The AHL announced some new rules that they will put in place next season, and it is my understanding that these are like test-runs to see if they work well enough to use them in the NHL at some point in the future.
Now, I have never understood why the NHL continues to tweak their rules so much and so often. Whether it's flip-flopping between off-side rules every few years, calling more penalties and then not calling enough penalties, or adding weird geometric shapes to different areas on the ice, the NHL has never been fully satisfied with their game. No other professional sport, to my knowledge, changes the rules of their game so often.
This, I think, is actually a good thing, even if I don't understand why they can't just be satisfied. Often times people are too beholden to tradition and a fake romantic version of the past that they do not change with the times. Since the NHL has never gone long without rule changes and/or tweaks, this is not typically a problem in hockey and the NHL does deserve credit for being progressive in their search for a balance between scoring and defense, hitting and safety, even if the constant rule changes are occasionally confusing and hard to keep track of.
I mean, is there anyone, anywhere who either likes or fully understands hybrid icing?
Obviously, any rule changes are apt to be controversial, but I figured it couldn't hurt to look into what the AHL is doing and see how these might work out in the NHL. Keep in mind that, while I am only too happy to offer my opinion on these, that the reason they test them out in the minors first is because no one knows how they'll really work out until seen in game situations. So, while I can offer you my initial take on what's happening, it's worthwhile,I think, to at least wait and see before making any final declarations.
Rule Change #1
Overtime will now be 7 minutes long and will go 3 on 3 after three minutes.
I applaud the attempt to make less games decided by a shoot-out. Shout-outs are fun, but I prefer to watch hockey. I think the shoot-out is good occasionally, but something like 15% of games are ending that way, and it's too much.
This, however, is not the way to correct the problem.
The reason there are so many shoot-outs is because the NHL rewards teams for losing. The risk/reward incentive is quite low for a team to play for the win late in regulation, so in tie games, teams get conservative (lowering the entertainment value of third periods) and make sure they get to OT. Once in overtime, the weaker team knows they have a 50% chance of winning the luck based shoot-out, so they play not to lose and because of that, far too many games are going to the shootout.
Making overtime longer isn't going to do anything except get more players hurt. The regular season is a grind and doesn't need to be longer. Better would be to make all games either worth 2 or 3 points and to stop rewarding losses. Personally, I think ties should be brought back and the shootout eliminated, but failing that, I think teams have more incentive to win in overtime or the shootout if they know a loss a is worth nothing.
As for 3 on 3, I think it's an abomination. I don't even like 4 on 4, so take that for what it's worth, but I just don't see what's so bad about ties or 5 on 5.
Rule Change #2
The AHL will now eject any player receiving two fighting majors in the same game, or 3 major penalties overall.
I hate and reject any attempts to curb fighting in hockey. I don't really like how enforcers only fight other enforcers, but I do love a good fight. The NHL should be working to increase fighting (because fighting sells and discourages dirty play) rather than decreasing it to satisfy people who aren't really hockey fans anyways.
You now get ejected for having two fights? That is pathetic. You should be rewarded for getting in two fights, not penalized!
I don't see how fighting is so out of control that they need to bring it down to more reasonable levels. All they are doing is slowly legislating it out of the game, which is sad, because all of their players and all of their fans enjoy it.
I could at least respect them if they came out and banned fighting, but this back-handed way of slowly eliminating it is not respectful or respectable.
With the way fighting is now anyways, this rule will serve to do nothing but get guys who play 4 minutes a night ejected for the part of the game they were unlikely to get on the ice for anyways, so it's essentially useless. All that will happen is that once or twice a Lucic or Phaneuf will end up ejected for the third period of an important game and everyone will remember they hate the dumb rule they otherwise forgot even existed.
In reality, this rule, should it be adopted to the NHL will almost never effect the outcome of a game, so I only hate it in principal, since in practice, it's unlikely to matter much.
Rule Change#3
The third rule change the AHL is trying out is that a player has to skate immediately to the bench if his helmet comes off or he gets a minor penalty.
Ironic, maybe, since I just spent a few hundred words supporting fighting, but I support any non-ridiculous safety initiative. This is probably a good idea, though I didn't realize there was a rash of players getting hurt while accidentally helmetless, bu tnevertheless, this seems like a pretty obvious move.
In addition to the three rules adopted today, the AHL will also scrape the ice before OT and have the teams switch ends, in order to make a longer change and increase offense. Both of those minor tweaks seem good and I don't know why the NHL doesn't adopt those immediately.
Thanks for Reading