Check out some NHL rule changes for this year...

[spndnchz]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=730165&navid=DL|NHL|home

 

Bigger trapezoid, no spin-o-rama in the shoot out among them.

 

Video review on those goals when official blows the whistle early will be allowed to actually be goals.

[WildCard]

Gotta say, not happy at all with these two changes

 

Rule 23 – Game Misconduct Penalties

A new Game Misconduct category will be created. Clipping, charging, elbowing, interference, kneeing, head-butting and butt-ending move from the general category into the same category as boarding and checking from behind ("Physical Fouls"), whereby a player who incurs two such game misconducts in this category would now be automatically suspended for one game.

 

Interference isn't usually more than a hold along the boards and some light check thrown somewhere. IMO, it's too vague to categorize as being as physical as elbowing/boarding

 

Rule 57 – Tripping

The rule relating to "Tripping" will be revised to specifically provide that a two minute minor penalty will be assessed when a defending player "dives" and trips an attacking player with his body/arm/shoulder, regardless of whether the defending player is able to make initial contact with the puck.

 

If you can't protect the puck from a sprawling defender on a 2-1 or a breakaway, he's done his job and you haven't.

Edited September 11, 2014 by WildCard

[Randall Flagg]

Embellishment will get you fined, eh? Chara's going to be broke! Also, no more throwing people out of the face-off dot, just a penalty for two warnings...

[LastPommerFan]

Embellishment will get you fined, eh? Chara's going to be broke! Also, no more throwing people out of the face-off dot, just a penalty for two warnings...

 

I got the impression that this was only on icing.

[Randall Flagg]

I got the impression that this was only on icing.

Ahhh, good call. Then again, one would think that's where most of the delay tactics occur, right?

[PASabreFan]

I'll channel Brian Koziol here and say that the NHL thinks too hard of ways to kill offense. Why shouldn't you be able to do a spinorama on a penalty shot or in a shootout?

[shrader]

Interference isn't usually more than a hold along the boards and some light check thrown somewhere. IMO, it's too vague to categorize as being as physical as elbowing/boarding

 

I think you're reading that one wrong. The rule states that getting two game misconducts for any of those calls is an automatic one game suspension. Have you ever seen a player called for a game misconduct due to interference? It's always been in the books but is incredibly rare. If they're actually making that call, you can bet that the infraction was severe.

 

 

If you can't protect the puck from a sprawling defender on a 2-1 or a breakaway, he's done his job and you haven't.

 

Yeah, his job was to prevent a shot on goal which he did in fact accomplish. I've never understood why getting the puck first suddenly allowed someone to trip an opposing player even though that is not legal under any other circumstances. That's not an issue anymore thanks to this one.

 

Then again, by that same logic, it does bring icing on the PK into question.

 

I'll channel Brian Koziol here and say that the NHL thinks too hard of ways to kill offense. Why shouldn't you be able to do a spinorama on a penalty shot or in a shootout?

 

Kill offense? Did you read the rest of the rules? They're clearly focused on generating more offense here. Outlawing the spinorama doesn't limit offense since they're already in a situation where a breakaway opportunity is guaranteed.

[LastPommerFan]

Then again, by that same logic, it does bring icing on the PK into question.

 

I would love to see the AHL experiment with this. That would make for some crazy power plays.

[LGR4GM]

 

Yeah, his job was to prevent a shot on goal which he did in fact accomplish. I've never understood why getting the puck first suddenly allowed someone to trip an opposing player even though that is not legal under any other circumstances. That's not an issue anymore thanks to this one.

 

I think maybe they were thinking of Soccer in some ways. If you slide tackle someone, if you get the ball first you can theoretically go right through

[WildCard]

I think you're reading that one wrong. The rule states that getting two game misconducts for any of those calls is an automatic one game suspension. Have you ever seen a player called for a game misconduct due to interference? It's always been in the books but is incredibly rare. If they're actually making that call, you can bet that the infraction was severe.

 

I think you're right; I went back and reread it and I see what you mean now. That doesn't bother me that much then because, like you said, if someone does an interference worthy of a game misconduct, he's basically headhunting.

 

Yeah, his job was to prevent a shot on goal which he did in fact accomplish. I've never understood why getting the puck first suddenly allowed someone to trip an opposing player even though that is not legal under any other circumstances. That's not an issue anymore thanks to this one.

 

Then again, by that same logic, it does bring icing on the PK into question.

I feel like, if you can get to the puck, you can play it. Same thing as a goalie's poke check or an incidental tripping.

 

I think it's all done to get more offense though; no tripping on a breakaway means there'll be more breakaways and if not, more power plays from them.

[shrader]

I would love to see the AHL experiment with this. That would make for some crazy power plays.

 

Especially paired with the rule not allowing a line change after an icing call. Hockey East (and maybe the rest of the NCAA) tried it a couple years ago. The problem that arises from it is that teams instead intentionally put the puck into the benches, which allows a line change. You'd think they could work around that by not allowing a line change in that situation either.

[WildCard]

I think maybe they were thinking of Soccer in some ways. If you slide tackle someone, if you get the ball first you can theoretically go right through

Exactly

[shrader]

I feel like, if you can get to the puck, you can play it. Same thing as a goalie's poke check or an incidental tripping.

 

I think it's all done to get more offense though; no tripping on a breakaway means there'll be more breakaways and if not, more power plays from them.

 

No matter how entertaining it was when Hasek made those crazy rushes, I think that if you intentionally dive into a guy's legs, its tripping.

[WildCard]

No matter how entertaining it was when Hasek made those crazy rushes, I think that if you intentionally dive into a guy's legs, its tripping.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Throwing your body at someone's legs and swinging your stick at them are pretty different.

[SwampD]

I think you're reading that one wrong. The rule states that getting two game misconducts for any of those calls is an automatic one game suspension. Have you ever seen a player called for a game misconduct due to interference? It's always been in the books but is incredibly rare. If they're actually making that call, you can bet that the infraction was severe.

 

 

McCabe got one against the Bruins last year.

[shrader]

I don't think it's as simple as that. Throwing your body at someone's legs and swinging your stick at them are pretty different.

 

This was the way it was previously written:

 

57.1 Tripping – A player shall not place the stick, knee, foot, arm, hand or elbow in such a manner that causes his opponent to trip or fall.

Accidental trips which occur simultaneously with a completed play will not be penalized. Accidental trips occurring simultaneously with or after a stoppage of play will not be penalized.

If, in the opinion of the Referee, a player makes contact with the puck first and subsequently trips the opponent in so doing, no penalty shall be assessed.

 

I'm not sure why they decided to throw in that last sentence, because that scenario very clearly falls into the first section of the description. And also, to counter your thought earlier that the defenseman accomplished his goal by breaking up puck possession, shouldn't his goal have been to not let the guy past him in the first place?

 

McCabe got one against the Bruins last year.

 

I know I've seen it once in my entire life. It's about as elusive as the faceoff infraction penalty.

[WildCard]

This was the way it was previously written:

 

I'm not sure why they decided to throw in that last sentence, because that scenario very clearly falls into the first section of the description. And also, to counter your thought earlier that the defenseman accomplished his goal by breaking up puck possession, shouldn't his goal have been to not let the guy past him in the first place?

And all of that's based on the ref's discretion. Coming out of the crease to slide into your opponent's legs clearly only serves one purpose; it's more of a check than playing the puck. But if you wrap your stick around a player in a way that doesn't impede him before he doesn't have the puck anymore, there's a ton of gray area there for the ref. I feel like you have to give the player the benefit of the doubt that his intention was to play the puck because he did indeed play it, whereas if he trips the player before making conduct, you have to assume otherwise.

 

As for it being the defenseman's responsibility: there are plenty of breakaways caused by a forward's errant pass to the point, and more so too because a forward is checked in the neutral zone and the defenseman don't have time to stop, and turn around to catch the opposing player already skating towards their zone.

[dudacek]

I always thought that if you got to the puck first, then you can't be tripping a guy because he was no longer in possession when he fell over you, in a space you had already established possession of.

[shrader]

And all of that's based on the ref's discretion. Coming out of the crease to slide into your opponent's legs clearly only serves one purpose; it's more of a check than playing the puck. But if you wrap your stick around a player in a way that doesn't impede him before he doesn't have the puck anymore, there's a ton of gray area there for the ref. I feel like you have to give the player the benefit of the doubt that his intention was to play the puck because he did indeed play it, whereas if he trips the player before making conduct, you have to assume otherwise.

 

As for it being the defenseman's responsibility: there are plenty of breakaways caused by a forward's errant pass to the point, and more so too because a forward is checked in the neutral zone and the defenseman don't have time to stop, and turn around to catch the opposing player already skating towards their zone.

 

Looking at the rule again, it says it is only a penalty if the contact is made with the body arm or shoulder. I wonder why they specifically left out the stick. But as for the idea that you have to give the player the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to play the puck, that idea just doesn't fly with me. We all know very well that even if they are going for the puck, they're doing it knowing that they can still take the guy down if they miss it.

 

 

As for the other rules, I should have said this right away, but the goal review one really bugs me. If they're giving the review team more power to overturn whistles that shouldn't have been blown, there's a giant gray area with that one. How much of a buffer period will they allow? If they're allowing a goal after a whistle was blown, there's always the question of whether the defense let up the instant that whistle went. Way too much subjectivity in this one.

[Ottosmagic13]

I hate the trapezoid I think it is the one of the most ridiculous arbitrary rules in the book. If you want goalies to think twice about playing the puck make them fair game for forwards if they are behind the goal line...

 

and

The rule relating to "Tripping" will be revised to specifically provide that a two minute minor penalty will be assessed when a defending player "dives" and trips an attacking player with his body/arm/shoulder, regardless of whether the defending player is able to make initial contact with the puck.

 

Ugh, why? If it was a clean poke check, that is puck contact before any contact with opposing player, then it was a good play. What's next, if you check a player and dispossess him as a result -- 2 minutes for interference?

Edited September 12, 2014 by Ottosmagic13

[Trettioåtta]

The tripping rule is good for offense, so i'm happy. As for should it exist, I'm in two minds. On the one hand If you dive at and slide into a player then that should be tripping probably. I'm not sure if it makes a difference that you tapped the puck before hitting them. Realistically you have relieved them of possession, but not established possession yourself. Thus all that has happened is you relieved the player of possession then tripped him/interfered with him going after the lose puck

[SwampD]

 

I know I've seen it once in my entire life. It's about as elusive as the faceoff infraction penalty.

I just thought it was funny that you used an example that actually happened only 2 Sabres' games ago.

 

I hate the trapezoid I think it is the one of the most ridiculous arbitrary rules in the book. If you want goalies to think twice about playing the puck make them fair game for forwards if they are behind the goal line...

 

and

[/size][/font][/color]

 

Ugh, why? If it was a clean poke check, that is puck contact before any contact with opposing player, then it was a good play. What's next, if you check a player and dispossess him as a result -- 2 minutes for interference?

I LOVE your thoughts on the Trapaziod.

 

As for the tripping change, I could never understand why it never was tripping to begin with. I like it.

[shrader]

 

I just thought it was funny that you used an example that actually happened only 2 Sabres' games ago.

 

Nice. What happened on that play?

[SwampD]

Nice. What happened on that play?

Second to last game McCabe lit up Danny Paille at the blue line and got kicked out. Probably wouldn't have kicked him out if it was two good playoff teams going at it, but it was us vs. the Presidents trophy winner in a meaningless game.

[Johnny DangerFace]

 

Second to last game McCabe lit up Danny Paille at the blue line and got kicked out. Probably wouldn't have kicked him out if it was two good playoff teams going at it, but it was us vs. the Presidents trophy winner in a meaningless game.

 

http://youtu.be/T3tthBrsbEg

 

Love the shrug