Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you all feel about the new rule changes and do you think they will make their way to the NHL?
I think the Helmet rule might interrupt the flow of the game in some situations and in that case it's on the player themselves to save themselves from injury or not. Just like wearing a helmet at a skatepark or something like that.
The overtime rule will most definitely be a little bit shaky at first but I feel that it will end more games in OT instead of a SO.
How do you all feel about the new rule changes and do you think they will make their way to the NHL?
I think the Helmet rule might interrupt the flow of the game in some situations and in that case it's on the player themselves to save themselves from injury or not. Just like wearing a helmet at a skatepark or something like that.
The overtime rule will most definitely be a little bit shaky at first but I feel that it will end more games in OT instead of a SO.
When I started reading I was hoping for a regular 5 on 5 for the overtime with extended time. I do not like the change, and as a side note do not like the shootout at all.
5 on 5 for 10 minutes and call it a tie for regular season games. This 3 on 3 is too much of a gimmick for my taste.
The helmet part seems minor. I do not know what it is like at the AHL level but I do not see a players helmet coming off that often in the NHL. I didn't know it was a problem to warrant a rule change.
The fighting - I'd like to see that abolished altogether as it is outdated and barbaric. But I know I am in the minority with that view.
I can see this new rule possibly getting abused. I would have liked to see the instigating part addressed but I see it wasn't.
Last edited by John13; 07-16-2014 at 09:54 AM..
Reason: typo
Hmm... I think the overtime rule has one too many things going on and is now becoming gimmicky. 4 on 4 to a 3 on 3 and then a shootout if no goals? Sheesh... we've come a long way from the 5 minute 5 on 5.
The major penalty rule I'm ok with...
As for the helmet rule, meh. Sometimes helmets get accidently knocked off and it's not the players fault... but yet they'll be penalized if they don't immediately get off the ice or put it back on?... not a fan.
Oh well.. I hope to get more AHL experiences now that the Flyers are getting the Phantoms back and they will be a few miles from me.... so I guess I'll be able to see all these new rule changes in action!
Hmm... I think the overtime rule has one too many things going on and is now becoming gimmicky. 4 on 4 to a 3 on 3 and then a shootout if no goals? Sheesh... we've come a long way from the 5 minute 5 on 5.
The major penalty rule I'm ok with...
As for the helmet rule, meh. Sometimes helmets get accidently knocked off and it's not the players fault... but yet they'll be penalized if they don't immediately get off the ice or put it back on?... not a fan.
Oh well.. I hope to get more AHL experiences now that the Flyers are getting the Phantoms back and they will be a few miles from me.... so I guess I'll be able to see all these new rule changes in action!
Is that what it used to be in the AHL?
I do not like the 3 on 3 at all. But I would take it over that damn shootout. Sadly it looks like that is here to stay.
I do not like the 3 on 3 at all. But I would take it over that damn shootout. Sadly it looks like that is here to stay.
I don't understand all the shootout hate on every hockey board I go. For the average meaningless regular-season game, it's an okay way to settle the outcome and some of the moves are pretty filthy.
Although, the Rangers did lose their playoff spot in a shootout back in 2010.. then the Flyers went to the Final.. Maybe some arbitrary rule like only games before the trade deadline end in a shootout?
I don't understand all the shootout hate on every hockey board I go. For the average meaningless regular-season game, it's an okay way to settle the outcome and some of the moves are pretty filthy.
Although, the Rangers did lose their playoff spot in a shootout back in 2010.. then the Flyers went to the Final.. Maybe some arbitrary rule like only games before the trade deadline end in a shootout?
It's no way to settle a game. I'd rather have a tie.
It's not "meaningless" for teams trying to earn points and leap over teams to get into the playoffs. A tie at the end of overtime should only earn each team one point.
I'm actually a little surprised on what you reported form the hockey boards because I got the impression most fans like it.
Honestly... they can change the point system to make it really more of an incentive to go for the win rather than the tie.
Similar to Soccer.... 3 points per win and 1 point per tie.... and of course 0 for a loss. Oh and no more of the automatic 1 point for entering overtime either.
It's no way to settle a game. I'd rather have a tie.
It's not "meaningless" for teams trying to earn points and leap over teams to get into the playoffs. A tie at the end of overtime should only earn each team one point.
I'm actually a little surprised on what you reported form the hockey boards because I got the impression most fans like it.
Oh, I'm sure it helps snatch casual fans. But on places like HFBoards, people hate it too. Same people hate the All-Star game too and most skills competitions, but I think if it helps hockey appeal to more casual fans and make them real fans, then fine.
But I think having a tie with equal points would be a mistake.. You'd see teams playing a neutral zone trap against each other for 5 minutes. Borrriinngg.
That convoluted overtime rule gets me. Fans are now going to have to sit while they dry-Zamboni the ice? And what if no whistle occurs after the 4 minute mark? How are they supposed to go down to 3 on 3?
The NFL's head injury litigation is probably changing the game for all pro leagues.
If the AHL demonstrates that they have a zero-tolerance for guys skating on the ice without a helmet (even when a helmet is lost briefly & accidentally), it shields itself from future lawsuits (?)
Not completely discounting pro hockeys' concern for player safety, and their increased head injury knowledge.. but I'm speculating this is a rule crafted more for proactive legal reasons (?)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
