Currently, the NHL's Research, Development, and Orientation Camp is taking place in Toronto, where they will be testing out some spiffy new ideas to implement into the NHL rulebooks. You can follow NHL.com's RD&O Camp live blog for coverage of the camp.
Just so everyone knows, maybe one or two of these new rules will be added in the near future. It's not like we're all of a sudden going to see hockey being played like this in the next two or three years.
In addition to the rule changes that they'll be examining at the RD&O Camp (see the live blog for lists of those rules), I have some rules that I would love the NHL to consider adding sometime soon.
1. Overtime Format:
What they're testing out at the camp is an overtime format that goes like this: three minutes of 4-on-4, three minutes of 3-on-3, three minutes of 2-on-2, and then a shootout (5 players per team). I have a much simpler solution to this: ten minutes of overtime, whether it be 5-on-5 or 4-on-4 (but no lower than that!), and then a shootout. Problem solved.
2. Point System:
This whole getting-a-point-for-making-it-to-overtime-even-if-you-lose thing is pure nonsense. Who gets rewarded for losing? At first I thought that the point system used in the Olympics was pretty good (3 points for winning, 2 for winning in overtime, 1 for losing in overtime, and none for losing). But you still get a point for losing, and it would also re-write hockey history: 100 points in a season would no longer be a milestone. I don't really care, but how would everyone else feel about it? I really have no idea. So, here's two ideas that I like: you get two points for winning and none for losing, no matter what, OR you only get one point if you reach overtime, no matter if you win or lose. The latter would also screw with the 100-point milestone, and I personally like the former much better anyway.
3. Challenges:
You know how they do it in football (not soccer), with the challenge flags? I don't think this would be that bad of an idea, considering how the NHL is also looking at having the second referee off the ice to oversee things. Instead of that, how about the coach gets to challenge certain things? Devils fans will remember the 2009 playoff series against Carolina, and the game-winner that was scored against Marty Brodeur with .4 seconds left in regulation. It is arguable that Brodeur was interfered with just seconds before the goal was scored. Imagine if Sutter could have challenged the play, and had it reviewed?
Here's how my system would work: Each team gets one challenge and one time-out per game. If a team decides to challenge a call/play, their challenge is automatically wasted, no matter if the call stands or not. Then, if the team challenges a second time during the game, and the call stands, they are charged with the time-out. If the call is overruled, they are not charged with their time-out. If they challenge a call for the second time during the game and they have already used their time-out, and the call stands, the other team is awarded a power play.
4. The Trapezoid:
It needs to go. Seriously. There has been enough of an increase in the flow of the game from the other rules that have been installed so this one really doesn't make a difference. It actually would help play continue and keep the flow going. Also, it prevents injuries from icing by allowing the goalie to go out and get the puck. Maybe instead of changing the icing rules, they could just throw out the trapezoid.
Quick question though: If they get rid of the trapezoid after Brodeur retires, can the Devils/Marty/the NHLPA file a grievance against the league, accusing them of instilling the trapezoid in the first place with the sole intent of circumventing Brodeur's talents?
No comments:
Post a Comment