One-way offside? Free range faceoffs? NHL Rules Court is back in session

By Sean McIndoe, Sean Gentille and Shayna Goldman Welcome to Rules Court, the feature in which you send in your proposals for NHL rule changes and three of us vote on them.

Convince at least two of us, and your rule is passed.

This is, by my count, the ninth edition of this feature.

Over the years, weve changed everything from the salary cap to replay review to the playoff format, in some cases multiple times.

Weve also made it so that coaches have to walk across the ice to serve bench minors .

Were really doing the Lords work, is what Im trying to say.

Advertisement Today were back with seven new suggestions sent in by readers.

Theyll be reviewed by Sean, Other Sean and Shayna (aka Almost Sean).

Will any get the required YES votes to be passed into the NHL rulebook? Lets find out...

Note: Submitted questions have been edited for clarity and style.

Once a team pulls its goalie from the ice for a sixth attacker, all icing should be waived off.

This would allow the defense to take unlimited shots at the open net without icing being called.

Additionally, youd get some fierce skating races to try and get possession of the puck after it was shot at the open net.

A.J.

F.

McIndoe: I dont love it.

Yes, youd get unlimited shots at the empty net.

But youd also make things far easier on the defending team, and eliminate a bunch of the dramatic offensive-zone faceoffs.

Empty-net goals are fun, but tying goals are way more fun, and this change would mean fewer of those.

Put me down for a NO .

(Bonus side rant: More rink-wide shots would just mean more TV directors doing that awful switch to the camera inside the net thing that they still think is fascinating even though all it does is break the visual flow of a key moment.

Stop doing this! ) Gentille: Defending players having to decide whether to go for the empty net or risk the icing is one of my favorite parts of six-on-five play.

Also, I like tying goals, and this one would guarantee some kind of catastrophic injury in those puck races.

NO.

Goldman: Yep, Sean 2s take here drives home the argument against this the risk versus reward of shooting the puck down the ice is an exciting element of six-on-five play and helps show different coaching tactics.

Plus, it takes away the one advantage a short-handed team has in those empty-net situations.

NO.

If you have pulled your goalie and are at six-on-five, if you ice the puck, you cannot put your goalie back in.

Youll see a lot more teams being careful breaking the puck out six-on-five to avoid a defensive-zone faceoff without a goalie.

As far as Im concerned, being able to put your goalie back in is a line change and shouldnt be allowed.

Brad K.

McIndoe: Brad, I can assure you that youre not alone here.

This one comes up a lot.

It really seems to bother a lot of hockey fans that the no subs on an icing rule doesnt apply to a pulled goalie.

But do we really want to see teams winning faceoffs and immediately scoring into empty nets? Like the first suggestion, this just seems like a way to tilt the ice in favor of the team thats leading and make life harder for the team trying to come back.

Just in terms of entertainment value, that feels like were getting it backward.

Advertisement Ill admit I toyed with a yes here, if only because it would be interesting to see teams put a defenseman in the crease as a de facto goalie for faceoffs (which is what would happen).

But it feels like the novelty there would wear off after the first few times, so this is another NO.

Gentille: Why is everyone trying to end these games earlier? Did McIndoe micro-target fan bases whose teams recently gave up back-breaking six-on-five goals? Goalie pulls are one of the most exciting sequences weve got.

They must be valued and protected.

NO.

Goldman: Sean Squared make very good points here.

It feels like too drastic a punishment for icing the puck, which would lead to empty-net goals way more often.

Dont we want to see more goalie pulls and potential comebacks? The rules are different for goalies for good reason they shouldnt have to try and dramatically dive over the boards and race into the net right after the faceoff after playing 50-plus minutes each night.

NO.

My wife suggested this and I wholeheartedly agree.

If you get a penalty near the end of the period, you have to stay in the box the entire intermission.

Daniel L.

McIndoe: Who could be against this? The player in the box doesnt have to get yelled at by his coach.

He gets some alone time to really think about what hes done.

Fans could spend their intermission lining up to take pictures with him, like hes a panda bear at the zoo.

As long as the guy doesnt have to pee really badly, I see no downside.

YES.

Gentille: Its not pee Im worried about.

NO.

Goldman: I feel like the punishment doesnt match the crime for a minor penalty.

Maybe theres a way to do this only for majors and 10-minute misconducts (just kidding, kind of).

NO.

I honestly believe this is the only good idea I have ever had, so hear me out: One-way offside.

This rule change would mean that offside doesnt apply when entering the offensive zone.

Players on the offensive team are allowed to cross the blue line before the puck, but once the puck crosses the blue line, regular offside rules apply.

So if the puck leaves the zone, the players all have to tag up at the blue line as usual and the puck cant go back in the zone until the last player clears.

After that, the players are free to enter the zone before the puck again.

This rule would open up the game and stop teams from being able to play the dreaded trap while also preventing the offensive team from being able to leave the zone to regroup.

And the absolute best part? Reduces the offside challenges.

Buddy B.

McIndoe: It wouldnt be a Rules Court without somebody trying to blow up the offside rule.

I like this one better than the generic get rid of offside entirely approach, since the hold-the-line battles to keep the puck in are good.

With this rule, were keeping those while still opening up the game and (crucially) getting rid of those stupid, awful, terrible freeze-frame offside reviews that all good and decent people hate.

Sure, Im in.

YES.

Gentille: This feels chaotic and impossible to officiate, which makes my ultimate stance very sad.

NO.

Goldman: Its a little convoluted for me and gets away from where the focus on offside challenges should be.

Lets just put a time limit on when the entry is no longer eligible to be challenged, because its fixing something else that isnt broken.

NO.

First, I want to say that NHL Rules Court is the best damn column on The Athletic and I look forward to it all year long.

Thanks for making it.

This will surely be too hokey for most, but Ive always thought there has to be some way to make the Presidents Trophy matter.

The team that wins the 82-game bloodbath that is the NHL season gets no respect.

My proposal, the winner of the Presidents Trophy gets an extra life in the playoffs.

Meaning, for one time only in the playoffs, if the team that finished first overall in the regular season loses a Game 7, they are given a rubber match Game 8, also played at home.

Shouldnt the leagues best team be rewarded with something tangible? Hockey players have it driven into them from birth nothing matters but the Stanley Cup.

This would increase the race for first overall right to the end of the season, instead of superstars being healthy-scratched for fans who are paying $150 a ticket.

And, how rad would a GAME 8 be? I see no downside, but thats me.

Dave D.

McIndoe: I am absolutely on board with the overall concept here.

The NHL doesnt do enough to make regular-season success feel important, especially in the parity era, in which playing a 95-point wild-card team is nowhere near the easy matchup division winners used to get in the 21-team days.

Unfortunately for Dave, his timing here stinks.

Through no fault of his own, he sent his question in just before we got one of the all-time Game 7 classics between the Presidents Trophy-winning Winnipeg Jets and the wild-card St.

Louis Blues.

Having watched that game, Im trying to imagine what it would have been like if wed known the Jets got a do-over if they lost.

I cant do it.

I try very hard not to have too many untouchables in my hockey-fan-head canon, but the sanctity of Game 7 is one of them.

NO.

Gentille: Whats more tangible than a snazzy new banner? I like parts of this conceptually adding juice to regular-season games is a good thing, and why we should have a 6-10 play-in tournament.

Ultimately, though, I cant get past the idea of punishing a wild-card team for beating the Presidents Trophy winner in a Game 7.

NO.

Goldman: Game 7s are the one thing in hockey that is NOT broken, so we cannot have a Game 8.

Sean 1 is right, there should be a way to better reward regular-season success, but this just isnt it.

The eighth seed potentially upsetting the first-place team adds too much pressure to a series; just think about when the 2023 Florida Panthers came back from a 3-1 deficit to take out the 135-point Boston Bruins.

Thats part of the magic of the Stanley Cup playoffs: anything can happen.

NO.

In basketball, players can stand anywhere they please on a jump ball.

But in hockey, everyone lines up on the defensive side of the puck.

Faceoffs are always a contest to pull the puck backward.

My proposal is to allow players to line up for a faceoff anywhere on the ice they choose, as long as theyre not in an offside position when the puck is dropped.

Changes the faceoff strategy completely.

Mark P.

McIndoe: This sounds cool at first, until you realize that it would work both ways: Offensive players could move forward, but the defending team could also put guys on the point.

I think the pull-back faceoff works precisely because the other team isnt there to disrupt it.

You might be able to talk me into allowing this change for center-ice faceoffs, but I like the offensive zone draws the way they are.

NO.

Gentille: Yknow what, I like the idea of adding this wrinkle.

Defending teams could also send guys to the point, but thered be a tactical element to the whole deal.

Also, more generally, I cant think of a great reason to pass on this one other than thats just how faceoffs work, and I dont love that justification.

YES.

Goldman: Maybe I have been saying no way too often today, and this rule change hit me at the right time.

Im intrigued by this because I love the idea of coaches having to tweak traditional faceoff strategies and get creative.

Test it in the AHL or something first, then bring it to the big leagues.

YES.

If the ninth-place team in one conference (random example, the Calgary Flames) finishes with more points than the eighth-place team in the other conference (random example, the Montreal Canadiens), then the two teams play a one-game play-in, hosted by the challenged team.

So in this example, Montreal would host Calgary in a one-game playoff, with the winner facing Washington in the first round.

You could also put a points threshold on it if you wish (e.g.

Calgary needs to finish three-plus points better than Montreal for the crossover game to be initiated).

Matt B.

McIndoe: So, extra playoffs? An occasional bonus Game 7 to start the postseason? Gosh, twist my arm.

YES.

Gentille: Ah yes, love a random example.

Lets put this one on the books until we get a full-on NBA-style play-in.

Dont let the good be the enemy of the great, as I say when I file a story that I dont particularly like.

YES.

Goldman: Im not big on the idea of a full-blown play-in tournament, but am on board with some sort of wild-card series for the No.

8 seed to truly earn its way into the final 16.

This is a fun way to do it, and I even like the idea of a potential East-East or West-West Stanley Cup Final if that team can somehow defy all the odds of going through the wrong conference.

YES.

So after hearing seven cases, here are the new rules we wound up with: Players can now line up wherever they want for a faceoff (as long as theyre still onside), instead of just on their own side of the puck.

There will now be a single-game play-in for the last playoff spot if the ninth-place team in one conference has a better record than the eighth-place team in the other.

Advertisement Thats it.

Just 2-for-7 this time around, which is not our best work.

Although given how we started, I was legitimately worried we were heading for our first ever shutout, so maybe we just take the two YES nods and get out of here.

As always, if you have a suggestion youd like to see us debate in Rules Court, you can send it to us through this email address .

(Top photo of Nathan MacKinnon and Roope Hintz: Matthew Stockman / Getty Images).

This article has been shared from the original article on theathleticuk, here is the link to the original article.