Ideas for cleaning up the NHL

[Liverlips]

We've probably had more than just a few discussions on this topic over the years and perhaps none of this is new. Still, given the renewed fervor within Pens Nation, I think it's a good discussion to have and would love to hear folks' ideas.

TLDR version:

- Teams must be de-incentivized from carrying "predatory" players on their rosters - players who will not reform their ways must no longer play in the NHL.

- Players must truly "feel it" in their wallets in order to be motivated to "change their ways." These NHLPA-negotiated max monetary penalties are a complete joke. NHLPA has to get real, and if the monetary penalties are evenly shared by both team and player, it is more equitable.

Longer version:

I'd like to see something akin to the following to help address and hopefully eliminate all the nonsense. Bottom line, both offending players and their teams must be made to "feel the pain" of the results of such actions, so both will be properly motivated to put a stop to this. It has to be shared, in order for the NHLPA and Owners to both accept it.

So here are my specific ideas:

1) Eliminate NHL DoPS arbitrary suspensions for such offenses. When a player is injured as result of such an offense (regardless if a penalty was assessed in-game), the only question to the DoPS is, "Was the offense a suspendable offense?"

Yes: Proceed to step 2
No: Do nothing

2) The offending player shall be automatically suspended until such time as an independent, NHL-appointed Doctor (or dispersed team of Doctors, as geography may require) has deemed the injured player to be recovered from the injury.

3) During any such suspension, 25% of the offending player's salary shall be garnished and donated to some fund to treat retired NHL veterans or whatever (NHL players' emergency assistance fund?). The team of the offending player shall also match this contribution.

4) During the suspension, the offending player's team shall receive a cap penalty, equivalent to the injured player's salary during his absence (not cap avg but the actual player's salary during that timeframe). If the offending player's team is already at 100% cap or if assessment of this cap penalty will put them over 100%, the penalty or its remainder will be assessed in the following season (this makes targeting highly-compensated, star players even more severe a penalty). Likewise, the injured player's team will be automatically awarded equivalent cap relief (LTIR not required)

5) During the suspension, the offending player will not be permitted to attend any team activities (no on-ice practices, no off-ice meetings, no training/working out at team facilities, etc). He shall have no such benefits, as he has robbed his injured opponent of such opportunities.

What are your thoughts on this and any additional ideas? I think each point might have its difficulties and obstacles, but maybe you guys have some better ideas?

[DontToewsMeBro]

So a career ending hit is effectively a lifetime ban from the NHL?

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Two Options:

1) Call the effin penalties which has worked in past. Shocker, I know. Also, penalties and suspensions shouldn't be based on whether or not there's an injury.

2) Make the rink Euro size.

Bigger Rink equals to following:

- More time for players to see what's coming and react.
- More room makes it harder for those open ice hits
- Breeds more skilled players

This doesn't eliminate the physical aspect which NA hockey will still keep regardless of the size of the rink, but it will cut down on the unnecessary aspects.

[Liverlips]

So a career ending hit is effectively a lifetime ban from the NHL?

Certainly, such extenuating circumstances would require special treatment. I should think if such a suspension model were implemented, a maximum games clause would exist to cover such scenarios.

[Steve Dave]

Plus, what if said player returns and can play but is secerely limited (knee injury). That player then hangs it up a year later after trying to play through it. Is the player responsible for the initial injury return and then have to sit out again?

[Jim]

Increasing the rink size is not even an option. The amount of money that it would take to physically alter the buildings would be insane. You would have to raise the floor level up to be able to get the rink edges out further. Then all access to the floor level would also need to be changed; locker room access, zamboni access, etc. The old ice chillers would be trash and an entire new system would need to be put into place. I am sure that there are other things that I am not even considering.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Increasing the rink size is not even an option. The amount of money that it would take to physically alter the buildings would be insane. You would have to raise the floor level up to be able to get the rink edges out further. Then all access to the floor level would also need to be changed; locker room access, zamboni access, etc. The old ice chillers would be trash and an entire new system would need to be put into place. I am sure that there are other things that I am not even considering.

That's a myth. The cost is small. There's no physical altering needed to the building.

These arenas accommodate numerous events with all different needs and setups. To remove a couple of rows of seats is no harder than any other setup for a concert or whatever. The main costs come from adding more panels to the boards and new ice under-coverings.

[Liverlips]

Plus, what if said player returns and can play but is severely limited (knee injury). That player then hangs it up a year later after trying to play through it. Is the player responsible for the initial injury return and then have to sit out again?

I think we can what-if it to death and I believe 100% accountability will always be elusive regardless of what could be agreeable by both NHLPA and owners. I think such a scenario as you described would probably be such an instance where the offending player would escape complete accountability. Again, I definitely think there would have to be a max. I can't see a player being suspended more than an entire year, that would just get nuts. But I don't believe that means a path towards greater accountability should not be pursued.

[Pruezy11881]

Increasing the rink size is not even an option. The amount of money that it would take to physically alter the buildings would be insane. You would have to raise the floor level up to be able to get the rink edges out further. Then all access to the floor level would also need to be changed; locker room access, zamboni access, etc. The old ice chillers would be trash and an entire new system would need to be put into place. I am sure that there are other things that I am not even considering.

That's a myth. The cost is small. There's no physical altering needed to the building.

These arenas accommodate numerous events with all different needs and setups. To remove a couple of rows of seats is no harder than any other setup for a concert or whatever. The main costs come from adding more panels to the boards and new ice under-coverings.

It typically would have to phase in as new arenas get built. The cooling lines in existing floors wouldn't be long or wide enough for bigger rinks. To do so, part of the floor would have to be ripped up and lines replaced on top of the extra dashers/panes/boards. It would be much easier to lay the bigger cooling system initially than to try and modify existing set-ups. I think this is something the Burke came up with and was pining for awhile ago...

[FLPensFan]

Suspensions and injury should not be tied together AT ALL. You sort of say that in step 1, but then completely contradict yourself by tying the offending player's punishment to the length of the injury. Should an offending player get rewarded because he lays out the most vicious looking headshot, but the victim only misses the game of the hit? How would you feel about the Orpik hit if it happened the same way, with the only difference being that Orpik didn't change his line to "hit" Maatta, and it was more half-hit, half collision. He still hits the head, but it was more careless or accidental then specific intent.

There is no cap in the playoffs, so #4 isn't really very valid either.

You want simple and easy to implement, in terms of suspensions and penalties:

1. Call the game the same whether it is a pre-season game, day 1 of the NHL season, or game 7 of the Cup finals, and no matter whether it's the first period, 3rd period, or the 3rd OT. The NHL needs to stop trying to arbitrarily affect the outcome by calling or not calling a penalty. And if you can't call a game consistently from one game to the next, from one period to the next, what is the point of having penalties. There will still be some mistakes made, but at least making a very strong attempt to do this would be noticeable. You don't see the NFL saying, well, he tackled that guy before the pass got there, but it's the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl, so we aren't going to throw a flag.

2. An extension of #1: Call the game in support of your stars, not your 4th line fringe players. That doesn't mean give the stars preferential treatment, but when I drop $400 on a game, I'm not going to watch Tom Wilson's clutching and grabbing ability, or Radko Gudas interfere with Crosby on zone entries. Call the game the way your rulebook says. So much is let go because the NHL has let it go for so long its become common place. A defenseman changing his line, to get in the line of a forechecking player going after the puck, while the other defenseman goes to get the puck......that's actually interference. Happens multiple times a game, because the NHL has decided not to call it.

3. Either have an NHL DOPS official off-ice, on premise (preferred) for every game, or have a DOPS War Room available for all games like we do for goal reviews. The DOPS person's main responsibility is, on plays such as the Orpik play, the DOPS official is to review the play to determine if a penalty should be 2 mins, 4 mins, 5 mins, or 5 and a game misconduct. This is independent of any injury. DOPS is looking for intent, accidental, carelessness, and taking into account repeat offender status. On intent, they are looking for things like players changing their line or other actions that show an attempt to target a player, as well as intent to target the head.

4. The DOPS person makes a decision as to whether any plays during a game that were reviewed need to be sent for a DOPS suspension review. As is the case today, each team can also make a request after any game to have DOPS review plays in question.

5. For the suspensions, again, things like intent, carelessness, accidental, and repeat offender need to be considered.
---All suspensions are without pay. Money from fines or suspensions goes into a players fund for injured/retired players.
---Plays in the accidental or carelessness category still carry a suspension, but at a lower level. Punishment for accidental or careless start with 1 day's salary, with a max of 5 days salary. Suspensions are also possible, typically in the event that a player has had multiple careless/accidental reviews in the past. A habit of being careless is just as bad as having intent. Suspensions range from 1 to 5 games in this category.
---Plays deemed to have intent, or players who are repeat offenders, the minimum level of suspension for intent is 6 games. If you intentionally change your line to go after a player, and cause a reviewable DOPS penalty, or intentionally target the head, etc, you are getting a minimum of 6 games for a first offense. 2nd offense, 15 games. 3rd offense, 41 games. 4th offense, your contract is voided, and you are no longer allowed to play in the NHL. You may apply for reinstatement after 1 full season has passed from the time of the suspension. The team will have to pay a cap penalty, similar to a buyout percentage for X years.
---For 1st, 2nd, and 3rd offenses of intent/repeat offenders, the team will also be fined 60K, 150k, and 410K (10K times number of games), which goes into the player injury fund.
---A team that employs a player labeled a repeat offender will have an option to terminate the contract of such player after the 2nd offense. The team will still have a cap hit or some type of penalty, but they will get a reprieve or a cheaper option here than they will receive if the player gets to their 4th offense.

Players in this type of model will be forced to feel it more in the pocket. The teams will be forced to dish out money for players who are getting suspended for intentional or repeat offenders. While 410K may seem small to a team, a small market team that is struggling to break even or make a profit isn't going to be happy paying almost half a million dollars in fines for a player.

[jwest21]

unfortunately those suggestions make too much sense for the NHL to consider.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Call the penalties

[jwest21]

The culture of the league needs to change, from the announcers and talking heads down through the coaches and players. You can have the guys during the intermission reports calling dirty play "good hockey plays" . You can't have people like McGuire and other color guys playing down borderline hits as "clean hard hits". Coaches can't be defending obvious cheap shots, either (I'm looking at you Trotz). Everyone needs to be on the same page when it comes to what is acceptable and what isn't. they also need to understand that something that was acceptable 5, 10, 30 years ago is no longer acceptable. now. This is where the league needs to grow a set, lay down the law and MAKE everyone understand that this is it, now and forever.

[Liverlips]

Really, really good stuff, FLPensFan!

I can see what you mean about tying the suspensions to missed time. It could indeed swing the other way, as you indicate and the punishment might not be fitting enough. I wasnt intending to contradict myself with my early remarks - I meant the approach of the proposed idea to be 100% tied to the amount of missed time. I think many of us are so tired of seeing what amounts to slaps on the wrist in both the monetary fines as well as the suspensions when players commit egregious fouls.

Yes, I understand the cap doesnt apply during playoffs however, if that player is still out when the following season starts, then, if the suspensions were indeed tied to missed time, the cap penalties could start there.

But I do like your approach to a standard suspension format as you articulated in #5. Well thought out and certainly easier to apply!

Agree with you 100% on simply applying the rules consistently from game 1 reg season to game 7, SC Final. I've always resented the sliding scale application of the rules in the post-season. So mindless, when the beauty of the game is best exemplified when players are freed to skate, pass, and shoot without being subjected to ridiculous levels of interference, much less head-hunting, etc.

[interstorm]

In my opinion, so many of the NHL's ills are caused by the low goal scoring and can be fixed, even just partially, by making an adjustment there. Consider the following if scoring were to increase:

* Would NHL GMs focus more on a skilled roster aimed at getting more goals than the opponent instead of allowing less than them?
* Would referees be more inclined to call the game by the book without worrying that NHL scoring becomes predicated by the team with the most power plays?
* Would shot blocking decrease in fear of players taking themselves out of position?
* Would NHL players be more leery of taking a penalty if they knew the likelihood of a goal be much higher?
* Would coaches plan a more aggressive attack designed to maximize their teams scoring chances as opposed to cautiously playing low-risk and opportunistic hockey?
* Would the media drive more attention to the NHL (and hockey in general) if players were chasing long-standing records?
* Would casual fans or new viewers be more interested in a game that provides more shots and a larger amount of "cheerable" events?

To me -- this is an emphatic YES in all cases. If the NHL goal was made JUST 3 inches wider and taller, that would represent a 10% increase in the overall area of a goal. While not a radical amount, this would be enough to offset the larger goals / equipment in order to bring the "open" shooting area more in-line with what the 80's and early 90's gave us (when the goalies and equipment were smaller).

I honestly think that a change like this is enough to trigger a wide variety of changes in the game, including one that eventually gets to the culture of the type of players in the sport. Don't get me wrong -- I love the toughness and the NHL should always have that (nobody cheered like I did when Tocchet became a Pen) -- but they've stiffed the creativity of the game and instead left an environment where goals are score more from a defensive mistake than an offensive brilliance and where it is better to have a sloth of a person who can stop the Crosbys or Kanes in the game instead of actually having the Crosby or Kane.

Let the stars shine though -- all of them (not just Crosby and Kane) -- and these fringe NHL players will find themselves replaced.

[FLPensFan]

In my opinion, so many of the NHL's ills are caused by the low goal scoring and can be fixed, even just partially, by making an adjustment there. Consider the following if scoring were to increase:

* Would NHL GMs focus more on a skilled roster aimed at getting more goals than the opponent instead of allowing less than them?
* Would referees be more inclined to call the game by the book without worrying that NHL scoring becomes predicated by the team with the most power plays?
* Would shot blocking decrease in fear of players taking themselves out of position?
* Would NHL players be more leery of taking a penalty if they knew the likelihood of a goal be much higher?
* Would coaches plan a more aggressive attack designed to maximize their teams scoring chances as opposed to cautiously playing low-risk and opportunistic hockey?
* Would the media drive more attention to the NHL (and hockey in general) if players were chasing long-standing records?
* Would casual fans or new viewers be more interested in a game that provides more shots and a larger amount of "cheerable" events?

To me -- this is an emphatic YES in all cases. If the NHL goal was made JUST 3 inches wider and taller, that would represent a 10% increase in the overall area of a goal. While not a radical amount, this would be enough to offset the larger goals / equipment in order to bring the "open" shooting area more in-line with what the 80's and early 90's gave us (when the goalies and equipment were smaller).

I honestly think that a change like this is enough to trigger a wide variety of changes in the game, including one that eventually gets to the culture of the type of players in the sport. Don't get me wrong -- I love the toughness and the NHL should always have that (nobody cheered like I did when Tocchet became a Pen) -- but they've stiffed the creativity of the game and instead left an environment where goals are score more from a defensive mistake than an offensive brilliance and where it is better to have a sloth of a person who can stop the Crosbys or Kanes in the game instead of actually having the Crosby or Kane.

Let the stars shine though -- all of them (not just Crosby and Kane) -- and these fringe NHL players will find themselves replaced.

I'd try officiating the game better before I'd go to something like changing the size of the net. Again, if you aren't clutching, grabbing, hooking, and interfering with players all over the ice, the true skill of these players is allowed to come out and generate offense, instead of being stifled by the amount of unpenalized infractions that bog down the game. Bringing down the size of goalie equipment would be the 2nd item. Again, I've never heard of a rash of goalie injuries, particularly to the upper thighs or chest, that necessitated making oversized leg pads, chest protectors, and gloves.

Those are simple changes that don't alter the fundamentals of the game, and frankly, things they used to do that the NHL has gotten away from. The goalie equipment never used to be this large, but they failed to put in a proper standard. Nets were never needed to be larger in the 80's when Lemieux and Gretzky were scoring 150+ points. The goalies were were, the systems weren't as good, but the player skill flourished. I'd rather go back to smaller equipment and better officiating than changing the size of the goal.

That is another big problem with the NHL. When is the last time you can remember a major buzz in the NHL that player XYZ was closing in on the all time record for something? In terms of offensive stats, 1996 was the last major offensive season. Look at all times records for things like goals, assists, PPG, SHG.....whether its in a season, in a game, or all-time.......and look and see how few players are on those lists from beyond 1996. 20 years of almost no real threat of breaking any of the records in the NHL. Baseball had guys breaking home run records, football has had Marino, Favre, Peyton, and Brady constantly breaking all-time passing records. What has happened in the past 20 years in the NHL to generate this type of buzz? Little, if anything.

[pens_srq]

Call the penalties

This. At the root of it all is the league's desire to be able to nudge the outcome of games. They want the ability to ref the score. Everything else that follows has to do with plugging this huge gaping hole in the rules.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Call the penalties

This. At the root of it all is the league's desire to be able to nudge the outcome of games. They want the ability to ref the score. Everything else that follows has to do with plugging this huge gaping hole in the rules.

I really don't know why the NHL has let the refs go like this. They seemed to have things going in the right direction at the beginning of the Sid/Ovie era and then just let it slip away.

- Call the penalties
- Players will learn
- Less serious infractions will occur
-
- Profit

[interstorm]

I've given up on the changing of goalie equipment (at a meaningful level). That requires agreement between the NHL and NHLPA -- and I am sure such an agreement would also be a bargaining chip in a larger negotiation (which historically has never gone well). So I've reluctantly tossed that one out the window.

I also have no faith in the NHL refs but I'll at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't completely incompetent (not sure why I am being so nice). I'm assuming that on some level they're at least saying we won't call 20 penalties on a single team in a single game -- that they at least want to maintain the flow of the game overall. While I can agree with it, that same mentality drove the Flyer's behavior in the early 70's (just read Dryden's book). Honestly the game would stink of there were 40 penalties and while players would adjust, I think the constant boundary pushing would sooner or later force refs to bypass calls again (and be back where we are today) or keep up with the over-the-top amount of penalty calls. Either way no good.

The NHL shouldn't be so scared to change the game -- look at baseball with different stadium sizes and raising/lowering the pitcher's mount. Football has drastically changed rules on how QB's and WR's can be contacted while also altering the location of the uprights and how missed kicks are placed afterwards. Historical reference is already gone -- does one REALLY think that a player's point total from 30 or 40 years ago would tell who is better between them and a player today? Everything would be speculation. Let go of the past and allow for what would help the game today (without fighting the NHLPA or be designed for a temporary impact).

Make the goals bigger!

[interstorm]

Make the goals bigger!

And again, make them JUST 3 inches wider/taller -- that's all that's needed. People hear 'larger goals' and they suddenly picture a soccer net on the goal line. 3 inches wider/taller -- 10% increase in area. It's that simple.

[pens_srq]

I've given up on the changing of goalie equipment (at a meaningful level). That requires agreement between the NHL and NHLPA -- and I am sure such an agreement would also be a bargaining chip in a larger negotiation (which historically has never gone well). So I've reluctantly tossed that one out the window.

I also have no faith in the NHL refs but I'll at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't completely incompetent (not sure why I am being so nice). I'm assuming that on some level they're at least saying we won't call 20 penalties on a single team in a single game -- that they at least want to maintain the flow of the game overall. While I can agree with it, that same mentality drove the Flyer's behavior in the early 70's (just read Dryden's book). Honestly the game would stink of there were 40 penalties and while players would adjust, I think the constant boundary pushing would sooner or later force refs to bypass calls again (and be back where we are today) or keep up with the over-the-top amount of penalty calls. Either way no good.
Make the goals bigger!

I've heard this regarding calling everything only about a billion times. The reality is NO the players will adjust and stop taking 20 penalties a game after a they learn the new standard. Then the games will flow MUCH better. You give the refs ZERO leeway. They 100% call the rules or they are fired. Until hockey grows up and acts like the other professional sports leagues it will always have this issue. Outsiders cannot get into hockey nearly as easily as other games because the rules themselves are the subject of such controversy due the the inconsistent enforcement. I'm not saying the rules on the books are perfect. But they are a lot more perfect then a bunch of over-empowered league employees trying to give the game the "right feel".

[Daniel]

Call the penalties

This. At the root of it all is the league's desire to be able to nudge the outcome of games. They want the ability to ref the score. Everything else that follows has to do with plugging this huge gaping hole in the rules.

I really don't know why the NHL has let the refs go like this. They seemed to have things going in the right direction at the beginning of the Sid/Ovie era and then just let it slip away.

- Call the penalties
- Players will learn
- Less serious infractions will occur
-
- Profit

How realistic is it to involve the coach and/or captain in the suspension, much like diving?

FIrst suspension X games - player only
Second suspension X games double - player and captain
Third suspension X games tripled - player, captain, coach

Maybe keep the first suspension amount for captain and coach, or 1 game or something like that. Start punishing the team as much as the player.

[Skatingpen]

lets focus on hits to the heads. 1st time 10 games, 2nd time 20 games, 3rd time 40 games. No leeway, it is reviewed and a decision is made

[Skatingpen]

Call the penalties

This. At the root of it all is the league's desire to be able to nudge the outcome of games. They want the ability to ref the score. Everything else that follows has to do with plugging this huge gaping hole in the rules.

I really don't know why the NHL has let the refs go like this. They seemed to have things going in the right direction at the beginning of the Sid/Ovie era and then just let it slip away.

- Call the penalties
- Players will learn
- Less serious infractions will occur
-
- Profit

How realistic is it to involve the coach and/or captain in the suspension, much like diving?

FIrst suspension X games - player only
Second suspension X games double - player and captain
Third suspension X games tripled - player, captain, coach

Maybe keep the first suspension amount for captain and coach, or 1 game or something like that. Start punishing the team as much as the player.

Not sure it is really fair to punish the captain. The coach yes and fine the team as well. Impact the salary cap somehow, make the team pay for the players actions

[pens_srq]

It needs to stop being a legitimate strategy to try to illegally injure players on the other team. Whatever they do, they need to make sure that there is NO incentive to injure someone because taking the penalty is worth it.