Commissioner for a Day

[Kin]

So in yet another of our slow summer, there's nothing to talk about exercises, I'll put this classic to the board. If you're given ultimate power over the league to make the changes you want to make to it, how are you changing the NHL as it currently is? What rule tweaks, big or small, do you think would make for a better game?

Here are mine:

Off-Ice:

1. No cap
2. No draft
3. No restricted free agency
4. Streamline the rule book to more accurately reflect the game on the ice. If you want referees to not call every penalty they see for the sake of a game's flow or to call even-up penalties...say so.


On-Ice:

1. No more offside reviews. If a ref misses a call leading to a goal, they miss the call.
2. Penalties are a full 2 minutes, regardless of scoring. Also the team on the PP can decide if they want 5 on 4 or 4 on 3.
3. No shootouts. 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie.
4. No more "distinct kicking motion" stuff. Anything short of a full soccer wind-up kick is a good goal
5. Fighting majors come with automatic game misconducts

Any other ideas for ways to make the game better?

 

[Andy007]

I've been clamouring for a 3 point win, 1 point tie and abolishing the SO for awhile now. I love that idea. I also agree with every On-Ice rule you listed.

For me, I'd also go with:

1. 72-game season (No reason for the playoffs to ever drag into June)
2. 2 officials maximum on ice (With today's technology and utilization of replay/challenges that's all we need)
3. High-sticking is a two minute penalty. Bleeding is not relevant
4. The puck over boards delay of game penalty is gone
5. Arena boards scaled back to accommodate Olympic-sized dimensions
6. Trapozoid rule abolished

 

[CarltonTheBear]

4. Streamline the rule book to more accurately reflect the game on the ice. If you want referees to not call every penalty they see for the sake of a game's flow or to call even-up penalties...say so.

Heck yes. I mentioned this during the playoffs or late in the season... the league, the players, the refs, they all need to come together and go through the rule book point by point, sentence by sentence, and determine what makes sense for the game of hockey and what doesn't anymore. There's too much stuff in there that's decades and decades old that's just accepted because of how long it's been there. Like my favourite 2 minutes for bleeding penalty.

 

[Bullfrog]

On-Ice:
1. Penalties:
- full length, regardless of team scoring (same with Nik)
- agreed with fighting being an automatic misconduct (assault should not be codified)
- Penalties organized into categories, such as technical penalties (delay of game, face-off infractions, too-many men, failed challenge, etc.) and contact penalties (interference, tripping, charging, high-sticking, holding, etc.) Technical penalties are 1 minute in length; contact penalties are 2 minutes.
- Penalty killing team not permitted to ice the puck
- Penalties are not waved off when non-offending team scores
2. Kicking motion: agreed; in fact, it should explicitly be allowed as a deflection.

Off-ice:
1. End or alter NHL/CHL agreements. Drafted players permitted to play wherever they want, including ECHL and AHL, regardless if they're from NA or Europe or elsewhere.
2. No restricted free agency; replace with incentives to sign with existing team. Perhaps limit all contracts to 5 years except up to 8 years for existing teams.
3. Either get rid of cap or alter to a soft cap/luxury cap system.
4. Contracts:
- allow mutually-agreed termination of contract, provided player must not re-sign with same team or be traded back to that team during that season
- NTCs and NMCs survive trades (i.e. they're waived for that one transaction only).
- if ELCs stay, performance bonuses are automatic to a certain level.

In general, I think there needs to be a comprehensive review of drafting and free agency. Admittedly, I just don't know enough about its history or the impacts of removing these restrictions to form an opinion yet. Not having control over where you play doesn't sit well with me, but a totally free market seems a bit open for abuse. But I'm wondering if market forces take over? I mean, the Leafs couldn't just sign every player, there would roster limits, players would want assurances of roster opportunities, etc.

 

[Bullfrog]

I've been clamouring for a 3 point win, 1 point tie and abolishing the SO for awhile now. I love that idea. I also agree with every On-Ice rule you listed.

For me, I'd also go with:

1. 72-game season (No reason for the playoffs to ever drag into June)
2. 2 officials maximum on ice (With today's technology and utilization of replay/challenges that's all we need)
3. High-sticking is a two minute penalty. Bleeding is not relevant
4. The puck over boards delay of game penalty is gone
5. Arena boards scaled back to accommodate Olympic-sized dimensions
6. Trapozoid rule abolished

I like all of these. There could still be delay-of-game if it is intentional, but that would become a rare penalty. An accidental over the boards is stupid. The "penalty" should be a face-off in the offending zone without the opportunity to make a line change; same as icing.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I like all of these. There could still be delay-of-game if it is intentional, but that would become a rare penalty. An accidental over the boards is stupid. The "penalty" should be a face-off in the offending zone without the opportunity to make a line change; same as icing.

I don't like the idea that refs can make it a penalty only if it's intentional. You know pretty much every time it happens in the playoffs no ref would have the guts to say it's intentional even if it clearly is.

 

[Kin]

5. Arena boards scaled back to accommodate Olympic-sized dimensions

This is a tricky one for me. I'm worried that we'd just see a lot more of what we've seen at recent Olympics where teams just collapse into the middle and leave the attacking team with lots of room on the outside and taking shots into a crowded zone. I feel like for this to work you'd almost have to come up with the equivalent to the old "Illegal Defense" call from the NBA that outlawed Zones.

- Penalty killing team not permitted to ice the puck

This is a good one. Co-signed.

 

[Kin]

In general, I think there needs to be a comprehensive review of drafting and free agency. Admittedly, I just don't know enough about its history or the impacts of removing these restrictions to form an opinion yet. Not having control over where you play doesn't sit well with me, but a totally free market seems a bit open for abuse. But I'm wondering if market forces take over? I mean, the Leafs couldn't just sign every player, there would roster limits, players would want assurances of roster opportunities, etc.

So I tend to be of the belief that just the nature of the roster would limit how much any one team would corner the market on players(and, if it's a question of money, the Leafs aren't a lone whale among guppies. The Flyers, Rangers, Habs, Red Wings and Blackhawks at least all could legitimately challenge them)

But I also think it would do something really interesting to teams near the bottom. Instead of having to spend money on mediocre free agents they could invest in prospects. Could they sign the McDavids and Matthewses? Maybe not but what they could do is find good 1st-2nd round prospects and give them opportunities/money that other clubs wouldn't bother with.

 

[Bullfrog]

I like all of these. There could still be delay-of-game if it is intentional, but that would become a rare penalty. An accidental over the boards is stupid. The "penalty" should be a face-off in the offending zone without the opportunity to make a line change; same as icing.

I don't like the idea that refs can make it a penalty only if it's intentional. You know pretty much every time it happens in the playoffs no ref would have the guts to say it's intentional even if it clearly is.

You're probably right. But, it'd also only be a one-minute penalty in my books.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

One minor PP related change: face-offs to start a period while a team is on the powerplay should be in the offensive zone. This just seems sorta obvious.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Playoff seeding hasn't been mentioned yet so I'll thrown that in. Just go to 1v8 conference style. No brackets, no divisional winners getting a guaranteed placement, no wild cards. Just 1v8, 2v7, and so on.

 

[Bullfrog]

In general, I think there needs to be a comprehensive review of drafting and free agency. Admittedly, I just don't know enough about its history or the impacts of removing these restrictions to form an opinion yet. Not having control over where you play doesn't sit well with me, but a totally free market seems a bit open for abuse. But I'm wondering if market forces take over? I mean, the Leafs couldn't just sign every player, there would roster limits, players would want assurances of roster opportunities, etc.

So I tend to be of the belief that just the nature of the roster would limit how much any one team would corner the market on players(and, if it's a question of money, the Leafs aren't a lone whale among guppies. The Flyers, Rangers, Habs, Red Wings and Blackhawks at least all could legitimately challenge them)

But I also think it would do something really interesting to teams near the bottom. Instead of having to spend money on mediocre free agents they could invest in prospects. Could they sign the McDavids and Matthewses? Maybe not but what they could do is find good 1st-2nd round prospects and give them opportunities/money that other clubs wouldn't bother with.

That's an interesting take, thanks for sharing. I imagine that at every new season of eligibility (I'm assuming based on age), there would only really be a small handful of players that there would be a big war over.

 

[Kin]

I imagine that at every new season of eligibility (I'm assuming based on age), there would only really be a small handful of players that there would be a big war over.

In my craziest moments, I kind of support the idea of a soccer-style academy program. If the Leafs or whoever want to sign a 9 year old Steven Stamkos...I mean, it's their money.

 

[bustaheims]

On ice
1. Fighting is an automatic game misconduct. First offence also comes with a $5,000 fine. 5 game suspension for a 2nd. 15 for a third. 40 for a 4th. A full season for a 5th. No expiration date on offences. I want fighting out of the game. It no longer has a place.
2. Kicking motion goals - blade stays on the ice? Good goal. Blade comes off the ice? No goal.
3. Once the puck enters the offensive zone, teams on the PK need to get the puck across their blueline to be able to ice the puck freely. Teams on the PP stay onside unless the puck crosses the redline.
4. Crack down on hitting from behind, head shots, boarding, etc.
5. Get rid of the double minor for high sticking.
6. Offsides is based on body position relative to the blueline, not whether or not a skate is touching the ice.
7. Max 90 seconds for review. If a conclusive call can't be made in that time, the call on the ice stands.
8. No more shootouts. No more loser points. 2 points for a win, regardless of regulation or OT, 1 for ties, and 0 for all losses.
9. Puck over the boards penalty goes away. Instead, it's treated like icing - no line change allowed for the offending team.

Off Ice
1. Arbitration for all RFAs
2. Lower the compensation for offer sheets
3. Tiered cap system - soft cap, then a luxury tax that contributes to revenue sharing up to a hard cap.
4. Tiered ELCs based on draft position.
5. 5 year limit on contracts signed by players going to new teams. 7 years for players staying with their teams.

 

[Kin]

It's interesting to see all the high sticking stuff. I agree that the 2/4 minute thing depending on a tiny cut is pretty tenuous but maybe I just still have Bryan Berard flashbacks because I think the damage high sticks can do is so serious that it needs to be treated more severely than, say, holding.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

It's interesting to see all the high sticking stuff. I agree that the 2/4 minute thing depending on a tiny cut is pretty tenuous but maybe I just still have Bryan Berard flashbacks because I think the damage high sticks can do is so serious that it needs to be treated more severely than, say, holding.

We've recently had mandatory visors come into the league though, and while they won't prevent every single high sticking injury they do help.

Also I went to check out the exact wording of the rule to see what it says and apparently it doesn't even specifically mention blood like I thought it did:

60.3 Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part of
his stick above the shoulders of the opponent so that injury results,
the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty for all contact that
causes an injury, whether accidental or careless, in the opinion of the
Referee.

So basically, just stop saying bleeding = "injury" because that's really not the case. At least not in hockey terms.

 

[bustaheims]

It's interesting to see all the high sticking stuff. I agree that the 2/4 minute thing depending on a tiny cut is pretty tenuous but maybe I just still have Bryan Berard flashbacks because I think the damage high sticks can do is so serious that it needs to be treated more severely than, say, holding.

Before mandatory visors, it was much more necessary, but, now that every player entering the league wears some form of eye protection, it feels less threatening.

It was also weird that only high sticking had an extra penalty for accidentally causing an injury.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I wish the search function here was a little better so I could find all the times I've complained about this rule. It's gotta be like 3% of my posts.

 

[Kin]

We've recently had mandatory visors come into the league though, and while they won't prevent every single high sticking injury they do help.

Yeah but I guess I'm still just thinking about the potential for permanent injury. Sticks around the eyes are one thing but we could just as easily be talking about knocking out teeth or hitting a guy in the neck...two minutes for that seems a bit flimsy is all.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Yeah but I guess I'm still just thinking about the potential for permanent injury. Sticks around the eyes are one thing but we could just as easily be talking about knocking out teeth or hitting a guy in the neck...two minutes for that seems a bit flimsy is all.

Lots of penalties like slashing and boarding have potential major and match penalties attached to them if there's a larger element of danger involved in the infraction at the time. I think you can still protect against that without the need for an automatic additional 2 minutes for drawing blood.