NHL Rule Changes: Awful Idea

I've been a hockey fan for a long time. Yeah, I'm just a lowly Amerikan, but since I was a kid, hockey always interested me, and that interest grew as I got older. I watched more games, studied the stats, learned about the history, I wanted to know everything there was to know about the sport of hockey. I'd like to think I've come to know the sport quite well over the last decade. Am I knowledgeable? Do I really know the game as well as I think? Maybe, maybe not.

As much as I've learned, I always found it a little irritating to find out when the NHL makes a rule change. It's not something I'm used to, but I usually just suck it up and accept it. Even the ridiculous rules, like the goalie's trapezoid, or the over-the-glass delay-of-game penalty. I really hate those.

But now, I've been reading over the last several days that the NHL is tinkering with several more changes. The majority of them just sound like they were high when they thought of them. Alow me to break down the rule changes being considered:


1: Having three faceoff circles, one in each zone, down the centre of the rink:
- Are you serious? How long has the NHL, or any hockey league for that matter, had the usual complement of faceoff circles that have been around for over a century? When did this become a nusiance? I really hope the league has a good excuse for proposing this. Like they were high.

B: The whistle starts play in place of a puck drop:
- Again, are you out of your mind? That's like having players scramble for a basketball, XFL-style in place of a tip-off. Another part of hockey that has worked fine since organized hockey has been around, and that I can't possibly fathom leaving the game.

3: If a player has been deemed to commit a faceoff infraction, he would be required to move back and keep his skates behind a "penalty line" (one foot) to take the faceoff:
- This is getting outlandishly ridiculous already...

4: No-touch icing, in which a referee can blow the whistle as soon as the puck crosses the line:
- I'd prefer if this stays how it is. But I guess I wouldn't complain too much if it took effect.

5: Having the second referee located off the playing surface:
- Huh?

6: Not allowing a team to change lines after committing offsides:
- Ah, finally a rule change that does NOT sound like it was conceived in a drunken state.

7: Three minutes of 4-on-4 overtime, three minutes of 3-on-3, then 2-on-2:
- No way. No bleeping way. I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: overtime is FINE the way it is! Five minutes of overtime then a shootout is not that horrible. Some fans may hate the shootout, but I like it myself.
Shootout debates aside, this is suppsoed to be the National Hockey League. Professional hockey. Not arcade-style hockey, the likes of which you can find on PlayStation 1 arcade hockey games. Rock The Rink, this ain't. Hitz, nope. NHL hockey. There is no logic in continually removing players as overtime drags on. Hate on the shootouts if you will, but I don't understand how anyone canagree with this proposed overtime garbage.

8: Narrowing the shallowness of the net, allowing players more room behind it:
- Just another stupid proposal to increase scoring. Haven't there been enough rule changes in efforts to increase scoring? Several decades ago, a rule was changed (I don't remember which) to increase scoring. Years later, it was changed back to the way it was... in an effort to increase scoring. Why do we need so many rules to increase scoring? Hockey isn't always boring just becasue there aren't always many goals scored.

9: Increase the size of the crease in all directions by three inches.
- I don't get it. I really don't.

Most rule changes, depsite their retardedness, I was able to get over. But these new rule changes being considered, I have to ask why? Why make these ridiculous changes to a game that's fine and fun to watch as it is?
I hope none of these changes take place. Most of them would change the game significantly, and just make it not as fun as it has been. I enjoy hockey because it's fun to watch, it's action-packed, and it's just a joy. It doesn't need to be tainted just because the powers that be aren't happy with the number of goals scored during games. Safety reasons, I can understand. But don't change key parts of it and justify it by saying it'll produce more goals.

Incredibly Late-Period Penalties

Something has been on my mind for a while now, and I never really took the time to mention anything about it. Better late than never I guess. Anyway... A while back, something really irritated the hell out of me and I'm going to talk about it whether you like it or not.

May 10, 2009. I'm watching the Bruins and Hurricanes, who appeared to be getting increasingly hostile with each other as the game progressed, especially in the 3rd period. Hope for the Hurricanes to win the game was long gone at this point, I was just watching for kicks now. But late in the 3rd period, something happened. And by "late," I really mean late. There must have been 1-2 seconds left in the period, and subsequently, the entire game. A big hoo-ha breaks out, fists are flying everywhere, it's a slobberknocker on the ice, and to top it all off, Milan Lucic is sent off on a misconduct. As I'm sitting there, amused by the referees' temporary lack of ability to restrain the players, I realized, they stopped the clock. No biggie, right? Any other point in the game, it would indeed be no biggie. But this was the 3rd period, and there were 1-3 seconds left.
Simply put, I got to wait a few minutes until the puck dropped and the final 1-3 seconds were officially burned off the clock and Boston could tally up a win. I waited several minutes for a 1-3 second countdown.

This wasn't the first time my rage was aroused by a late-period penalty that forced a several minute-long waiting period before the final 3 seconds of a period or game could be officially counted down. It has happened before- not much, but it still happens nonetheless.

I don't know if this is normal, but I just don't understand why the clock has to be stopped to address a penalty... when there's 2 seconds left in the period. All it does is burn up time before the period inevitably ends. Maybe it's just me, but it would be much wiser (and time-saving) to wait until the period is over, and just carry over the penalty to the next period. Instead of starting the period on the powerplay for 1:59, why not make it the full 2 minutes? I know that may not seem like much of a difference. We'll all agree that it isn't. At all. But think about how much time it would save in the final seconds of the last period. Instead of burning up a minute or two for addressing the penalty, the clock isn't stopped, no time is wasted, and the penalty carries over to the next period in it's entirety. It may only save a minute or two, which isn't much, but it does spare the arousal of my anger, which would be flaring if the penalty had delayed the end of the period.

So that's my proposed solution to really, really, really, really late-period penalty calls.

But what if it's the 3rd period?

My proposal still stands. I just don't see a point in stopping the clock when there's 2 seconds left to send a player to the penalty box when they'll only spend 2 seconds there. I think it would make much more sense to just let the clock burn out and let the penalty go. It just wouldn't be worth it to keep him in the box and let play resume if it will last only 2 seconds. And it would save me plenty of unneccessary rage.