After almost two months of gloom, hockey fans ought to say thank you to Brendan Shanahan for hosting a two-day summit with players, GMs and on-ice officials on improving the on-ice product -- and doing it on his own dime.
Granted, we've heard many of the proposals before (shootouts, no-touch icing, streamlining goalie equipment), and some are old saws (improving communications), but there was one two-part idea that we haven't heard before -- creating a permanent competition committee, and giving players and refs a say in what goes on:
"Our intention is not to rewrite the rulebook," Shanahan said, pointing to the shootout. "There were obviously some things we felt strongly about. The group felt with the price of tickets these days, the fans deserve to see a winner."We feel the NHL is an excellent product. There were just certain ways we wanted to make suggestions and nudge [the game] a certain way."
Shanahan said the recommendations will be presented later to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and NHL Players' Association executive director Bob Goodenow. Both men will be occupied starting today with a new proposal for a collective agreement that will be given to Bettman and the owners by the union.
"Obviously, when the timing is right, we will present it," Shanahan said. He declined to be more specific.
The NFL has had a competition committee forever, charged with taking a hard look at the game every season, and suggesting minor adjustments every year to improve the product on the field. It's an idea the NHL ought to be happy to steal for their own purposes.
Here's the Shanahan laundry list:
1. Create competition committee.2. Obstruction: Flagrant diving be made two-minute minor and 10-minute misconduct; stick on body should be illegal.
3. Five minutes of overtime, then shoot-out.
4. One-minute, rather than two-minute, minor penalties during overtime.
5. Streamline goaltending equipment.
6. Adopt AHL experimental rules (tag-up offside, wide bluelines, restricted goalie zone, and push goal line back two feet).
7. Automatic icing. On intentional icing, defending team should not make line change.
8. Two-minute minor penalty for any player who shoots puck into stands in defending zone.
9. Improved access for broadcast rights holders.
10. Improve communication and partnership.
Looking through the coverage of the meeting, I was surprised that there seemed to be a lot of enthusiasm for adding the shootout to decide games (for the regular season only). Here's Curtis Joseph:
"At the end of a game, you may have played a flawless game and then have five skill guys come down, throw their best moves at you and you can be embarrassed pretty quickly," he said. "But the fact is we're all here to make the game better. When I hear people say, 'The fans will love it,' I'm not going to be selfish."
Which is a sentiment that makes me want to cheer. And I haven't felt that way about the NHL in some time.
Who knows, maybe I'm just relieved to hear somebody talking about the actual game instead of salary caps, arbitration, paltry television contracts and failed marketing strategies.
I'll be back later today with reaction from other hockey bloggers to Shanahan's proposal, as well as more items regarding today's negotiating session -- the first in a very long time.
UPDATE: James Mirtle isn't impressed:
I suspect Shanahan was getting a tad bored in his mansion and was in need of some face time. Mission accomplished
Hats off to Shanahan for doing his best to try to improve the game. It’s a shame they couldn’t come up with anything new though aside from the rules committee but I guess at this point we have to take what we can get.
I give credit to Shanny for taking some initiative. But they can talk until they’re blue in the face about how the “product” just needs to be tweaked (and they do make some good suggestions), and it won’t really matter until they resolve that pesky little lockout situation.
Devil’s in the details, I guess.
Not to toot my own horn, but I will because it’s somewhat pertinent regarding the questionable benefit of playoff OT: A year and a half ago, I noted that many of the arguments in support of endless overtime, including the meaningless uptick in ratings, are hollow.
As for the rule changes, they’re great ideas. But generally, the owners and mangement have always considered rule-definition mostly their province, not the players (much like their current stance on the CBA). With that, and the already-poisoned atmosphere, I wouldn’t be surprised if the clubs disregard anything coming from the players on this simply out of spite.