boards
  • Sky's-the-limit on stick blade curvature
  • No trapezoid / goalers are free to handle the puck as they will
What would the game look like today?

In my views, the first non-adoption (and to a large extent the second) means the now-extinct scoreless tie survives and with it, ties in general. The third may mean the players do a lot of policing themselves, which would indicate that diving will be dealt with summarily on the next shift or two. The fourth eliminates a ticky-tack penalty. The fifth probably helps scoring. The sixth may also help scoring if one has a Ron Hextall-like goaler.

Bonus if you can get the league to adopt review of the performance of on-ice officials by players and coaches such that the marginal ones find themselves riding buses in the AHL in the next season while the best in the AHL come up to the big time.
 
  • No shootout (a complete blight on the game, IMO)
  • No regular season overtime (leave it a creature of the playoffs where a winner is mandatory; same doesn't hold during the season)
  • No instigator rule
  • No delay-of-game rule for a puck going out of play without touching the glass/boards
  • Sky's-the-limit on stick blade curvature
  • No trapezoid / goalers are free to handle the puck as they will
I like the first two. IMO, there's too much fighting, so an instigator rule doesn't go far enough. I'd say no delay penalty, unless it was clearly intended the puck go out of play (& that may be impossible); stalling the game should be penalized, IMO. (This isn't baseball.) I dislike the crazy stick curves, so keep a (lower than OTL, IMO) limit. And the trapezoid is one I've never seen the effect of (since I don't actually watch hockey anymore...).

I recognize, being Canadian, admitting I don't actually watch hockey may cost me my citizenship.;) I'll risk it.
 
Chuckling a bit...not sure how old you are, but I had a sort of crypto-agenda to more or less return the game to the way it was in the mid-1980s and keep it there.
 
Chuckling a bit...not sure how old you are, but I had a sort of crypto-agenda to more or less return the game to the way it was in the mid-1980s and keep it there.
I'm old enough to recall that (except I'd stopped watching by then;;) my dad & uncle watched religiously when I was younger, so I really didn't have much choice before that...;)); I do have some recollections of goalies coming waaay out of the crease & almost becoming a 3d defenseman (which I always thought was risky, all in:eek:).

If you're trying to restore the game to your favorite style, more power to you. (I'd love to return F1 to the days of the Lotus 33, myself... I'll allow traction control & electronic steering & such, but no wings, & skinny rubber.)
 
And by those I mean:
  • No shootout (a complete blight on the game, IMO)
  • No regular season overtime (leave it a creature of the playoffs where a winner is mandatory; same doesn't hold during the season)
  • No instigator rule
  • No delay-of-game rule for a puck going out of play without touching the glass/boards
  • Sky's-the-limit on stick blade curvature
  • No trapezoid / goalers are free to handle the puck as they will
Regular season OT is a necessity given that the game might as well be soccer without it, and the shootout makes sense if executed properly and was a huge hit in the 2003 All-Star game. The others could work, so long as fighting is seen as a side order rather than having fans show up just hoping to see guys beat the shit out of each other.

For the stick blade rule, Gretzky might have gotten another Cup in ‘93 if the Habs didn’t have the option to inspect McSorley’s stick. The Habs rallied from a 1-0 series deficit, but 2-0 with no spark may have been too much.

With regard to OT and the shootout, the way the do it now is horseshit. The winning team gets two points regardless, so there’s no incentive to win it in regulation. So either they need to just do wins and losses with no points or give 3 points to a regulation winner and keep other point totals the same (and yes, I know that fucks up point records, but that ship sailed the day the loser point was approved.) That means 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT or shootout win, 1 for an OT or shootout loss, and jack-shit if you lose after 60. OT would be the same as it is now, and teams would have an incentive to win it in regulation because they’re capped at two points and not three if they can’t get it done.

Also, the trapezoid rule is ridiculous, but then again, look at who runs the NHL and tell me if a bucket of whale shit would be an improvement.
 
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here and there.

Regular season OT is a necessity given that the game might as well be soccer without it, and the shootout makes sense if executed properly and was a huge hit in the 2003 All-Star game.

Sorry, but the NHL got along for more than 65 years before regular season overtime was inflicted, and nobody groused. That was a classic case of fixing something that wasn't broken. Comparing the regular season NHL to the All-Star game is fallacious: the All-Star game is pond hockey / no-check league hockey taken to its ultimate, and bears only the slightest resemblance to the regular season. The shootout, IMO, is an abomination and needs to be eliminated.

The others could work, so long as fighting is seen as a side order rather than having fans show up just hoping to see guys beat the shit out of each other.

That's not unreasonable.

For the stick blade rule, Gretzky might have gotten another Cup in ‘93 if the Habs didn’t have the option to inspect McSorley’s stick. The Habs rallied from a 1-0 series deficit, but 2-0 with no spark may have been too much.

You may well have something there. I recall more than once in that general era the Flyers got a critically timed PP from stick inspections. Still, it strikes me as a ticky-tack rule. Consider that a deeply curved blade could impair backhand passes/shots, so it might seem to even out.

With regard to OT and the shootout, the way the do it now is horseshit. The winning team gets two points regardless, so there’s no incentive to win it in regulation. So either they need to just do wins and losses with no points or give 3 points to a regulation winner and keep other point totals the same (and yes, I know that fucks up point records, but that ship sailed the day the loser point was approved.) That means 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT or shootout win, 1 for an OT or shootout loss, and jack-shit if you lose after 60. OT would be the same as it is now, and teams would have an incentive to win it in regulation because they’re capped at two points and not three if they can’t get it done.

Also, the trapezoid rule is ridiculous, but then again, look at who runs the NHL and tell me if a bucket of whale shit would be an improvement.

Your advocacy of a 3 / 2 / 1 point system has been made by others, to be sure. I don't care for it personally since it upsets point records, as you mentioned--but your note about the loser point is also valid. All of this is the key reason why I'd like to revert to no regular season OT and eliminate the shootout: neither is at all necessary, IMO.

Agree totally that the trapezoid rule is absurd. And I couldn't agree more that Gary Bettman, he of his basketball bias, is totally incompetent as commissioner.
 
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here and there.

Fair enough

Sorry, but the NHL got along for more than 65 years before regular season overtime was inflicted, and nobody groused. That was a classic case of fixing something that wasn't broken. Comparing the regular season NHL to the All-Star game is fallacious: the All-Star game is pond hockey / no-check league hockey taken to its ultimate, and bears only the slightest resemblance to the regular season. The shootout, IMO, is an abomination and needs to be eliminated.

The All-Star game is probably a big reason it was accepted since it was a success (though that may have a lot to do with the baseball All-Star game ending in a tie the summer before.) That said, I’ve been to games that have been vastly improved by the presence of overtime and the shootout, so based o the experiences I’ve had as a viewer, I think it’s not an abomination and makes sense to stay.

You may well have something there. I recall more than once in that general era the Flyers got a critically timed PP from stick inspections. Still, it strikes me as a ticky-tack rule. Consider that a deeply curved blade could impair backhand passes/shots, so it might seem to even out.

It really is a ticky-tack rule and it’s silly that a Stanley Cup was decided on its enforcement. Besides, it would have been one more ring for Gretzky (and one fewer for punk-ass bitch Patrick Roy.)

Your advocacy of a 3 / 2 / 1 point system has been made by others, to be sure. I don't care for it personally since it upsets point records, as you mentioned--but your note about the loser point is also valid. All of this is the key reason why I'd like to revert to no regular season OT and eliminate the shootout: neither is at all necessary, IMO.

The points record is 132 in a season, and given how close everyone is to .500 nowadays it’s not in danger even with the loser point. However, the .500 mark for a season would be 123 under the 3-2-1 system, so it would have to be adjusted (the equivalent would be 198 so it’s not unworkable. No different from adjusting dollar amounts for inflation.)

Personally I like OT but I also don’t remember the game without it.

Agree totally that the trapezoid rule is absurd. And I couldn't agree more that Gary Bettman, he of his basketball bias, is totally incompetent as commissioner.

Gary Bettman would be incompetent as a fantasy commissioner, let alone a real one.
 
At least the shootouts in hockey vaguely resemble something that actually happens in games (i.e. breakaways). They're even worse in soccer, where they have basically nothing to do with actually being good at soccer and come down to a guessing game for the goalkeepers. Even in a situation where an attacker gets in behind all the defenders, they don't have unlimited time to shoot and the keeper isn't glued to the goal line.

But I agree that tiebreaking in sports should call upon the skills typically relevant to winning the game as much as possible. And sometimes a tie is in fact the most accurate reflection of how well both teams have played.
 
At least the shootouts in hockey vaguely resemble something that actually happens in games (i.e. breakaways).

"Vaguely" is right. True breakaways (and the first cousin, the penalty shot) are relatively rare; don't have real numbers but I'd guess a true breakaway happens perhaps once every two or three games, if that. Odd man rushes (3 on 2; 2 on 1) are far more common. But the resemblance is superficial since in the shootout, there's no clock and no possibility of a defender somehow going into overdrive and catching up. That pretty much makes it a slightly glorified skills competition, which is one reason why I hate the shootout: the resemblance to in-game action is distant at best.

They're even worse in soccer, where they have basically nothing to do with actually being good at soccer and come down to a guessing game for the goalkeepers. Even in a situation where an attacker gets in behind all the defenders, they don't have unlimited time to shoot and the keeper isn't glued to the goal line.

I'll take your word for it: I pay no attention whatever to soccer.

But I agree that tiebreaking in sports should call upon the skills typically relevant to winning the game as much as possible. And sometimes a tie is in fact the most accurate reflection of how well both teams have played.

The sentence with added emphasis is perhaps the most succinct and accurate reason why, in the absence of an absolute need of a resolution, ties are entirely valid during the regular season and should be restored. If, outside the playoffs, two teams deadlock for sixty minutes, there is no need at all to impose an artificial additional quarter period and possibly a skills competition on top of that to force a resolution.
 
Top