Moving forward by looking back

NHL needs to revisit some old rules that could positively affect game

Last week we looked at the NHL's revision of Rule 21, governing goaltending equipment, heading into this season. While this was a necessary action taken by the league, there are other rules it makes sense to revisit.

That's right, revisit -- no rewrite of the rulebook required -- just an honest assessment of why the NHL deemed scrutiny of these select rules prudent in the first place -- edicts adopted or adapted when offense was in vogue.

Now that defensive posturing dominates the game, reestablishing the balance between offense and defense might be as simple as reverting to the original language of the following:

Rule 26 (c): For the 1956-57 season, the NHL amended this rule to read that a player serving a minor penalty returns to the ice when the opposing team scores a goal. Until then, a player served the entire two minute minor, regardless of the number of power-play goals the opponent put up.

Widely regarded as the "Montreal Rule" because of the Canadiens' potent power play -- a unit that included Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau, Bert Olmstead and Boom Boom Geoffrion -- the rewrite didn't slow the Habs down. After winning the Stanley Cup in 1956, the Canadiens went on to win titles the next four seasons as well, giving them an unprecedented five successive championships.

Today teams struggle to attain 20 percent proficiency on the power play -- only four teams reached that mark last season -- so the need for "damage control" has long since vanished from the NHL manpower equation.

The same applies to Rule 26 (d). This subsection deals with coincident minor penalties and how they affect on-ice manpower. In the mid-'80s, the NHL stepped in and made it nearly impossible to see 3-on-3 situations by negating the additional loss of manpower when a second set of minor penalties is whistled.

Regarded as the "Edmonton Rule," the freewheeling Oiler teams of the 1980s used the tactic to great advantage. As soon as players went to the penalty box, the ensuing play invariably would involve an Oiler player jostling an opponent in hopes of goading him into a coincidental minor situation. The thought behind the theory was that with the Oilers' superior skating skill supplied by Paul Coffey, Wayne Gretzky, Jari Kurri, Mark Messier, Glen Anderson, et al, the more open space the better. They correctly calculated that extended stretches of 4-on-4 and 3-on-3 increased the likelihood of offensive annihilation.

If you want quantifiable evidence of the damage done by the Oilers when both teams skated at less than full strength, I have none, other than my own inflated goals-against average and those of my colleagues in the Smythe Division.

Today, goals-against averages are miniscule and the league is artificially manipulating skater numbers in overtime to open up the ice. Doing away with the manpower controls on coincident minors seems a logical step in this era -- the more room the better.

Speaking of eras, none altered the offensive game more than the slapshot with a curved blade in the 1960s. And the two concepts fed off each other: the bigger the windup, the harder the shot; the bigger the curve, the more unpredictable the shot. For safety reasons -- for both fans (high glass was not yet standard) and goaltenders (some goalies still played without a mask) -- the league stepped in and imposed a 1 inch limit on the curvature of the stick blade in 1969-70 by enacting Rule 19 (b). The following year, the NHL revised the limit to its current allowable curve of 1/2 inch.

As we talked about last time, the advancements in goaltending garb have greatly reduced the risk of injury for netminders -- the tools of ignorance have evolved into the impenetrable suits of armor. Likewise, with the extended end zone glass and netting reaching at least 15 feet above that, spectators are safer than ever. Maybe allowing unlimited curvature of the stick blade would restore the slapshot off the wing as a viable offensive option. It can only help the shooters and no else is likely to get hurt in the process.

Finally, from a flow standpoint, two ideas need reconditioning with their original form in mind. First, get the markings on the ice back to where they belong, undoing the move of the goal line out from the end boards by one foot in 1990-91 and two more feet in 1998-99. Here's why: Sixty feet between the blue lines will help offensive transition. With the nets three feet closer to the end boards, players can shoot or pass the puck directly to the front of the net from deep in the corners. And with the nets closer to the end boards, the checking angles are steeper, allowing the forward to use the net as a shield more effectively.

Second, I still haven't heard a valid reason (inhibiting the development of defensemen is passing skills and the "ping-pong effect" of teams alternately shooting the puck in the offensive zone with the defensive team simply dumping the puck out still ring hollow to me) why the league rescinded the subtle but brilliant "tag up rule" pertaining to delayed offside -- officially Rule 77 -- adopted in the 1986-87 season.

The league is trying to promote unimpeded speed and forechecking opportunities with its emphasis on obstruction calls in the neutral zone and any foul for impeding the forward progress of a skater without the puck. Well, that's what this rule affords. Reintroduction would hasten the resurgence of aggressive forechecking.

Are these ideas new? Not at all. And that is the point. Hockey history has long demonstrated that improvement doesn't always necessitate invention. What do they have to do with this season? Nothing, really, other than providing an interesting diversion to the other topic of a collective nature.

Because while separately these nods to the past and application to today's game might not have that great an impact, invoked collectively, that all-important balance between offense and defense might just be struck.

Darren Eliot, a former NHL goaltender, is a hockey analyst for SI.com.