Rule Change Friday
I don't think I'm in the minority here when I say that I like exciting hockey. Having been through the "dead puck" era of the NHL when some version of the trap was used by almost every team, watching hockey was a chore in that era where teams looked to prevent mistakes and were far more comfortable winning 2-1 while preventing their opposition from scoring more than two goals. Good defence hasn't taken a backseat in the NHL as we still see strong defensive teams, but no fans fo to hockey games to watch a clinic on how to stifle offensive hockey. Fans like offence, fans want offence, and two leagues today instituted rule changes that should help generate more offence in games and situations. Thee rule changes won't solve every problem when it comes to overall scoring in these leagues, but it shoudl give fans some hope that offensive hockey is being prioritized when it comes to entertainment value.
We'll start in the WHL who announced three rule changes today. The first two included implementing a coach's challenge for offside goals and adding an officials' review of major and match penalties, but the one I want to focus on in the "no return" 3-on-3 overtime. As you likely have seen in European leagues, teams in overtime can move the puck up the ice, but once they cross the centre ice line they are forbidden to retreat to their defensive zone unless playing defence. The numbers show this is a good rule.
The third rule today is exactly that - a "no retreat" overtime rule. Teams in the WHL will be forbidden to possess the puck in the defensive zone once they cross the centre red line, and this should promote more games being decided in overtime based on what we've seen in other leagues. We're one step close to banning the shootout!
In all seriousness, the Champions Legaue has been using this rule and tracking metrics, and it's not hard to see why this is better for the game. Here are their numbers and MHL (KHL junior circuit) numbers:
That aside, we'll move to the AHL where they also made a couple of minor changes to their rules today. The two rules that shouldn't affect too many plays are an expanded video review process to give coaches more options for challenges and using video review for awarding goals for pucks entering the net on a continuous play despite the referee blowing the whistle. Both of these situations do happen so these needed some altering, but it's the third rule that could affect some teams' decisions when it comes to using video review liberally.
Starting today, the AHL announced that any "team’s first failed coach's challenge will result in a bench minor penalty for delay of game. Subsequent failed challenges in the same game will result in double-minor penalties" which is an excellent addition to the video review rules because there is nothing worse than a ten-minute delay after a goal is scored because some coach believed a player's skate was a millimeter offside. If he's right, good on that voach. If he simply wanted a timeout for his team, a minor and subsequent double-minor penalty should curb the enthusiasm over video reviews.
The AHL doesn't publish any numbers on video review challenges, but it seems clear that the Board of Governors wanted to see changes by implementing these new rules. Whether or not this cuts down on the number of coach's challeneges seen in the AHL will be determined, but I'm very sure there aren't a lot of coaches willing to put his team down a man for four minutes after one unsuccessful challenge.
Both of these rules in these respective leagues should keep the pace of games moving and make the games more entertaining. The WHL will likely see more games decided in overtime which is always a good thing, and the AHL should see less long delays when video review of a play is needed as failed challenges will now see teams penalized more heavily. As Champions League stakeholders show with their approval ratings, fans, teams, and officials are fans of more entertaining games alike, and the NHL would be wise to start looking at these kinds of changes to make their product better overall.
Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!
We'll start in the WHL who announced three rule changes today. The first two included implementing a coach's challenge for offside goals and adding an officials' review of major and match penalties, but the one I want to focus on in the "no return" 3-on-3 overtime. As you likely have seen in European leagues, teams in overtime can move the puck up the ice, but once they cross the centre ice line they are forbidden to retreat to their defensive zone unless playing defence. The numbers show this is a good rule.
The third rule today is exactly that - a "no retreat" overtime rule. Teams in the WHL will be forbidden to possess the puck in the defensive zone once they cross the centre red line, and this should promote more games being decided in overtime based on what we've seen in other leagues. We're one step close to banning the shootout!
In all seriousness, the Champions Legaue has been using this rule and tracking metrics, and it's not hard to see why this is better for the game. Here are their numbers and MHL (KHL junior circuit) numbers:
- Shot attempts increased by 51% in overtime overall.
- Alternating shot attempts increased by 53% as both teams played more offensively in trying to end the game.
- Puck possession changes were up 23% as teams simply could not retreat into their own zone and regroup.
- Attacking zone swaps increased by 17% as teams forced turnovers and moved the puck more.
- Games completed in overtime increased by 12%.
- Officials approved "no retreat" overtime by 87%, fans by 64%, and Champions League clubs by 63%.
- In the MHL, overtimes averaged 2:14 in length with this rule.
- The MHL saw 67% of games decided in overtime rather than the shootout, giving fans more entertainment.
That aside, we'll move to the AHL where they also made a couple of minor changes to their rules today. The two rules that shouldn't affect too many plays are an expanded video review process to give coaches more options for challenges and using video review for awarding goals for pucks entering the net on a continuous play despite the referee blowing the whistle. Both of these situations do happen so these needed some altering, but it's the third rule that could affect some teams' decisions when it comes to using video review liberally.
Starting today, the AHL announced that any "team’s first failed coach's challenge will result in a bench minor penalty for delay of game. Subsequent failed challenges in the same game will result in double-minor penalties" which is an excellent addition to the video review rules because there is nothing worse than a ten-minute delay after a goal is scored because some coach believed a player's skate was a millimeter offside. If he's right, good on that voach. If he simply wanted a timeout for his team, a minor and subsequent double-minor penalty should curb the enthusiasm over video reviews.
The AHL doesn't publish any numbers on video review challenges, but it seems clear that the Board of Governors wanted to see changes by implementing these new rules. Whether or not this cuts down on the number of coach's challeneges seen in the AHL will be determined, but I'm very sure there aren't a lot of coaches willing to put his team down a man for four minutes after one unsuccessful challenge.
Both of these rules in these respective leagues should keep the pace of games moving and make the games more entertaining. The WHL will likely see more games decided in overtime which is always a good thing, and the AHL should see less long delays when video review of a play is needed as failed challenges will now see teams penalized more heavily. As Champions League stakeholders show with their approval ratings, fans, teams, and officials are fans of more entertaining games alike, and the NHL would be wise to start looking at these kinds of changes to make their product better overall.
Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!
















