Pondering Changes to the NHL Rulebook

In the hockey news portion of the latest episode of the Canadiens Connection podcast, the hosts reported on interesting rule changes announced by International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) for the Champions Hockey League. It prompted me to ponder changes that I wish the National Hockey League (NHL) would consider. I'll get to my recommendations shortly but first, let's look at the changes to the rulebook in Europe.

The IIHF kicked off the 2023-24 season of Champions Hockey League on August 31st with three new rules. 

• undefined
• undefined
• undefined

In the statement, the IIHF indicates that the rules will change the game, add an extra layer of excitement, but not undermine credibility. 

“We’ve come up with three simple, but efficient changes that have high potential to add extra excitement to the game,” said Champions Hockey League CEO Martin Baumann.

Reading between the lines, the league is hoping that the three new rules add offence to the matches. The broader hockey community will be closely watching the impact of these changes, which could potentially influence other leagues to adopt similar modifications.

Now, let's look at three changes I would like to make to the NHL rulebook.

Minor penalties dealt the same as major

This is a no-brainer in my mind and I'm glad that the Champions Hockey League is going ahead with the change. There's no reason that a penalty should not be served in full. 

Minor penalties used to be served in full in the NHL up until 1956 when during a Board of Governors meeting, five of the six NHL teams passed a proposal to allow the penalized player to return on the ice if a power play goal was scored. 

At the time, the Canadiens had a dominating power play and they opposed to the rule change as they felt that the five other teams were trying to punish them. We will never know if that is a fact, but the other general managers denied that Montreal's strong man-advantage was the cause of the rule change. 

A team should not be penalized for being too good. The opposition needs to adapt and find ways to counter it. 

Icing enforced against shorthanded team 

Remaining on the theme of power plays, I'd like icing to be called the same way even while a team is killing a minor penalty. 

The impact that I anticipate from this change would be that shorthanded teams would take more risks as they skate the puck across the red line. More risks would lead to more goals on both ends of the ice. 

Besides that, does anyone enjoy watching a shorthanded team sit back and constantly clear the puck?

Cancelling puck over glass penalty 

The automatic delay of game penalty for shooting the puck directly into the crowd from the defensive zone was implemented following the 2004-05 lockout. Prior to that season, the officials used their judgement to determine whether the act was intentional. 

The change made it simpler for the referees as it became an automatic penalty. TSN's panel had some fun with the infraction during the 2013 postseason when there was several delay of game penalties. 

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9M_FYFyo0k[/embed]

Completely removing the automatic delay of game penalty might tempt players to clear the puck out of rink if the opposition is applying pressure or if they're in the middle of a long shift. 

My recommendation is to treat puck over glass in the exact same way that an icing is handled. This means that the team committing the crime would not be able to change the five skaters on the ice and can't be saved by a television timeout. I believe that these measures would disincentive a defending team to intentionally clear the puck over the ice. 

If the NHL rulebook is thoroughly reviewed, there would certainly be additional suggestions made to improve the product. The three recommendations I made above are the ones that I feel would have the most positive impact without making a significant change to the integrity of the sport.