SHL wants to get on the ice while playing on the box.
I say put it down.
Solve the problem with reinforcements first – then we can start discussing.
It was Mattias Ek on Hockeynews who revealed a few days ago that the SHL had long-term plans to launch a rule change in a numerical disadvantage.
Revelation is more vital than the suggestion itself.
Since time immemorial, a team with a numerical disadvantage has been allowed to hit the ball as far as it wants all the way to the second pitch without the umpires tipping the ball over.
An opportunity for the team to play in the box to kill important seconds, but above all a chance to get to the substitution booth.
Now SHL wants to see that change. For a few years now no shifting was allowed when you hit the ice in a five-on-five game.
Now Swedish hockey wants to tighten the thumb screws more firmly on the team in the defensive zone.
Or at least they want to investigate whether it’s a good idea.
We don’t need more goals in the power game
– It’s been tested in North America in lower divisions, and we’ll probably want to test it in the J20 Superelit, Johan Himmelin, SHL’s sports director, tells Hockeynews.
In this case, testing will begin with the new rule in the fall of 2023 and continue through the next season.
– These are long-standing discussions. Hemlin confirms that we are having discussions in the Elite Committee.
When the usually cautious Hemlin speaks, you know it’s not something he was sitting at the breakfast table thinking. Then we know there were really long discussions and we more or less decided that the proposal should at least be tested.
With this new proposal, the power play will be more decisive – and more tempting to try to arrange expulsions.
But do we want ice hockey where the powerplay becomes more decisive? A hockey game where the “ranking” of dismissals becomes more attractive.
Not me anyway.
We already have a lot of that stuff.
It’s important to start at the right end, and I don’t think this proposal does.
It looks more primitive
For if there is any debate that has exploded more vigorously than any other in recent years, it is precisely that of augmentations.
In the increasingly intense game of ice hockey, power play is an excellent goal-scoring opportunity, and thus it is crucial that opponents get kicked off.
Something that’s also a big part of us seeing more and more reinforcement.
Nor does it mean that there will be very few goals in the power play. In recent years in the SHL, we have seen an increase instead, and about 14 teams have achieved 20-30% profit.
I don’t want a hockey game where that number goes up to 35 or even 40 percent. At least not at the expense of not letting teams remove the disc and go and change.
Some may find it amusing to watch defensive players teeter on legs like stumps and heart rate 200 and get shot.
Some may think that it is something that well-paid athletes should be able to handle and deal with.
I do not belong to them. I think mostly it feels primitive and undignified.
I hope it stops when testing
There is a myth that many goals equals a good game. But it doesn’t mean that lots of goals automatically mean ice hockey is fun.
Proposing slightly complex proposals to achieve more goals usually does not work well. The three-on-three overtime game is another controversial rule change introduced specifically with the aim of forcing more goals and past rulings.
Now the finals are decided on this format of the game, which feels very dignified.
I think this test is best if it stops at just one test.
I’d rather see that in this case they invest in an extra referee whose sole job is to keep track of reinforcements. Yes, I exaggerated a bit there. But the priority should be to solve the problem of reinforcements, which we see examples of in almost every round and which for a long time seemed perfectly acceptable in football.
Only then can we discuss icing or not in the event of a digital defect.
Otherwise, there is a risk that this proposal will only lead to more movie stars on the ice.