[Article] Ranking the major rule changes NHL stars want to see

[RWJC]

Ranking the major rule changes NHL stars want to see

A recent series of interviews at the NHL Player Media Tour revealed how some of the NHL's biggest stars want to see the game change.
 

NHL players are often criticized for overusing clichés, not speaking substantively in public, and keeping their personalities under wraps.

That can be true at times — and is often worsened by criticism they take when they do express themselves — but they can have insightful things to say as well, particularly about the sport they play.

 

Kristen Shilton and Greg Wyshynski of ESPN compiled a number of interesting thoughts from players at the NHL Player Media Tour this week, and one subject that stood out was rule changes they want to see in their sport.

 

The whole piece is worth reading in its entirety, but we thought we'd drill down on the rule-change suggestions.

Below you'll find a power ranking of the best and worst ideas a number of notable NHL players had about how to change their sport:

1. Eliminate the salary cap — Jacob Trouba

This would benefit some teams more than others and as such it's a non-starter for some. Even so, any mechanism that artificially depresses what the players — who make the game what it is — can earn is one that's tough to support.

Not only does the salary cap prevent many players from getting what they're worth, it also restricts their movement, making the NHL less exciting than other leagues at the trade deadline and during the offseason.

Many fears that fans have about the lack of a salary cap can be debunked by looking at what's going on in MLB, where the correlation between payroll and winning is weaker than it's been in recent memory.

If you could buy a Stanley Cup, the Toronto Maple Leafs would've done it sometime between 1967-68 and 2003-04.

2. Abolish the shootout/lengthen overtime — Johnny Gaudreau/Jack Eichel

The shootout provides some fun highlights, but fans don't like seeing their teams' fates decided by a skill competition — and neither do players. Gaudreau and Eichel aren't the first to mention this as Connor McDavid spoke out on this issue in January.

Shootouts are far less compelling than three-on-three hockey, and as long as players are on board with extending overtime it's something the NHL should consider. There are safety concerns with regular-season overtimes having no concrete endpoint, but if that's not realistic, maybe a 10-minute overtime period is.

3. Goals don't end power plays — Josh Morrissey

Although we disagreed with a different proposal that would juice power-play efficiency due to the dwindling effectiveness of penalty killing in the NHL, this is too elegant to come down against.

If you take a two-minute penalty, you spend two minutes in the penalty box. That makes perfect sense. Not only would you get more power-play scoring with this rule, you might disincentive some dumb penalties as heading to the sin bin would hurt more than it does now.

4. Remove back-to-backs from the schedule — Filip Forsberg

This probably isn't realistic with everything that goes into schedule making, from concerts to NBA conflicts, but it would make the sport better.

Hockey players are simply less effective on the second leg of a back-to-back, and games between teams that are fresh and those that are rested aren't a good representation of what the NHL has to offer.

5. No dress code on game days — Clayton Keller

While this wouldn't affect the on-ice product, it's taking a stab at the issues hockey has with conformity. The game could use more personality, and one way to achieve that is by letting the players express themselves through their outfits.

The NHL is already a buttoned-up league figuratively. It doesn't have to be literally buttoned up as well.

6. Kick goals are fine — Tage Thompson

Not only would this be kind of fun, it would also remove plenty of annoying judgment calls.

This is reminiscent of the NFL ruling that receivers had to get two feet in bound to make a catch no matter what, instead of calling force-out penalties for airborne players getting pushed out. Initially, it seemed unfair, but over time it became clear that it was far easier to have a black-and-white rule.

 

If you put the puck in the net, it's a goal.

As Thompson pointed out in his explanation of this idea, forwards are often tied up by defencemen in front of the net, and all they have available to them is their feet. Let 'em use what they've got.

7. Advantage for the offense on faceoffs — John Tavares

This is precisely the kind of suggestion you'd expect to hear from a meat-and-potatoes player and personality like Tavares. It is possible that allowing the team on offense to get their stick down second on the draw would give more possessions to attacking teams and lead to more goals.

That said, this isn't a particularly exciting rule change proposal — and the correlation between faceoff wins and real wins tends to be minimal. This isn't a bad idea, but it's tough to get amped up about it.

8. No icing the puck on the penalty kill — Charlie McAvoy

This would lead to more power-play goals, but it would make penalty killing so difficult that it feels like the balance would be off.

Higher-scoring games tend to be more enjoyable for fans, but teams on defense need to have a few tools at their disposal. Penalty killing is hard enough as it is considering power plays are getting more and more efficient.

9. Refs available for interview after games — Seth Jarvis

This sounds like a great idea on the surface. There are so many times when referees make perplexing calls and it would be cathartic to see them held to the fire and forced to justify their decisions.

In practice, it's tough to imagine this would result in anything but boilerplate responses from refs actively trying to avoid being the story of any given game.

The premise is sound here, but it seems likely that what you'd get is referees finding a variety of ways to say that they called the plays as they saw them and will review the footage later.

10. Bringing back the red line — Sidney Crosby

Nothing makes Sid the Kid sound like an old man like the superstar center calling for a rule change from the pre-lockout world that used to cause congestion, enable trapping, and create an impediment to offense.

Very few NHL fans miss two-line pass whistles, and while Crosby is right that it would "force more passes", it's unclear if that's something the game needs. From a player's standpoint, it's an interesting concept to mull over in terms of how the old rule might mesh with the speed of the modern game, but there's a difference between a thought experiment and a good idea.
 

https://ca.yahoo.com/sports/news/nhl-ranking-major-rule-changes-stars-want-to-see-crosby-trouba-eichel-tavares-mcavoy-143017672.html

 

Nick Ashbourne

Thu, September 21, 2023 at 7:30 AM PDT

[Jess]

I've been hearing some talk about the no penalty ending on PP goal, but I really think fans would lose their minds after the Oilers score 3 goals on a 2 minute PP and completely change the game. Can you imagine a 2-minute 5 on 3? People don't know of the 50s Canadiens and why this rule existed in the first place.

[King Heffy]

16 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I've been hearing some talk about the no penalty ending on PP goal, but I really think fans would lose their minds after the Oilers score 3 goals on a 2 minute PP and completely change the game. Can you imagine a 2-minute 5 on 3? People don't know of the 50s Canadiens and why this rule existed in the first place.

The officiating problem needs to be fixed before this could even be considered as well.  The only two good ideas are getting rid of shootouts and making the refs face the media and finally be held accountable for their corruption.

[BlueSteel]

6 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The officiating problem needs to be fixed before this could even be considered as well.  The only two good ideas are getting rid of shootouts and making the refs face the media and finally be held accountable for their corruption.

 

Is it corruption or just incompetence? 

[King Heffy]

11 minutes ago, BlueSteel said:

 

Is it corruption or just incompetence? 

I think the repeated offences from guys like Sutherland make the former more likely.  Add in the fact that the quality of officiating is worse in the NHL than in much lower leagues and it's pretty hard to argue that the refs are being honest.

[stawns]

31 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The officiating problem needs to be fixed before this could even be considered as well.  The only two good ideas are getting rid of shootouts and making the refs face the media and finally be held accountable for their corruption.

again, these are the best officials in the world.  They are who they are and, lke players, they do the work to try and improve every year.  It is an impossibly difficult job to officiate a game that is played at that speed and with that many factors.  

[Goalie29]

1 hour ago, RWJC said:

1. Eliminate the salary cap — Jacob Trouba

This would benefit some teams more than others and as such it's a non-starter for some. Even so, any mechanism that artificially depresses what the players — who make the game what it is — can earn is one that's tough to support.

Not only does the salary cap prevent many players from getting what they're worth, it also restricts their movement, making the NHL less exciting than other leagues at the trade deadline and during the offseason.

Many fears that fans have about the lack of a salary cap can be debunked by looking at what's going on in MLB, where the correlation between payroll and winning is weaker than it's been in recent memory.

If you could buy a Stanley Cup, the Toronto Maple Leafs would've done it sometime between 1967-68 and 2003-04.

 

I read somewhere that we're down to three players that played before the salary cap.  How many UCFF posters were only toddlers or weren't even born when the cap came into place?

 

I don't buy into the last two points.  MLB is different.  The economics are different, the rosters are different.  Besides, one of the biggest complaints before the cap came in was less about competitiveness, and more about small market teams virtually existing as feeders to the large market teams.  Teams like the Oilers, Flames, Jets & Habs (and some American small market teams) would develop talent but then as soon as the player reached any sort of free agency they would be scooped up by big spending teams.  It artificially inflated salaries simply because the big teams could spend whatever they felt like.

 

As for the last point, incompetence is still a factor.  Just because you can spend big, doesn't necessarily mean you can spend well.

 

Having said that though, I do agree that the cap restricts movement.  Although I fell that has become more acute the past few years due to the flat cap.  When the cap was going up regularly, there was more movement.

 

While I feel things could be improved, I still feel like life is better with the cap than it would be without the cap.

[Goalie29]

4 minutes ago, stawns said:

again, these are the best officials in the world.  They are who they are and, lke players, they do the work to try and improve every year.  It is an impossibly difficult job to officiate a game that is played at that speed and with that many factors.  

 

There are many times out on the ice I lose track of the puck and what's going on.  I have no idea how refs do it.

[DrJockitch]

Eliminate the salary cap!?  What a surprise from a Ranger who were the team that made us need one.

Eliminate back to backs.  Guess we could just eliminate any offseason.

Kick in goals, hmm can't see what the problem there might be.

I agree with the dress code, these aren't business men.  

The power play is enough of an advantage, don't like any of the ideas around that.

Shootout could go, agree with that.

Ref accountability fine, they should be accountable.

 

[Hugh_Jasoule]

Holding the refs accountable for their blatant missed or fabricated calls would be my #1 choice.  That will never happen but it would be nice to watch them squirm as they're being scrutinized for their "questionable" calls. 

[brownky]

I like the 10 minute 3 on 3 OT and killing the shootout.

 

I like Refs facing the media.

 

The rest... no. Particularly the dress code - I'm probably kind of a dinosaur but I do like the 'game day dress code'. I think the players should be allowed off the hook in interviews a bit, but for the 'walk to the rink' the suit is a good look. Now I do believe there is/should be plenty of opportunity for 'customization' in suit-land, but they should still wear a suit. Even if they mock suits as a concept while wearing the suit. Wear a suit that has the tuxedo suit overlay, why not?

 

It's just a professionalism thing - these are highly paid professionals. They shouldn't look like they woke up on the wrong side of behind the dumpster dragging trousers around their ass cheeks wearing a baggy hoodie. So a happy medium should be available.

[Rip The Mesh]

Dump the dress code. Jeans are a wonderful  thing. One of mankind's greatest creations. Pretty sure fans would gravitate to a more laid back style.

A wear what you will is what I've always figured would be cool. of course, if it make you feel good to be flashy, that's great as well.

Just have never believed in team dress codes. Eons ago, I played at a high level, (in my mind) and I hated rigid dress codes. 

[Jess]

10 minute 3 on 3 would be fun, but if we dump the shootout, that would allow ties back in the game. Admittedly, with a 10-minute 3v3 OT, they would be quite rare. I think I could live with that personally.

 

I'm okay with dumping the dress code. TIme to enter the modern era. Players can dress up if they want, but there's no good reason to force players to dress up other than for appearances, and honestly, I'd hope we're past judging a player by how they dress in 2023.

 

Keep the cap the way it is.

 

Removing back-to-backs may sound player-friendly until they realize their off-season becomes 15 days shorter.

 

Not actually totally against allowing kicking for goals. Seems crazy in some sense, but it requires enough skill that I can appreciate. A follow up question would be if we would ever allow a player to whack the puck with their hand into the net. Is that too far? Why is it different from kicking the puck? Could be an interesting conversation.

 

No opinion on Tavares' faceoff idea.

 

Not totally against imposing the icing rule on PP--it would be a lesser version of making PPs always last 2 minutes. That said, powerplays right now are about as strong as they've been in the last 50 years, so I don't see a reason to make them even more lethal.

 

Not a fan of bringing back the red line. Would slow the game down too much.

 

As stressful as it would be for refs to face the media after games, I'm down for that idea. Would help create some accountability for the few refs that do intentionally screw players over from time to time.

[RawkDrummer]

How 'bout some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3. 

I never liked that. I propose all games be worth 3.

[Jess]

2 minutes ago, RawkDrummer said:

How 'bout some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3. 

I never liked that. I propose all games be worth 3.

 

Would actually love this change. 3 points for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 point for OT/SO loss. And for those who complain that we won't be able to compare points to historical record, I have two points:

 

1. This is already the case. The introduction of the loser point in 1999-00 created three point games and inflated point totals to levels much higher than previously.

2. We can still use points percentage, which has already grown in popularity as an accurate measure to account for variations in games played during the season.

[Coconuts]

I'm fine with killing the dress code, killing the shootout, and the refs being interviewed. No to the rest.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

51 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I'm fine with killing the dress code, killing the shootout, and the refs being interviewed. No to the rest.

 

For a moment there, I thought you were going to follow the trend of "killing" to include the refs......  

[Coconuts]

16 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

For a moment there, I thought you were going to follow the trend of "killing" to include the refs......  

 

Hey, we gotta have someone to blame 

[Ghostsof1915]

4 hours ago, -AJ- said:

I've been hearing some talk about the no penalty ending on PP goal, but I really think fans would lose their minds after the Oilers score 3 goals on a 2 minute PP and completely change the game. Can you imagine a 2-minute 5 on 3? People don't know of the 50s Canadiens and why this rule existed in the first place.

They used to have a 2 minute major, in addition to the 5 minute major and major penalties did not end with a goal. But Montreal would feast on this, so they got rid of the 2 minute major and changed the rule on major penalties.

 

Salary Cap has to stay sorry. It's already uneven playing field with taxes different everywhere. I agree with abolishing the shootout. If they can figure the schedule no back to backs would be good for the players. Maybe start Oct 1. And move training camp pre-season to early to mid September?

No icing on PK would just kill players. You'd have to get to a point where you have to rag the puck to get it out of the zone to allow partial line change.

[Demk1ng]

While controversial I’d like to abolish the offside reviews. 
 

It makes zero sense to have a 10 minute review to figure out if somebody was 1mm offside.  Kills the momentum of the game. 
 

Easy fix is to have the video guys review all entries for obvious offsides and stop the play. 

[King Heffy]

4 hours ago, brownky said:

I like the 10 minute 3 on 3 OT and killing the shootout.

 

I like Refs facing the media.

 

The rest... no. Particularly the dress code - I'm probably kind of a dinosaur but I do like the 'game day dress code'. I think the players should be allowed off the hook in interviews a bit, but for the 'walk to the rink' the suit is a good look. Now I do believe there is/should be plenty of opportunity for 'customization' in suit-land, but they should still wear a suit. Even if they mock suits as a concept while wearing the suit. Wear a suit that has the tuxedo suit overlay, why not?

 

It's just a professionalism thing - these are highly paid professionals. They shouldn't look like they woke up on the wrong side of behind the dumpster dragging trousers around their ass cheeks wearing a baggy hoodie. So a happy medium should be available.

I'm probably in a minority but I agree.  It's part of coming prepared and ready to play.  Look good, play good.

[Hairy Kneel]

Dress code-no, they should be comfortable and warm up ready.

Interview refs- yes.

Take one ref off the ice and let him manage the video feed on offsides and goalie interference. 

OT- two 6 minute halves with a 5 minute break in between. Live with the ties.

[Cold]

Yes to ref interviews, no to killing the dress code, yes to killing the shoot out, no to the red line. 

 

I agree with three point games.

I’d also like to see the current players on the ice start for a penalty, like an icing. 

The salary cap has to be adjusted for different tax amounts eventually.

 

[IBatch]

Number 10.   It would slow the game down.   Which would also reduce injuries.   Maybe we should listen to Crosby.     No more shoot-outs for sure.   Nice to see the players not enjoy it, and the fans.   Well any fan I know, but we were also against it at the start. 

[IBatch]

23 hours ago, -AJ- said:

 

Would actually love this change. 3 points for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 point for OT/SO loss. And for those who complain that we won't be able to compare points to historical record, I have two points:

 

1. This is already the case. The introduction of the loser point in 1999-00 created three point games and inflated point totals to levels much higher than previously.

2. We can still use points percentage, which has already grown in popularity as an accurate measure to account for variations in games played during the season.

Or just bring back the tie game.   The things they were trying to avoid,  IMO, didn't change at all.  Instead teams are playing for the one point late in the third, same as before.   3 x 3 is a better gimmick than the shoot-out, but still a gimmick.  

 

Just abolish the shoot-out.    Can live with the 3 x 3 and keep it five minutes, enough games are decided.  

 

Removing the redline was enough.     This isn't soccer (well anymore although it was getting awfully close in the dead puck era), scoring is up.   Back to 1994 levels, which is considered the end of the golden era of hockey.   As in 1970-1994.   And the dead puck era actually started a couple years before that with the clutching and grabbing.    Expansion brought it in.    Would prefer to go back to 4 x 4 OT and winner takes all.  Five minutes that's it.  Nobody scores then it's a tie. 

 

Just get rid of the loser point.   Skill levels have caught up to expansion almost.   Close enough anyways.    And put a 20 year hold on expanding further.   I'm surprised nobody thought to mention bringing  the play-ins back.  Because fans shouldn't have to wait 5-11 years to see their teams make the playoffs, even if it's only one home game.  Reduce the schedule by two games.   And revenue share for those 10 or so teams that lose a home game with the five game series teams.    

Edited September 22, 2023 by IBatch