If you caught Saturday’s game posting from 210Sports to the various Railers Facebook groups, you saw this writer’s hot take saying the shootout should be abolished and hockey teams should continue to play three on three in overtime until someone scores. While one person was worried about making the games longer the idea was generally well received. So, on that note, and with no midweek Railers game happening, I thought it might be fun to point out some of the other rules changes I think pro hockey should look at.
Eliminate the shootout
We’ll start with the one that got the ball, errr, puck rolling. While penalty shots are a part of hockey how shootout attempts are made now is definitely not. These wide-sweeping, low-speed attempts are a mockery of the game. They serve no purpose other than eliminating ties by turning the game into a one on one skills competition. Instead, teams should just play three on three in overtime until someone scores. Worried about that taking too long? Well, we can fix it so that’s not an issue.
Fix the broken parts of 3v3 overtime
Three on three overtime is exciting, most of the time. What slows it down are teams deciding to leave the attacking zone to keep possession of the puck and to set up a better attack. Teams shouldn’t be able to do that as it slows down the play, so let’s make it so once the attacking team possess the puck beyond the center red line they can’t cross back over into their own end of the ice. To do so would be a delay of game minor.
Oh, did I mention that all non-matching minor penalties in overtime result in a penalty shot? Well, I have now. But don’t worry, I want to change the rules for those too. More on that later.
I also think the red line should be the offside line in overtime instead of the blue lines. Now I could be convinced to eliminate offside completely on the extra period, but we should err on the side of caution for starters.
Persuit penalty shots in OT
If there’s a non-matching minor penalty called, or a foul committed that would usually result in a penalty shot being awarded, it should be a pursuit penalty shot and not the usual style penalty shot. Why, you ask? Because those are all wide-sweeping, low-speed attempts and are no better than what we see in the shootout. The fouled player gets to place the puck anywhere on the attacking blue line, all other skaters line up on the other blue line, and then the referee blows the whistle to start play. And play continues from there until a goal is scored or a stoppage in play. If an attacking player leaves the blue line early, the shot is forfeited and if a defending player leaves early, another chance will be awarded. But it should be an agrigous violation. Simply being a little quick on the start shouldn’t be penalized.
Puck over the glass shouldn’t automatically be a penalty
This is a rule I hate more than the shootout. If it’s done accidentally, it should be treated like an icing and no line change allowed. If it’s on purpose, sure, go ahead and issue the penalty. Oh, and hitting the scoreboard should also be subject to this rule.
The whole penalty must be served
No, probably not what you think I mean. If you get a minor penalty, you should serve the entire two minutes. It would still be that your team gets a skater back if they give up a power play goal, but it won’t be the player in the box, they need to stay there for the full two minutes, plus any time until the next whistle if your opponent scored during their power play.
Jailbreak shorthanded goals
If your team scores shorthanded, they get their skater back just as if a power play goal was scored. But again, it won’t be the player in the penalty box because they need to serve their whole penalty.
Every play caught on video can be reviewed
Pretty simple, actually. If it can be reviewed a team can ask that it be reviewed. First time they’re wrong, a minor penalty is called. Second time, it’s a double minor. Third time, and any time after, is a major penalty. And you cannot challenge a call unless there’s enough time left on the clock to serve the full penalty. The exception to all of this is goal reviews; no penalty for being wrong if the officials decide it’s worthy of a review.
Suspended players must miss at least one game against the team the offense was committed against
Another simple one. Why should another team get all the benefits of a player being suspended for games against them? The team that was harmed deserves to gain some sort of advantage, and this is an easy one to fix. And if the player doesn’t face off against that team the rest of the season, that suspension carries over to next season.
Do you have any to suggest?
—
Do you have something you loved (or hated) about the post? Head on over to the 210Sports Facebook page and leave a comment. You could comment on this post too, but fair warning, the spam filter catches lots of stuff it shouldn’t, and it might be weeks before we see your comment. While you’re there, please give the page a like and a follow.
You can also follow along and comment on the following sites:
Twitter/X (210Darryl), Twitter/X (210Sports), Bluesky, and Mastodon.
-30-
210Sports 