Dallas Stars: Rule Changes That Could Improve The NHL

The old saying goes something like, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” But that doesn’t mean it can’t be tweaked. The following are some proposed rule changes that might make the game we love a little bit better.

1. The Three-Point System

Do you want to confuse someone? Tell them how the point system in hockey works. If a team wins in regulation, they get two points, and the loser gets zero. This means each regulation game is worth two points; however, when a game goes into overtime, the winner gets two points, and the loser gets one. In essence, the game instantly becomes a three-point affair.

The NHL may like this because it keeps the standings close, but it’s a dumb way to calculate standings. It doesn’t adequately reward teams for winning games in regulation; it can be argued that it punishes them in a roundabout way. What the NHL needs to do is make each game worth three points under all circumstances.

For example, let’s assume a Dallas Stars vs. Anaheim Ducks hockey game. If the Stars win in regulation, they get three points and Anaheim receives zero. If the game goes to overtime, the winner will only get two points and the loser gets one. This will eliminate the standings advantage that teams gain by going to overtime.

More from Blackout Dallas

• Dallas Stars Traverse City Tournament: Who had great performances?
• Grushnikov and Stankoven lead Dallas Stars to 6-3 win over Columbus
• Dallas Stars prospects look to wrap up tournament with a win
• Burn the tapes: Dallas Stars prospects lose 5-1 to Toronto Maple Leafs
• Dallas Stars look to continue success today against the Maple Leafs

Let’s take a look at the Western Conference Playoff picture from 2018. Using the current point system and playoff format, these were the final standings:

1. Nashville – 117
2. Winnipeg – 114
3. Vegas – 109
4. Minnesota – 101
5. Anaheim – 101
6. San Jose – 100
7. Los Angeles – 98
8. Colorado – 95
9. St. Louis – 94
10. Dallas – 92

Now, under the proposed Three-Point Format:

1. Nashville – 159
2. Winnipeg – 158
3. Vegas – 148
4. Minnesota – 139
5. Anaheim – 136
6. San Jose – 135
7. Los Angeles – 132
8. Colorado – 130

Standings-wise, there’s no difference in the Western Conference standings for the 2018 playoffs, but it’s clear that a complete three-point system favors teams that win in regulation. While in some years, this wouldn’t make a difference, it could be the difference in home-ice advantage in others. The argument that moving to a three-point system would make the league less competitive doesn’t bear out in statistics. The conferences would be just as competitive in a more advanced point system.

Likelihood of being implemented in next five years: 10%

2. Kill Your Darlings (i.e., the Two-Point System)

The shootout emerged in the NHL with much fanfare during the 2005-06 season. It was seen as a novel, exciting element to combat what had become a low-scoring, defense-dominated game. The idea was to get rid of the most hated word in North American sports: tie.

More from Editorials

• Dallas Stars hockey is about to be the main attraction in Dallas this year
• Age Before Beauty: The impact of Benn’s new role on his Dallas legacy
• Dallas Stars hockey is the light at the end of the tunnel
• Dallas Stars coverage is lacking and it’s very concerning to be honest
• Sit back, relax and watch Jim Nill and the Dallas Stars draft scouts cook

Few things get sports fan’s blood boiling like a tie. Unlike soccer, where ties, affectionately called “draws,” are an accepted facet of the game, North Americans loathe the idea that you could spend hours watching or paying to attend an event, only to see it become figuratively pointless.

But that sentiment is beginning to change. Over time, the shootout has lost its luster, eliciting eye rolls instead of excitement. The players have noticed this, too.

How would this work in tandem with the Three-Point System? Well, it wouldn’t. As the logic goes, it necessitates the return of the tie, meaning a two-point game. In this alternate world, hockey returns to its standard two-point system, meaning winners get two points, ties get one point, and losers get zero points.

I’m against the point system used by soccer since it waffles between two and three-point games. Each game should be worth the same number of points regardless of the outcome.

But wait, there’s more! If two teams are tied at the end of regulation, one 10-minute 4-on-4 overtime is played directly after the end of the period — yes, on chewed up ice — to determine a winner. If nobody scores, the game ends in a tie.

Likelihood of being implemented in next five years: 10%

3. The Blue Line

This wasn’t much of an issue until instant replay made it one. How come when entering the offensive zone a player has to have his skate on the ice to stay onsides? A player can have 85 percent of his body in the zone, but if at least one skate is on the line outside the zone, then he’s not technically “in” the zone (and vice versa).

Live Feed

Puck Prose

It shouldn’t matter whether or not the skate is on the ice, only that a portion of the skate is behind the blue line. Change the rule, metaphorically, to make the blue line go “up,” allowing players to be onside entering the offensive zone even if they aren’t dragging the skate.

Likelihood of being Implemented in next five years: 50%

4. Instant Replay for Offsides

It sounded so good in theory. What if a defensive squad could review a play to determine offsides when it’s opponent scored a goal? Who wouldn’t want that? But ideas that work in a vacuum, often don’t pan out in the real world. Many of the worst decisions in history were implemented with good intentions. So it goes with sports.

A play that’s in the offensive zone for 40+ seconds shouldn’t be reviewable for offsides. Even more so, if the linesman can’t notice it with the naked eye, or if the play is so close that replay officials are checking individual frames to see if a player is less than two inches offsides, what’s the point? Did it make a difference in how the play turned out? You’re not determining goalie interference, whether a puck went into the net, whether a fly ball was fair or foul, or who last touched the ball on its way out of bounds. It’s a judgment call that has no bearing on the play. That’s not even taking into account the poor schmucks who have to correct Average Time on Ice (ATOI) for players.

Likelihood of being implemented in next five years: 70%

5. Eliminate the Trapezoid

Instituted for the 2005-06 season, the “trapezoid” was intended to prevent players like Martin Brodeur and Marty Turco from venturing too far to play the puck in the corners, clearing the puck on power plays and driving down scoring opportunities. It also attempted to deal with goalies getting checked when skating into the corner.

I don’t have any mathematical basis for this; I don’t like the rule. It feels cheap, preventing a player from being fully involved in the game; however, the trapezoid doesn’t have to be eliminated entirely. The lines can stay, but a goalie playing the puck from behind the net, outside the trapezoid is considered fair game for physical contact.

Likelihood of being implemented in next five years: 5%

6. Defensive Zone Hand Pass

Another rule that I don’t fully understand, players can use their hands to pass the puck when in the defensive zone, but nowhere else on the ice. It seems silly, and I was unable to find any justification for the institution of this rule.

My solution is to eliminate the hand pass or allow it in all zones. Just don’t have a waffling rule that tries to straddle the middle.

Likelihood of being implemented in next five years: 30%

Next: Stars Mailbag: Previewing Another Crazy Offseason

While most of these changes have little chance of ever being part of the rulebook, it’s still fun to speculate and discuss changes that could make a great game even better.