The NHL’s Unanswered Questions

"If the game ends in a tie, a shootout decides the winner."

"If a player is called for fighting, he is immediately suspended for one game."

"There are no two-line passes."

“The game plays more like basketball, which might make it more enjoyable for a non-hockey person."

Lines pulled from the NHL's new Collective Bargaining Agreement?

Nope. What you just read are the basic tenets of Roller Hockey International, a summer hockey league that enchanted literally hundreds of fans during the 1990s. RHI wanted to provide the kind of goal-scoring the modern day National Hockey League failed to consistently deliver. And the roller league followed through on its promise — RHI boasted an average of 16.7 goals per game to the NHL's 7, and an average of 96 shots per game to the NHL's 60.

Did the emphasis on goal-scoring work? Well, the league lasted less than a decade, went through more teams than Drake Berehowsky, and is best remembered today for having convinced Bryan Trottier to play roller hockey and for franchises with names like the Atlanta Fire Ants and the Toronto Planets. So you tell me if it worked.

Now it's the NHL's turn to legislate against defense and physical play in the hopes that pucks in the net will turn into fannies in the seats or eyes on the television. (If and when the league gets around to television — still haven't gotten a call from Bettman on my "NHL on HBO" idea from last week. Perhaps his Hobbit-like fingers can't work the touch-tone keypad.)

Some of the NHL's rules changes for the upcoming season are, admittedly, good ones. Goalie pads will be reduced by 11 percent, meaning Jean-Sebastien Giguere will now simply look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy instead of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Tag-up offsides are back, which should increase forechecking and offensive pressure. And the league claims there will be a "zero tolerance" policy on interference, hooking and holding/obstruction — unless, of course, it's the last two minutes of a game, it's a playoff game, or if the Rangers are winning.

Some of the rules changes are, admittedly, bad ones. If you've read this column long enough, you know specifically which one I'm talking about. If you haven't, let me drop a hint: it rhymes with "blootout."

Some of the rules changes ... well, some of them have me just plum confused. I've read though NHL.com's section on the new regulations several times. I think there are some rules that need a little elaboration. Such as:

Icing the Puck — One of the most subjective calls in the NHL is when a referee or linesman decides that an iced puck is actually "playable" for the defensive team, and icing is waved off. There's no standard for this call — it's inconsistently enforced, and often misapplied.

What has the NHL done in its new rulebook? Given the referees and linesmen more subjective decision making on icing, of course.

They'll now have the "discretion to wave off apparent icing infractions if they are deemed the result of an attempted pass." The catalyst for this rule is the "elimination" of the red line when it comes to two-line passes. Obviously, more passes will miss their mark than hit their targets down-ice. Normally that would mean a slew of icing calls, something that could actually encourage offensive pressure and goal-scoring. But it would also give professional hockey the kind of flow I have after eating a block of cheddar.

So the league now deputizes the linesmen and refs to wave off icing if the player was actually “trying" to complete a pass. Here's a scene we'll be witnessing six or seven times a game:

A player shoots the puck down the ice, the linesman calls icing, and then the player skates over raising holy hell because his teammate was "in the vicinity" of what he deems a "passing attempt"; or, better yet, he claims he simply misfired on what was intended to be a pass.

There's another rule in sports that deals with the "intent" of the passer. The NFL calls it intentional grounding. It's one of the single most frustrating, inconsistent, and enigmatic calls an official can make, and now the NHL might have created something as equally insufferable.

Three-Man Shootout — One of the biggest knocks on the shootout format is that it won't actually involve all the players who saw action in the game up until that point. In other words, a minority of the game's participants will decide its ultimate outcome.

The NHL did little to soothe those concerns by making the shootout a three-on-three affair, which virtually guarantees that defensemen won't be a part of exercise — unless your team is lucky enough to have Scott Niedermayer or Rob Blake.

So we go from two defensemen on the ice at virtually all times in regulation and overtime, to zero defensemen on the ice during its most critical juncture. And this is supposed to be hockey?

Defensive Clearing — This one might just need a little clarification. The new rulebook states, "any player who shoots the puck directly over the glass in his defending zone will be penalized for delay of game."

That can be read two ways. Does it mean a player who is in the defending zone and who shoots the puck over the glass in the defending zone gets a penalty?

Or does it mean a player in the defending zone who shoots the puck over any of the glass in the rink, like the "delay of game" rule for goaltenders, gets a penalty?

Because if the rule means Option A, what's to stop a player in his own zone from simply clearing the puck out over the glass in the neutral zone?

You know, where the fans are completely unprotected?

Shootout Points — A team that wins playing five-on-five hockey for 60 minutes will earn the same number of points in the standings as a win in a three-on-three shootout.

If the shootout is a joke, this is the punchline. The NHL actually did the impossible: it found a way to further devalue a regular season that the mainstream sports media already reviles as being irrelevant.

Diving — Here's another confusing one. The league is going to crack down on diving and feigning injuries by using video replay to identify the embellishers. The first incident will earn a strongly worded letter; the second a fine of $1,000; the third in a $2,000 fine; and the fourth a one-game suspension.

But is the league going to just further punish players who get called for a minor diving penalty during the game, or is the league going after anyone it can find who dives whether the ref nailed him for it or not?

The rule states that Hockey Operations will assess fines to players "who dive or embellish a fall or a reaction, or who feign injury in an attempt to draw penalties." There's more acting in a typical NHL game than there is in a Mamet play. Is it humanly possible to assess that many fines during the course of a season without the aid of a NASA Supercomputer?

Talking Bad About Hockey — Finally, here's this interesting rule. The NHL claims that "public complaints or derogatory comments toward the game also will result in fines."

Does that include those times when Jaromir Jagr, Joe Sakic, and their ilk bitch about obstruction? Does the cash register ring every time Mario Lemieux starts yapping about "letting the players play the game?" And if so, can the league levy fines for the last 15 years worth of Mario moaning, like the IRS going after back taxes?

I guarantee it'll make the NHL more money than its next TV deal will...

Greg Wyshynski is the Features Editor for SportsFan Magazine in Washington, DC, and the Senior Sports Editor for The Connection Newspapers of Northern Virginia. His book “Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History" will be published in Spring 2006. His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].