1 NHL Rule Change To Bring Back Offence

Gary Bettman rolled into town in February of 1993 as the first ever Commissioner of the National Hockey League. Mario Lemieux of the Pittsburgh Penguins was the Art Ross Trophy winner in that 1992-93 season with 160 points. Since, the Art Ross Trophy winner has, with the exception of a few blips, scored less and less.

This year, Jamie Benn of the Dallas Stars won the award with just 87 points. That is the lowest total since Stan Mikita of the Chicago Blackhawks equalled that mark back in 1967-68.

Each and every year, the NHL's brain trust meets, frantically coming up with goofy ideas meant to increase offence. Almost every year, there are tweaks to the rules that do nothing to increase offence and, quite frankly, make a mockery of the game.

Well, one simple rule change has the potential to bring back some goal scoring. It wouldn't actually be a new rule. It would simply be reverting back to the way things were before the 1956-57 NHL season. I propose the league makes this change but with a twist.

As someone who has played hockey for the past 40 or so years and a who is Canadian, I do not like Gary Bettman. He may have rescued the NHL from financial disaster but he has done little for the actual game. The NHL that exists today is for idiots with short attention spans who are entertained by anything but what is actually going on on the ice.

However, the tweak I'm proposing might meet Bettman's approval because it is bastardized from basketball, Little Gary's first love.

The Two Minute Major

Well, it was never called the 'two minute major' in the olden days, just a minor penalty. Before the 1956-57 season, when a player was put in the box for a minor infraction, he remained for the full two minutes, regardless of how many goals his opponents scored.

The rule was changed to its present form because of the ridiculous success of the 1955-56 MontrealCanadiens. The numbers were crazy with the Habs accounting for more than a quarter of the entire league's power play goals. At the request of the other five teams, the rule was changed to allow the penalized player to leave the box before the two minutes were up if his team was scored upon.

I say, it's time to go back to a full two minute penalty. But, as mentioned, with a twist.

Fouling Out

I propose that the two minute major doesn't come into effect right from the start of the game. Stealing sort of from basketball, once a player has been called on his third minor of the game, then the rule goes into effect. Also, once a team is called for its fifth minor of the game, the hard two minutes apply. These numbers are arbitrary but you get the picture.

It has been suggested before, I believe by Stan Fischler, that the two minute major return but for certain types of calls like high sticking. That's not a bad idea, either.

One other twist ties in the two minute major and the penalty shot rule. I have issues with the penalty shot rule. Currently, which team is really at an advantage when a penalty shot is called? It's a one shot chance to beat a goalie who is wearing today's oversized equipment. Would not there be almost a better chance of scoring over two minutes with a man advantage? The numbers are actually not that far apart.

Of course, this goes back to Bettman trying to sell the game to people who don't play the game and don't know a thing about the game. 'The most exciting play in sport', it has been dubbed. Bullshit. In a time when half the games end in a shootout anyway, the penalty shot is nothing but a free timeout for both clubs.

Here's what I think. They NHL should allow a team to either accept or decline the penalty shot. If they decline, they get the two minute major, regardless of whether the offending player or team has 'fouled out'.

And Another Thing...

Want to make the game more exciting? Want to make teams play for the win in regulation time? Two things.

1. Do a shootout at the start of every game.
2. Make each game a proper three point game.

Fans love shootouts, no matter how impure they are. Run a shootout before each and every game to determine who will win in the case of a tie after the overtime. This means one team will have a reason to be in the lead from the get-go. There will be no dogging and playing for the point. If the game is decided in regulation or overtime, then the shootout means nothing but the entertainment it provided.

Item number two would probably eliminate the need for item number one. Most leagues in Europe play with a proper three points per game system. The IIHF World Championships are based on this. Before the days of overtime and shootouts during the regular season, each and every game was worth the same, two points. If a team won, they got both points. If there was a tie, each team got a point. Each and every game was valued exactly the same.

Then came overtime and shootouts. Now, some games are worth two points and some games are worth three. This is wrong. It just doesn't make any logical sense. Each game should be three points. Three points go to the winner and none to the loser if the game is decided in regulation. The split is two points / one point if the game is decided in extra time.