Should the NHL look into this rule change?

[Gemnoble]

So in the NBA, if the ball leaves the players hands before the buzzer, the point counts.

In the NFL and CFL if the ball is snapped before time runs out the play continues until finished. Touchdowns count.

Should the NHL make any similar rule changes? I'd be more in favour of the NBA style rule where the goal counts as long as the shot was made before time ran out. I think they could made the NFL style play work, just have to get the goalie to hold the puck or maybe get the puck out of bounds, but that would lead to a litany of other issues I'm sure.

I bring this up because Hockey appears to be the only major north american sport that doesn't "play to the bitter end" the MLB doesn't use a clock system for instance. So I wonder if maybe it should change.

[GordonBlue]

Not a horrible idea, but I just don't see the need for the change.

more trouble than it's worth.

I prefer it the way it is. If the puck's not in the net when time is up, then sucks to be you.

[CalgaryFan1988]

I think having to judge if the puck is off the players stick before the horn would be difficult (consistently), not having cameras at every angle.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I think having to judge if the puck is off the players stick before the horn would be difficult (consistently), not having cameras at every angle.

Correct.

There are cameras in the net etc. to determine the exact time a puck crosses the goal line.

To determine the exact time a puck leave's a player's stick would be very difficult. Plus, how about deflections, does that restart the time of the shot?

It's easy to determine in football when a snap occurs. It's also relatively easy to determine in basketball when the ball leaves a players hands. Not so easy in hockey..

[taffeyb]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I think having to judge if the puck is off the players stick before the horn would be difficult (consistently), not having cameras at every angle.

Offsides were hard enough let alone a stick on puck going 100+ mph. Currently, overhead view with clock is pretty definitive

[foofighter15]

On an easily clear shot this sounds great, but then you add in the "What ifs...?" and it gets more complicated quickly.

What if the shot is taken before the buzzer but then it gets tipped?
What if shot is taken before the buzzer and the goalie stops the puck but a scramble in the crease causes it to come lose and cross the line?
What if a defender player knocks the free from the forward, the buzzer goes, then the puck goes in.....does that count?

There are plenty of these little details to figure out, but it could be a good idea.

I think the biggest difference between this and the equivalent is in the NBA, and NFL is that a shot from the point takes less than a second to happen, while a play in the NFL can take 10 seconds and a shot in the NBA can take multiple seconds as well

so the real question is how necessary would this be?

[VilleN]

You really can't compare basketball with hockey. For one, in basketball if you take a buzzer beater the ball is off the ground the whole time - if it hits the ground at any point, the game is over. So if hockey adopted the same rules, the puck could not touch the ice until it crosses the goal line for it to count... The fact that the puck is usually on the ice or very near the ice when a shot is taken complicates things a lot. If the puck hitting the ice doesn't stop the clock, what does? If it touches a player or stick? How about if the goalie gets a piece of it... The rule needs to stay as is IMO.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

No, this is a terrible idea.
It will add nothing to the game, things are already exciting enough with teams trying to score until the buzzer, and at some point it will come back to bite everyone in the butt (See: 1999 Stanley Cup).

There is no reason to replace a perfectly fine, cut and dry rule with one what will be complicated, add very little, if anything to the game, and is almost 100% certain to cause some sort of major controversy.

Also, soccer just stops when time is up, football they just kneel and run the clock half the time, in baseball they don't even bother playing the bottom half of the 9th if the home team is up. So almost no one plays to the bitter end. Different sports finish the game in different ways for a reason. Hockey's method and reason are just fine as is.

[Zoller]

The high sticking rule for goals should be changed. On the rest of the ice it's a high stick if it's above your shoulders, but for a goal it's if the stick is above the cross bar.

Make it above shoulders for goals and yes this is an advantage for taller players.

[Gemnoble]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No, this is a terrible idea.
It will add nothing to the game, things are already exciting enough with teams trying to score until the buzzer, and at some point it will come back to bite everyone in the butt (See: 1999 Stanley Cup).

There is no reason to replace a perfectly fine, cut and dry rule with one what will be complicated, add very little, if anything to the game, and is almost 100% certain to cause some sort of major controversy.

Also, soccer just stops when time is up, football they just kneel and run the clock half the time, in baseball they don't even bother playing the bottom half of the 9th if the home team is up. So almost no one plays to the bitter end. Different sports finish the game in different ways for a reason. Hockey's method and reason are just fine as is.

There were 5 replies before yours that were far more constructive and far less negative while making the same points. Engage in self reflection and try to be a more constructive member of this and any other servers you're a part of.

[getbak]

This seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Gemnoble

There were 5 replies before yours that were far more constructive and far less negative while making the same points. Engage in self reflection and try to be a more constructive member of this and any other servers you're a part of.

Was my answer a little pithy?
Yes. My apologies.
But I stand by this being a bad idea.

[SutterBrother]

Wouldn’t work at lower levels without video replay (most of hockey).
NHL shouldn’t be trying to emulate other slower North American sports. The ends of NBA games are incredibly boring. Football is way too long between plays unless you’re gunned.

End of the day Occam’s razor.

[tvp2003]

They should just continuously run the clock all game, and then let the ref arbitrarily decide how much extra time to add at the end, and they can play until the ref blows the whistle declaring the game over.

(seriously soccer, wtf is up with that?!?)

[Lanny_McDonald]

Rule is fine as it is.

[SuperMatt18]

The rule that should change is that if you score on a delayed penalty you still get the PP afterwards.

Why does the penalty get voided out? It's not like you get to throw an extra player on the ice immediately.

Penalty gets called, you pull your goalie, and a player comes on. Play whistles dead once the other team touches the puck.

Why does the penalty get voided if you score? You took the risk of pulling your goalie to get the extra attacker, it's not like you just get to throw a 6th player on the ice.

And you should still get a PP after a penalty shot too. The penalty shot replaces the scoring chance that was eliminated due to the infraction. The player making the infraction should still have to spend 2 minutes in the box because a penalty still occurred on the play.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The rule that should change is that if you score on a delayed penalty you still get the PP afterwards.

Why does the penalty get voided out? It's not like you get to throw an extra player on the ice immediately.

Penalty gets called, you pull your goalie, and a player comes on. Play whistles dead once the other team touches the puck.

Why does the penalty get voided if you score? You took the risk of pulling your goalie to get the extra attacker, it's not like you just get to throw a 6th player on the ice.

And you should still get a PP after a penalty shot too. The penalty shot replaces the scoring chance that was eliminated due to the infraction. The player making the infraction should still have to spend 2 minutes in the box because a penalty still occurred on the play.

I think this works better the way it is, to be quite honest

The team gets a chance to capitalize on the infraction with one goal

While delayed, the team’s advantage is the extra skater, without worrying about the risk with a pulled goalie. The only risk is you putting it in your own empty net. Whether the team scores with the advantage while delayed, during the 2 minutes, or on a penalty shot, the opportunity they get is an advantageous situation to score one goal

Once they capitalize, the penalty has cost the offending team on the scoresheet, and the cost of one minor infraction is capped at one goal

I think it is just fine. One minor penalty, advantage for up to one goal

[dammage79]

Nah, the drama of the puck crossing the line as the clock runs out is unique to the sport and awesome. I wouldn't change it.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

T

Why does the penalty get voided if you score? You took the risk of pulling your goalie to get the extra attacker, it's not like you just get to throw a 6th player on the ice.

There is no risk of pulling your goalie, as the wihstle gets blown as soon as the other team touches the puck.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

There is no risk of pulling your goalie, as the wihstle gets blown as soon as the other team touches the puck.