NHL Rule Changes

[2014olympicgold]

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-announc...on/c-307949196

Few rule changes for 2019-20:


-New category for challenging a play. Can challenge a goal on the ice that follow plays in the offensive zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage, but did not. This includes missed hand passes, pucks going out of play but weren’t called dead, missed high sticking.

-No longer will a failed challenge cost a timeout. However, 1^st missed challenge results in a 2min penalty. The 2^nd and every other unsuccessful challenge after the 2^nd results in a 4min penalty.

-Refs are REQUIRED to conduct an on-ice video review for every, non-fighting, major penalty they assess. They can reduce the 5min penalty to 2min, but can not rescind the penalty all together

-Refs can conduct an on-ice video review to confirm (or not) their original call on the ice for high sticking penalties.

-If you lose your helmet, you need to put it on, or get off the ice. Junior rule.

-Defensive teams can’t change lines when a goalie freezes the puck when the shot comes from outside the center red-line. Can’t change line when the defensive team knocks their own net off it’s moorings. During these instances, the offensive team gets to pick what dot to take the draw from.

-Following icings, or powerplays, the offensive team gets to pick what dot to take the draw from

-If a goalie knocks their net off deliberately when someone is on a breakaway, it’s awarded a goal

-When the attacking team is responsible for the puck going out of play, in all instances, the faceoff will be in the attacking zone still.

[Rylant]

Nice. I think I like every single one of these rule changes.

Rylant

[LawMan]

Nice. I think I like every single one of these rule changes.

Rylant

I really like all of these except this one:

-When the attacking team is responsible for the puck going out of play, in all instances, the faceoff will be in the attacking zone still.

So if the attacking team shoots the puck into the stands they get an offensive zone face-off? That does not make sense to me.

The rest however are great. I would love to get to a spot where a goalie freezing the puck means defensive team cannot change. You should have to legally clear the puck from your zone to be able to change.

[Eskimo Brother]

I really like all of these except this one:


So if the attacking team shoots the puck into the stands they get an offensive zone face-off? That does not make sense to me.

The rest however are great. I would love to get to a spot where a goalie freezing the puck means defensive team cannot change. You should have to legally clear the puck from your zone to be able to change.

If the offensive team shoots and barely misses the net, or puts it off the crossbar and it deflects out, why does the defensive team get a respite for it? I like the change.

[2014olympicgold]

I really like all of these except this one:


So if the attacking team shoots the puck into the stands they get an offensive zone face-off? That does not make sense to me.

The rest however are great. I would love to get to a spot where a goalie freezing the puck means defensive team cannot change. You should have to legally clear the puck from your zone to be able to change.

That's the only rule I had to fully type out word-for-word because I didn't want to screw it up as it's confusing. It's a clear push to increase offensive zone times. But it feels like it's as ridiculous as "if a team goes offside entering the zone, the faceoff ends up in the offensive end". Like...Why are you rewarding the team that did something wrong?

[Eskimo Brother]

That's the only rule I had to fully type out word-for-word because I didn't want to screw it up as it's confusing. It's a clear push to increase offensive zone times. But it feels like it's as ridiculous as "if a team goes offside entering the zone, the faceoff ends up in the offensive end". Like...Why are you rewarding the team that did something wrong?

They took a shot and missed the net. I don't see anything wrong with that. Same as taking a shot and the goalie freezing it. Both are a shot that didn't go in, resulting in a stoppage of play and an offensive faceoff.

[2014olympicgold]

They took a shot and missed the net. I don't see anything wrong with that. Same as taking a shot and the goalie freezing it. Both are a shot that didn't go in, resulting in a stoppage of play and an offensive faceoff.

Ya, adds offensive zone time. Can't be too upset over it. The "shot from outside the redline" could turn into a lot of fun creative set plays entering the zone on PP. Hope young guys take that one and run.

[LawMan]

If the offensive team shoots and barely misses the net, or puts it off the crossbar and it deflects out, why does the defensive team get a respite for it? I like the change.

IMO, because the offensive team caused the stoppage and controlling the puck and where it goes is a part of hockey. I would be ok with calling a shot directly off the post the equivalent of a deflected save, i.e. offensive face-off. If you miss the net entirely and the puck goes out you should not get an offensive zone faceoff in my opinion. I am worried about abuses to this rule. Under this rule if a 4th line skates the puck just across the blue line and deliberately flips it into the stands to get their top line out that does not seem fair but I would expect certain coaches to tell grinders to do exactly that. Offensive zone face-offs are highly coveted in the NHL. Or, a 2nd line has a great shift and is cycling but is just gassed, normally the team would try and do a controlled change while cycling to keep the play alive, this is fairly hard to do in the NHL. Now the gassed players just flip the puck into the glass and get an offensive zone face-off for the next line to start from.

[ericdaoust]

I am worried about abuses to this rule. Under this rule if a 4th line skates the puck just across the blue line and deliberately flips it into the stands to get their top line out that does not seem fair but I would expect certain coaches to tell grinders to do exactly that.

Yes! Especially if a team has a center who is a faceoff ace. I hope the NHL has something in mind for this really obvious hole in the logic.

[forumname]

-When the attacking team is responsible for the puck going out of play, in all instances, the faceoff will be in the attacking zone still.

How is "attacking team" defined? Over the center line? Over the blue line?

[2014olympicgold]

How is "attacking team" defined? Over the center line? Over the blue line?

I assumed blue line.

As per deliberately putting the puck out of play to get an offensive zone draw. I would say rule 63.1 takes care of that:

63.1 Delaying the Game – A player or a team may be penalized when, in the opinion of the Referee, is delaying the game in any manner.

or 63.7:

63.7 Infractions – The following list of infractions shall result in a penalty (minor, bench minor, penalty shot or awarded goal) being imposed by the Referee for delaying the game:

(i) Deliberately shooting the puck out of play.
(ii) Deliberately throwing or batting the puck out of play.
(iii) Shooting or batting the puck (with the hand or with the stick) over the glass from the defending zone.
(iv) Deliberately displacing the goal from it’s normal position (or accidentally by a defending player or goalkeeper in relation to the awarding of a goal).
(v) Refusing to place the correct number of players on the ice.
(vi) Persisting in having players in an off-side position.
(vii) Deliberately falling on the puck.
(viii) Adjustment of clothing or equipment.

[LawMan]

I assumed blue line.

As per deliberately putting the puck out of play to get an offensive zone draw. I would say rule 63.1 takes care of that:


or 63.7:

Fair points. There will have to be some subtedly to it. Before it was an automatic penalty to do it in the defensive end many D-men had perfected the craft of "accidentally" flipping the puck out of play during a sustained offensive frenzy. The NHL is now creating a situation wherein its officials need to once again determine intent which rarely turns out well in my opinion.

[2014olympicgold]

Fair points. There will have to be some subtedly to it. Before it was an automatic penalty to do it in the defensive end many D-men had perfected the craft of "accidentally" flipping the puck out of play during a sustained offensive frenzy. The NHL is now creating a situation wherein its officials need to once again determine intent which rarely turns out well in my opinion.

100% gonna be a rocky start once players realize they can do this. If we thought of it this quickly, you'd think players already know it. So hopefully the refs then also know this possible loophole and use the rules in their favour and assess a delay of game penalty often at the start to curb this.