Basically no more clutching grabbing, hooking etc like the old days which leads to A LOT of penalties at any time of the game where as before Ref's didn't call anything unless you got killed in the 3rd period. The increase in penalties means more power plays which means more goals. There is more to it but that is the coles notes verison of it
On July 22, 2005, the board of governors approved the most radical set of NHL rule changes in many years. Most of the changes are designed to boost offensive chances and scoring, and several represent a return to rules that were in place years ago. This page looks at the major NHL rule changes for 2005-06, according to the latest media reports.
A new standard of enforcement for existing rules.
The league promises zero tolerance for hooking, holding, tripping, slashing, cross checking and interference. Players who use their stick or free hand to slow any opposing player will be penalized.
The Case: Time to put an end to the grappling, wrestling and bear-hugging that sucks the speed and skill from the game.
Impact: Initially it means way more penalties, which turns the power play into the most important tool on any NHL team.
If the new standard is permanent, it will definitely open up the offensive play.
Down Side: What good is a hockey game if you can't hit anybody? Half the appeal is watching the stars succeed in a physically brutal environment. And who needs the constant parade to the penalty box? Do we want every night to look like the annual NHL All Star Game, always a contact-free, wide open, high-scoring, and painfully boring affair?
Tie games are decided by a shootout.
Regular season games continue as before: 60 minutes of regulation time followed by five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime to break a tie. If it remains tied, a shootout determines the winner.
The shootout explained
The Case: Nobody likes ties. Everybody loves penalty shots. Or so it's said.
Impact: Should be a big hit with the fans. Goal scorers will enjoy it. Tie games are eliminated, though the NHL will continue to award one point for a shootout or overtime loss.
Down Side: Most NHL execs used to dismiss the shootout as a cheap gimmick. The shootout remains controversial, with some concern that its novelty will fade if fans see it too often. And what effect will it have on the preceding game? Might some teams play a conservative defensive style, prefering to guarantee one point and take their chances with a shootout?
The two-line pass is legal.
The red line at center ice remains, but used for icing calls only. A pass from the defensive zone all the way to the opposing blue line is legal. This is also the rule in the NCAA, international hockey and Europe.
The Case: The dreaded neutral zone trap clogs the ice and destroys hockey's entertainment value. With the long pass, defending the neutral zone becomes harder. The game needs more breakaways and more speed.
Impact: Longer passes favor teams with speed and skill, creating quick attacks and more end-to-end action in general.
Down Side: Some say the two-line pass leads to a more conservative game: defending teams abandon the forecheck and spread players back through the neutral zone to guard against the long pass. Also, teams can use the long pass as a sort of "legal icing" - the defenseman throws the puck up ice, and the forward simply chips it into the opposing zone.
Goaltender leg pads, blockers, catching gloves and jerseys are all cut down in size.
The Case: Compared to his forebears, today's goalie fills far too much of the net. The limit on leg pads was increased from 10 to 12 inches in 1989. They are now reduced to 11 inches. Sweaters and otehr pads also shrink.
Impact: Hard to say. Today's great goaltending is mostly due to athleticism and good coaching. But smaller leg pads could expose more of the bottom half of the net. After a couple of months, the NHL's best shooters should be asked if they see any more room down low.
Down Side: Some goaltenders complain that smaller equipment leaves them more vulnerable to injury. The move also fuels a persecution complex among goaltenders.
Goaltenders cannot handle the puck behind the goal line, except in a restricted area.
The Case: Goalies have too much control in their zone. They play the puck like defensemen, handing it off to teammates, shooting it out, making forward passes. They do so with immunity, protected by goaltender interference rules. Many say the goalie should be declared "fair game" - outside his crease, he should be open to bodychecking and puck battles. But NHL GMs will never increase the injury risk for their most important assets.
Impact: The idea is to encourage forechecking. If the goalie can't play a shoot-in, the attackers have a better chance to retrieve the puck. But this rule still allows goalies to play the puck in a zone directly behind the net. The restriction is a minor one and its effect on scoring will likely be negligible.
Down Side: Defensemen won't like it, as they count on the goalie to help them win races for the puck. This rule also encourages a dump-and-chase attack, not always the most exciting style of hockey.
More Room Inside the Blue Lines.
The blue lines move closer together, reducing the size of the neutral zone from 54 to 50 feet. The goal line is pushed two feet closer to the end of the rink.
The Case: Help the offense, especially on power plays, by giving them more ice to work with in the opposition zone. Also, there is too much wasted space behind the nets. Moving them back creates more quality shooting space.
Impact: The larger offensive zone is a big plus for the power play. Moving the nets will slightly improve shooting angles for goal scorers.
Down Side: A smaller neutral zone might serve the purposes of conservative teams, who focus on breaking up rushes and passes through that area of the ice. Defenders get an advantage behind the net, where opponents have less room to maneuver.
Teams that ice the puck cannot change players before the next faceoff.
The Case: Icing is boring, boring, boring.
Teams indulging in it should not be rewarded. Anything to discourage icing is good for the game.
Impact: Teams under pressure often ice the puck out of exhaustion and desperation. If the same players are forced to keep playing, it's a prime opportunity for the opponent.
Down Side: The first time a team gives up a crucial goal because tired players were not allowed off the ice, the coach and GM will scream blue murder. Let them.
The “tag-up” offside rule is reinstated.
The Case: Why blow the whistle automatically, just because a player is offside in the opponet's zone? The new rule gives them a chance to get back to the blue line (where they "tag up"), at which point the offside is nullfied, so they can charge back in to resume the attack.
Impact: Anything that prevents more whistles is good.
Down Side: The tag-up option was discarded because it was said to encourage too many shoot-ins. A defenseman can throw the puck deep any time, whether his teammates are offside or not. They tag up and go after the opposing defenseman, who gathers the puck and throws it back out, where the other guy gathers it and throws it back in...
More fines and suspensions for fighters.
A player who instigates a fight in the final five minutes of a game receives a game misconduct and an automatic one-game suspension. The length of the suspension doubles with each additional incident. The player's coach is fined $10,000, a fine that doubles with each such incident.
Further "officiating points of emphasis"
- Zero tolerance on interference, hooking and holding/obstruction.
- Linesmen can wave off an icing call if they believe the icing to be the result of an errant pass.
- Goaltenders will be penalized for delaying the game if they "freeze" the puck unnecessarily.
- Players penalized for diving are subject to fines and suspensions for repeat offenses.
- Any player who shoots the puck directly over the glass in his defending zone will be penalized for delay of game.
Ideas Considered and Rejected
- Changing the points system. It will remain two points for a win and one point for an overtime or shootout loss.
- Playing three-on-three overtime if the game remains tied after five minutes of four-on-four overtime.
- Bigger nets.
- A larger pool of playoff teams.
A new standard of enforcement for existing rules.
The league promises zero tolerance for hooking, holding, tripping, slashing, cross checking and interference. Players who use their stick or free hand to slow any opposing player will be penalized.
The Case: Time to put an end to the grappling, wrestling and bear-hugging that sucks the speed and skill from the game.
Impact: Initially it means way more penalties, which turns the power play into the most important tool on any NHL team.
If the new standard is permanent, it will definitely open up the offensive play.
Down Side: What good is a hockey game if you can't hit anybody? Half the appeal is watching the stars succeed in a physically brutal environment. And who needs the constant parade to the penalty box? Do we want every night to look like the annual NHL All Star Game, always a contact-free, wide open, high-scoring, and painfully boring affair?
Tie games are decided by a shootout.
Regular season games continue as before: 60 minutes of regulation time followed by five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime to break a tie. If it remains tied, a shootout determines the winner.
The shootout explained
The Case: Nobody likes ties. Everybody loves penalty shots. Or so it's said.
Impact: Should be a big hit with the fans. Goal scorers will enjoy it. Tie games are eliminated, though the NHL will continue to award one point for a shootout or overtime loss.
Down Side: Most NHL execs used to dismiss the shootout as a cheap gimmick. The shootout remains controversial, with some concern that its novelty will fade if fans see it too often. And what effect will it have on the preceding game? Might some teams play a conservative defensive style, prefering to guarantee one point and take their chances with a shootout?
The two-line pass is legal.
The red line at center ice remains, but used for icing calls only. A pass from the defensive zone all the way to the opposing blue line is legal. This is also the rule in the NCAA, international hockey and Europe.
The Case: The dreaded neutral zone trap clogs the ice and destroys hockey's entertainment value. With the long pass, defending the neutral zone becomes harder. The game needs more breakaways and more speed.
Impact: Longer passes favor teams with speed and skill, creating quick attacks and more end-to-end action in general.
Down Side: Some say the two-line pass leads to a more conservative game: defending teams abandon the forecheck and spread players back through the neutral zone to guard against the long pass. Also, teams can use the long pass as a sort of "legal icing" - the defenseman throws the puck up ice, and the forward simply chips it into the opposing zone.
Goaltender leg pads, blockers, catching gloves and jerseys are all cut down in size.
The Case: Compared to his forebears, today's goalie fills far too much of the net. The limit on leg pads was increased from 10 to 12 inches in 1989. They are now reduced to 11 inches. Sweaters and otehr pads also shrink.
Impact: Hard to say. Today's great goaltending is mostly due to athleticism and good coaching. But smaller leg pads could expose more of the bottom half of the net. After a couple of months, the NHL's best shooters should be asked if they see any more room down low.
Down Side: Some goaltenders complain that smaller equipment leaves them more vulnerable to injury. The move also fuels a persecution complex among goaltenders.
Goaltenders cannot handle the puck behind the goal line, except in a restricted area.
The Case: Goalies have too much control in their zone. They play the puck like defensemen, handing it off to teammates, shooting it out, making forward passes. They do so with immunity, protected by goaltender interference rules. Many say the goalie should be declared "fair game" - outside his crease, he should be open to bodychecking and puck battles. But NHL GMs will never increase the injury risk for their most important assets.
Impact: The idea is to encourage forechecking. If the goalie can't play a shoot-in, the attackers have a better chance to retrieve the puck. But this rule still allows goalies to play the puck in a zone directly behind the net. The restriction is a minor one and its effect on scoring will likely be negligible.
Down Side: Defensemen won't like it, as they count on the goalie to help them win races for the puck. This rule also encourages a dump-and-chase attack, not always the most exciting style of hockey.
More Room Inside the Blue Lines.
The blue lines move closer together, reducing the size of the neutral zone from 54 to 50 feet. The goal line is pushed two feet closer to the end of the rink.
The Case: Help the offense, especially on power plays, by giving them more ice to work with in the opposition zone. Also, there is too much wasted space behind the nets. Moving them back creates more quality shooting space.
Impact: The larger offensive zone is a big plus for the power play. Moving the nets will slightly improve shooting angles for goal scorers.
Down Side: A smaller neutral zone might serve the purposes of conservative teams, who focus on breaking up rushes and passes through that area of the ice. Defenders get an advantage behind the net, where opponents have less room to maneuver.
Teams that ice the puck cannot change players before the next faceoff.
The Case: Icing is boring, boring, boring.
Teams indulging in it should not be rewarded. Anything to discourage icing is good for the game.
Impact: Teams under pressure often ice the puck out of exhaustion and desperation. If the same players are forced to keep playing, it's a prime opportunity for the opponent.
Down Side: The first time a team gives up a crucial goal because tired players were not allowed off the ice, the coach and GM will scream blue murder. Let them.
The “tag-up” offside rule is reinstated.
The Case: Why blow the whistle automatically, just because a player is offside in the opponet's zone? The new rule gives them a chance to get back to the blue line (where they "tag up"), at which point the offside is nullfied, so they can charge back in to resume the attack.
Impact: Anything that prevents more whistles is good.
Down Side: The tag-up option was discarded because it was said to encourage too many shoot-ins. A defenseman can throw the puck deep any time, whether his teammates are offside or not. They tag up and go after the opposing defenseman, who gathers the puck and throws it back out, where the other guy gathers it and throws it back in...
More fines and suspensions for fighters.
A player who instigates a fight in the final five minutes of a game receives a game misconduct and an automatic one-game suspension. The length of the suspension doubles with each additional incident. The player's coach is fined $10,000, a fine that doubles with each such incident.
Further "officiating points of emphasis"
- Zero tolerance on interference, hooking and holding/obstruction.
- Linesmen can wave off an icing call if they believe the icing to be the result of an errant pass.
- Goaltenders will be penalized for delaying the game if they "freeze" the puck unnecessarily.
- Players penalized for diving are subject to fines and suspensions for repeat offenses.
- Any player who shoots the puck directly over the glass in his defending zone will be penalized for delay of game.
Ideas Considered and Rejected
- Changing the points system. It will remain two points for a win and one point for an overtime or shootout loss.
- Playing three-on-three overtime if the game remains tied after five minutes of four-on-four overtime.
- Bigger nets.
- A larger pool of playoff teams.
