NHL Rule Changes That Need To Be Made

I've been meaning to write about what rule changes should take place since the last GM meeting a couple weeks back but just haven't gotten around to it; so, here it goes.

Since the lockout, the NHL has been trying anything possible to get more scoring going to try and make the product more appealing to the masses; so far, it's been going well, as scoring is up at this season point from last season.

The average goals per game are at a 5.9 compared to last years 5.6. If this pace continues there will be a 369 goal difference by seasons end, also it's a dramatic improvement from the 2003-2004 season of 5.0 goals a game.

This trend should continue to rise as we're seeing more natural goal scorers emerging into the game and as well as players coming into their prime. Players such as Alex Ovechkin, Iyla Kovalchuk, Dany Heatley, Alex Semin, Thomas Vanek, Zach Parise, and Patrick Sharp are all scoring at steady paces since the new era in the NHL.

So far, Semin, Parise, Vanek are all on pace to score more than 60 goals. There hasn't been two or more 60 goal scorers in a single season since 1992-1993 season. At this point, there are six players on pace to record over 100 points as well, which is up from last seasons of two.

Which, by season's end, there should be more if those six players keep up their pace and other players who have had a slow start that have picked up there games such as Alex Ovechkin.

Some rules that have been debated since the lock-out might hurt the product though. Hockey players are essentially known for their toughness, yet the NHL has made some rule changes and have also debated rule changes that might get people to think differently.

Yes, it's unfortunate that players get hurt and it's reasonable to try to reduce injuries as much as possible but at the same time hockey players know there always a possibility for injury in playing one of the toughest and fastest sports in the world. If they didn't want to play a sport that had a risk of injury they'd play golf.

Last season, there were talks about getting rid of touch-up icing when Kurtis Foster broke his leg chasing for a puck in the corner against Torrey Mitchell. This is one rule I love about hockey.

Touch-up icing keeps the game going and gives exciting chases for the puck as well if it turns into a goal scoring opportunity. When I played high school hockey, I hated that there wasn't touch up icing, since many times players could've beat out the other to stop it.

It might not seem significant but it does slow and dull the game down.

One rule the NHL needs to get rid of is the instigator rule. Let the players go back to policing themselves. It will stop the antics of those such as Sean Avery, Ryan Hollweg, and others from taking advantage of it.

If there wasn't an instigator rule, I'm sure someone would have thrown a punch at Avery during his little antic in the playoffs against Brodeur.

Players would be more responsible and more respectful to each other if there's that fear of getting mauled by an enforcer for taking cheap shots. The NHL wants to limit fighting as much as possible but in all honesty, it's a part of the game.

When you're at a game and you see two players drop the gloves how many people are still sitting in their seats? The NHL wants to limit fighting to make it more family orientated, they don't want players pummeling each other and have blood shed, but again that's been all apart of the sport to begin with. Quality hockey fights are just as exciting as a breakaway goal.

One thing I do hate to see is, in the nearing minutes of a tied game, a defenseman is desperately trying to clear the puck and it goes over the glass. He's given a two minute penalty for delay of game.

The opposing team has a power play and an opportunity to end the game in regulation; yeah it's great for the other team but it happened to the Washington Capitals in Game Seven in overtime.

The Philadelphia Flyers scored on that power play opportunity as well. It's a shame when that happens. A good alternative is to treat it as the same as icing. A face off in the team's defensive zone and they can't change players.

This doesn't constitute as a rule but it's more the disciplinary system. It seems the NHL is trying to make enforcers as useless as possible now. In this recent week, two players were suspended for elbowing.

I saw Jarkko Ruutu's hit, yes it was a high hit and with an elbow, but I don't think it warranted a two-game suspension, however I did not see Tomas Pock's elbow but he was given a five-game suspension. The point is the NHL treats star players different from enforcers.

If Alex Ovechkin hit someone like Ruutu did, I guarantee you he would not get any game suspensions. Last season you saw the NHL handle two similar situations differently. Chris Simon was suspended for 30 games for stomping on the right ankle on the skate boot of Jarkko Ruutu's. Later in the season in March, Chris Pronger stomped on Ryan Kesler's leg, not the skate, and there was no suspension initially until Simon complained about it, then the NHL suspended Pronger for merely eight games.

Not that it mattered, in the long run, since Anaheim was eliminated in the first round by the Stars, but Pronger should have gotten the same suspension period as Simon. He would've missed the rest of the stretch, the playoffs, and the beginning of this season.

Simon has been suspended eight different times and received a 25-game suspension when he slashed Ryan Hollweg in the jaw the previous season, but it's not like Pronger hasn't had his fair share of suspensions.

He was suspended in two separate occasions during the Anaheim's cup run in 2007. The NHL needs to be more fair on how it hands out player suspensions, and lately they've been giving them out like candy. I'm not saying all the incidents aren't suspension worthy but there have been a few that don't deserve any suspension.

Also, like I said with the Instigator rule, if it didn't exist maybe some of these incidents wouldn't have taken place.

There's been a debate since during the lockout on whether they should increase the size of the nets or slim down the size of the pads. They definitely shouldn't increase the size of the nets, but there can be some adjustments to goaltending equipment.

The argument against slimming down pads is that goaltenders will get hurt. I say that's pish-posh. Look at the goaltending pads in the '80s compared to now. Goaltenders were not getting demolished by shots, and Al McInnis started his career in the mid '80s and no one has matched the consistency power of his shot in any All-Star Game yet in the hardest shot competition.

There can be at least an inch that can be taken from the width of the pads and there has to be technology that can slim down the chest protectors that will make sure goaltenders will still be safe.

Some goalies have even stated they'd quit if they slimmed down the pads, such as Roberto Luongo. Simply, I find that some goaltenders fear that change because they'd actually have to do more than position themselves in front of the shot and let their Michelin man like pads stop the puck.

Roberto Luongo is a skinny man, but he looks like a sumo wrestler in net with the size of his chest protector. Looking at goaltenders in the '80s was like an art form before Patrick Roy made the butterfly popular.

With an addition to the size of the pads, it's taken a lot of skill out of being a goaltender. Don't get me wrong, there are some spectacular goaltenders in the NHL and make amazing unbelievable saves but one way to increase goal scoring is to slim down the pads, but making sure of the safety of the players as well.

One thing I would like to see is the NHL change the division formats. In each conference, have two divisions, with eight in one and seven in the other. This also changes the playoff format has each team that wins it's division is guaranteed one of the first three seeds.

That's fine, if there's only two divisions. No guaranteed spots except for the one's that win the division. Last year, only one team from the South East Division made the playoffs, the Capitals finished with 94 points to earn the third seed but New Jersey, New York Rangers, and the Philadelphia Flyers had more points than them. Thats not fair that the Rangers who finished fifth, would've had the forth seed instead and home ice advantage.

As well in the west the Anaheim Ducks finished with four more points than the Minnesota Wild and the Wild gets the third seed because they won their division. Cutting the conferences to two divisions will in most cases solve this problem as the top team in each division will more likely than not finish one-two in the standings for their conference.

The NHL could take this a step further and that all teams play every team equal amount of times so there is no debate that teams who play lesser quality teams that their points are inflated.

Yet this will never happen as with the economy it will increase the money spent on traveling but I am glad to see that the NHL have the schedule this season that every team plays each other at least once.