7 Rule Changes the NHL Should Implement

For my first blog post, I’ve decided to write my thoughts on possible rule changes for the NHL.

These aren’t all original ideas, I’ve just heard of, played with, or thought about possible NHL rule changes a lot, so here’s where I currently stand on some of the most salient ones. I’ll list them in ascending order of the likelihood of giving an old-school, conservative hockey fan an aneurysm, then I’ll rate my support of it on a scale of 1-7.

Main considerations for the rule changes:

– Entertainment: the NHL is an entertainment business. So, ideas that make the game more entertaining should be entertained.

– Spirit of the game: This is obviously impossible to define objectively, but in general, rule changes shouldn’t negatively affect the spirit of the game.

– Fairness: Any rule changes should not punish doing something good or reward doing something bad.

1. Pick your faceoff side

This rule was recently introduced to NCAA and ACHA hockey, so I have two seasons of experience playing with it, and I think it’s great.

The rule is simple: after an icing or at the beginning of a powerplay, the attacking team gets to decide which side the faceoff is on. In both cases, the defending team has done something they’re not supposed to do. So, giving the attacking team a slight advantage is not only fair, but would also lead to a marginal increase in offense and therefore entertainment. It also does nothing to damage the spirit of the game. 

First powerplay units would be able to work on set faceoff plays in much more depth with the knowledge that they will always have the faceoff on the side they want at least once on the powerplay. Making it more likely for the attacking team to win the faceoff right after an icing would lead to more scoring chances and would discourage icing the puck even more. 

Overall, this would be quite a minor change, but at the highest level, it could have a significant impact at key moments in the game. I see absolutely no reason why this shouldn’t be implemented and I would predict that it will be in the near future. I also don’t see anyone having a problem with this. 

I support it 7/7

2. Scoring on a delayed penalty doesn’t negate the penalty

This is something I feel like I should have come around to far sooner than I did. 

If you take a penalty, you have to play a man down for 2 minutes or until the other team scores on you. But, if you get scored on before your guy goes to the box, you don’t have to spend any time with one less player on the ice? It makes no sense. Yes, the attacking team will pull their goalie and get a 6 on 5, but it’s still even strength; the same number of players are on the ice for both teams.

If you get a powerplay, you should get a powerplay. Doing something good—scoring—should not prevent you from getting what you deserve. I can definitely see some people having an issue with this rule change, but I don’t think that any reasonable person who puts thought into it will oppose it. This is also something that has been implemented in NCAA and ACHA, so I would predict we will also see this in the NHL in the near future.

I support this 7/7

3. “Partially failed” coach’s challenge

This is the first rule I’ve thought of without (to my knowledge) having heard someone else propose it first. 

Currently, if a team challenges a play and fails, they get a minor penalty for delay of game. I’m not necessarily opposed to this. I feel like the NHL is a bit overly concerned with the “flow of the game” when it comes to video reviews; I think most fans would prefer waiting a couple of minutes for the right call to be made over rushing to make the wrong call. But there should still be consequences for challenging something that shouldn’t be challenged. 

That being said, many video reviews are inconclusive. When the video review can’t conclusively find evidence for a call, the call on the ice stands. I also don’t think this is a bad thing. However, if a video review can’t find conclusive evidence for a call, then it also means that there is no conclusive evidence that the coach’s challenge was wrong. So, I propose that if a video review is inconclusive, then the call on the ice stands, but the team that challenged the play doesn’t get a penalty. 

If there is conclusive evidence that the challenge was wrong, then give a delay of game penalty. But if there’s no conclusive evidence either way, then just pretend the whole review didn’t happen and move on with the game. I tend to be a supporter of video reviews in general, but I think this is a good compromise between the “get the right call” and “maintain the flow of the game”. 

I support this 6/7

4. More points for regulation wins

There should be 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win, and 1 point for an overtime loss. 

There are three reasons I support this. First, if losing in overtime warrants a point, that implies losing in overtime is better than losing in regulation. If that’s the case, then why is winning in regulation not better than winning in overtime? Second, the same number of points should be up for grabs every game. It’s dumb that a team can be worse off because their division rivals went to overtime than if they had finished in regulation. Third, it would motivate teams to finish the game in regulation. Currently, going to overtime guarantees you a point, so in a close game that could go either way, it makes sense to just wait for overtime so that you can get at least a point. But if it also meant losing a point if you won, then you’d want to avoid overtime if you can. 

Plenty of sports already do this, and I see no benefit to doing it the current way instead. 

I support this 7/7

5. Shorthanded goal ends powerplay

When I first heard this rule, I thought it was a bit much. But thinking about it more, I’ve come around to it. 

One of the most exciting things to watch your team do is score a shorthanded goal. But if it’s then followed by a powerplay goal, it feels like quite a letdown for everyone, the whole thing may as well never have happened. The main consideration for this rule is entertainment. If a shorthanded goal ends your team’s penalty, an already exciting play would become even more exciting, and there would be no chance of the whole thing feeling like a waste of time if the other team scores on the same powerplay. 

This rule change would encourage teams to try scoring shorthanded, which would lead to both more shorthanded goals and more powerplay goals, as penalty killers will take more risks. This rule would reward doing something good (scoring) and punish doing something bad (getting scored on).

Stakes would be higher, more risks will be taken, and the overall excitement of a powerplay would be elevated for everyone. This would be the most radical change on this list so far, but I think it still checks the boxes for a good rule change for the NHL. 

I support this 6/7

6. Icings on penalty kill

USA Hockey is changing the rules for youth hockey quite a bit nowadays, and for the most part, the changes are game-ruiningly horrendous. However, one of the rules I’ve started to come around to: icings on penalty kills. 

First off, I still don’t think youth hockey should have this rule. It should only be implemented in youth hockey if it is also implemented in the NHL. Growing up, I wanted to be like my favorite NHL players, so the fact that kids are becoming less and less allowed to do that is, to me, awful.

But thinking about the rule on its own merits, I can see the argument for having it. When you get a penalty, it doesn’t make sense that you get any kind of reward for it. Yes, you are a man down. But why should you then be allowed to ice the puck? It would make far more senes if a penalty meant simply taking that guy off the ice for a few minutes and leaving it at that. Penalty killers should get no special treatment because one of their teammates broke the rules. 

From an entertainment standpoint, it would also (especially if combined with my last suggestion) cause far more offense for both the powerplay team and the shorthanded team. We’d get more powerplay goals and more shorthanded goals, and the rule change seems like it would be fair. It does change the game quite a bit, however, and I’m not 100% sure if it would do so in a positive way. It might just be my not being used to the idea of the rule yet, but I’m still slightly skeptical. 

I support this 4/7

7. Earn the 1st Overall Pick

I don’t think many people are happy with the current draft lottery system, especially after the Bedard lottery. Here’s a possible alternative for it.

Instead of the last place team automatically getting the best odds to randomly be chosen to get the first or second pick, we could instead make them earn it. After a team gets mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, they could start accumulating post-elimination points (PEPs). It would be quite simple, PEPs determine draft order.

The goal of the draft lottery is to discourage tanking. However, while it makes it so that finishing bottom of the league doesn’t guarantee a first overall pick, it still doesn’t give you any incentive to win. Therefore, it also doesn’t really do anything to stop tanking. What this system would do is give teams a reason to continue winning games throughout the season.

Once a team is eliminated, they can start accumulating PEPs. The incentive to win games is obvious, but it would also be fair as the worst teams in the league would have the most opportunities to gain PEPs. If a team is terrible and gets eliminated early, they’ll likely have 10+ games to start accumulating PEPs. On the other hand, if a team barely misses out on the playoffs, they may only have 1 or even 0 games to gain PEPs.

There would, theoretically, always be motivation to win. Either you’re playing for a playoff spot, or you’re playing for draft order. Sure, teams may do mini-tanks to get mathematically eliminated as early as possible if they know they have no chance at the playoffs, but this would be relatively unlikely and the teams would still have to go out and earn the PEPs they need afterwards. Plus, teams that do that will be the ones that well and truly suck, so they would probably have a high draft pick anyway.

My biggest reason for supporting this rule would be that it gives fans of the worst teams in the league something to cheer for besides their team losing. Knowing that losing a game is the best way for your team to eventually win a cup sucks. This would fix that. It would be quite drastic and could have some unfair, unforeseen consequences, however, so at this point…

I support this 5/7

Bonus: Extra Pucks

We want to end games before the shootout, right? I’ve seen people propose going down to 2on2 after 5 minutes, then 1on1 after another 5. But I think we should instead do our 5 minute 3on3 overtime, then add an extra puck. After 5 minutes of that, we have 3 pucks, then continue adding pucks every 5 minutes until a goal is scored. 

This would be extremely entertaining and I think most hockey fans might actually like this more than a shootout. But at the same time, it is, of course, completely ridiculous. So I support it 2/7.

Thanks for reading my first ever blog post!