NHL
2026 Olympic
Hockey
Are blended Olympic rules any better than what the NHL has to offer? Piero Cruciatti / AFP via Getty Images
Welcome back to Rules Court, where we’re fixing the NHL, one new rule at a time.
Usually, that means considering your suggestions. But occasionally, we like to look elsewhere for inspiration, such as stealing ideas from other leagues. We’re doing that again today, because as you may have heard, there’s an international tournament going on. It’s called the Olympics, and the NHL was kind enough to send its players over for a change.
Advertisement
That NHL participation has meant the rulebook used in the Olympics is almost identical to the one we all know and love. Almost, but not quite. As Pierre LeBrun reported last week, the “blended” approach to officiating still left a few differences between the IIHF and the NHL. And that got us wondering: Could the NHL learn something from international hockey?
Let’s see. Pierre’s article included nine differences between the two rulebooks. We’re going to put seven of them on trial today. (We cut the ones about switching ends for overtime and players losing their helmets during play, since they’re relatively minor and we don’t have a “meh” option for our rulings.)
We convened the usual jurors — Sean Gentille, Shayna Goldman and Sean McIndoe — and cut-and-pasted Pierre’s description of the differences. If at least two of us approve the change, it becomes a new NHL rule, effective immediately. (Editor’s note: That’s not true.) (McIndoe’s note: OK, but it should be.)
While most hockey fans agree that the NHL is a perfectly run league with zero room for improvement, could we still find some inspiration from elsewhere? Let’s find out.
“In the NHL, in the last minute of play in the third period or at any time in overtime, the Situation Room in Toronto can initiate a review. In the IIHF, teams must initiate a coach’s challenge at all times in the game.”
McIndoe: I’m going to invoke the rule of unintended consequences here. If we let coaches ask for reviews in overtime, wouldn’t they just challenge every goal? There’d be no reason not to, right? We’re already doing enough to train fans not to get too excited when their team scores, we don’t need to turn every OT goal into an obligatory review. NO.
Goldman: I have a lot of time for complaints about coach’s challenge in the NHL, but this is one element the league actually gets right. Obviously things are different now in that coaches have multiple challenges and don’t have to hold it for the bigger moments in the games. That being said, I don’t really want to see coaches at risk for a penalty kill in the final minutes or overtime, either. If the priority truly is to be efficient and make sure the calls are right, then this should be a league-initiated challenge — and since the Olympics are only once every four years, that efficiency should be an even higher priority. NO.
Gentille: Absolute zero-doubt NO from me on this one. The NFL’s replay process is, somehow, in half-decent shape at the moment solely because they’ve removed some of the responsibility from the coaches. Honestly, I’d be fine with more situation review help if it meant less time spent watching guys in suits huddled around iPads.
Advertisement
“But also noteworthy, the refs in the Olympic tournament won’t have people in a Situation Room to help influence their decisions on video review. While they will be talking in a headset to someone helping them navigate what they’re looking at, only the refs will be involved in making the final call on video reviews.”
McIndoe: I know everyone loves to complain about the “war room” being against their team, but having actually had the chance to see it in action, I regret to have to inform you the whole thing seems to work about as well as it reasonably could.
Would it be better if the refs were the ones making the call? Maybe! Then again, we all complain about the refs constantly, so I don’t see why this would be any more popular. At the end of the day, the referees would probably prefer this system, so I’m willing to trade it to them in exchange for postgame media availability to explain their calls. Until they’re willing to make that deal, put me down as a NO.
Goldman: Sean 1 makes the point – if there was literally one (1) ounce of transparency from the on-ice officials, I would be on board with the IIHF’s rules. Having the situation room for support adds in an outside perspective that has the benefit of a million non-iPad sized screens makes this a more efficient process. How many of us want some sort of eye-in-the-sky perspective to help the officiating? This basically provides it in reviewable moments. NO.
Gentille: I just asked for more situation room, not less. What the hell? NO
“In the NHL, it’s four-on-four; here in the Olympic tournament, it’s five-on-five.”
McIndoe: My default setting is that four-on-four is better, because there’s more open ice, which in theory leads to more offense, and offense is good. That said, I can see the logic here. If offsetting penalties cancel out, why should they fundamentally change the way the next chunk of the game is played? Are some teams better than others at four-on-four, and if so, doesn’t this give those teams an incentive to try to instigate the scrums and post-whistle confrontations that most coincidental minors come from? Does it really make sense that coincidental minors are four-on-four, but fighting majors keep us at five-on-five?
Advertisement
I’ll be honest, I’m not sure which way to go here. So since I’ve already peeked ahead and seen that Shayna said no, I’ll vote YES and force Other Sean to make the call.
Goldman: I don’t know, is the IIHF allergic to four-on-four play or something? If overtime was four-on-four, and the IIHF wanted to reserve those situations for that, it would be one thing. But I don’t really have an issue seeing four-on-four play for coincidentals — it opens up the ice and throws a challenge at the coaches and players. NO.
Gentille: My default setting is that hockey tends to be better at its default setting, which is five-on-five. Power plays are fine, but I need less four-on-four in my life, not more. YES.
“In the NHL, it’s a five-minute major for each combatant. Here in the Olympic tournament, as per IIHF rules, each fighter gets a major plus a game misconduct penalty.”
McIndoe: If you went back in time and asked me about this 20 years ago, I’d have assumed the NHL would have already adopted this rule. Instead, the game evolved away from fighting more organically, without the league having to make significant rule changes. You could argue that now’s the time to outlaw it altogether, but I’m not sure it’s necessary anymore. I’m voting NO.
Goldman: Yeah, I just don’t think there’s enough fighting in the NHL to warrant this dramatic a punishment. I really don’t mind it in international settings, because 1) it obviously is in an effort to limit fighting and prioritize player safety and 2) it adds a different challenge for incoming NHL players at this level. But I also don’t love the idea of both players getting the boot, because not every fight is created equally (or as willingly). More consistent (and maybe stricter!) calling of the instigator penalty is the better adjustment for the NHL, in my opinion. NO.
Gentille: Agreed on all counts. I can also imagine some unintended consequences coming into play on this one. If I’m a fourth-liner, I’m definitely more interested in goading a better player into doing something stupid and removing themselves from the game entirely. NO real interest in adding that to the mix.
“Not required in the NHL, but mandated here in the Olympic tournament, both in warmup and games.”
McIndoe: To their credit, the NHL has already made mandatory neck guards part of the new CBA. But the requirement has been grandfathered in, the same way helmets and visors were. When in doubt, we should all be pro-player and pro-union, so it’s tempting to say that they should be able to make their own equipment choices. But given the stakes and the worst-case scenarios we’ve seen in other leagues (and very nearly in the NHL), I’d rather err on the side of safety. YES.
Goldman: I have absolutely no issue with neck guards. Players are incredibly skilled and careful, so there are so few accidental neck injuries. But why risk it? The few that have happened in the hockey world are absolutely terrifying, so it’s just another way to prioritize the safety of players. I think the guard itself could be workshopped to find a good balance of comfort and protection, but this should be mandated at all levels of hockey at this point. YES.
Gentille: I’ll say NO here because this one has already been decided, but I do appreciate you guys for taking it out of my hands. I wouldn’t complain if the NHL made neck guards mandatory for everyone tomorrow, but I’m also fine with the course of action they’ve chosen.
“In the NHL, the player fouled must take the penalty shot. In the Olympic tournament, any player (as long as he’s not in the box) may take a penalty shot when one is awarded.”
Advertisement
McIndoe: Remember penalty shots? They used to be super cool, back in the day before the shootout came along and desensitized us to the spectacle of a guy getting a free pass to walk in on a goalie. What I’m trying to say is, get off my lawn.
I may have gone back and forth on this one more than any other rule. On the one hand, the idea of a penalty shot is to replace the lost scoring opportunity, and forcing the fouled player to take the shot does that. On the other hand, if you’re going to stop the game for a one-on-one showdown, why not feature the best players? On the third hand (I just grew a third hand), does it really seem fair to let Connor McDavid come off the bench to score a goal based on an infraction that happened when he wasn’t even on the ice? On the fourth hand (I borrowed an extra hand from a neighbor), how would that be any different from letting a team put their best players out there for a power play?
In conclusion, Macklin Celebrini scoring a penalty-shot goal in the Olympics was awesome. And also, sure why not, put me down for a YES.
Goldman: I am way too torn on this one. Part of me thinks the player whose shooting opportunity was obstructed should be the one granted to shoot one-on-one — or at least, someone on the ice for the infraction. On the other hand (I only need one here!), what’s the fun in that? There is something spicy about letting the coaches pick a fresh shooter or having to decide if the involved player should just cook. It adds an element of coaching to the whole situation, and is honestly a chance for players to show their chops. That Celebrini penalty shot is the perfect example of it — Jon Cooper could have said, “Nah bestie, we’re going with Connor McDavid.” Instead, the coach and player both shine. YES.
Gentille: SG 1 nailed it. I love the drama of a coach being forced to choose between the guy who got impeded and, like, Trevor Zegras or some other shootout wizard. Also, I have zero hands. YES.
“In the NHL, teams may use their timeout in order to take more time to determine whether to challenge a play after a goal is scored. Not so in the Olympic tournament, as per IIHF rules, teams may not use a timeout in order to extend their decision-making time on a challengeable play. There are 45 seconds given after a goal to quickly see TV replays on the bench; that 45-second clock is displayed for teams to see. A team may take a timeout after a goal is scored, but the team must challenge before the timeout is taken.”
McIndoe: When I’m commissioner and we switch to giving coaches just five seconds to initiate a review — yes, literally just five seconds, as in not enough time to wait for the video coach to buzz down after watching a dozen super slow-mo replays — then we won’t need this rule at all. Until then, you know I’m an easy yes for anything that leads to fewer reviews, and less time standing around staring at a coach’s bald spot. Is 45 seconds still way too long? Yes. Am I still in favor? Also YES.
Goldman: Sometimes the drama of coaches using their timeout for challenge purposes is entertaining, and it’s funny when the coach basically wastes it for play not worth challenging. But the IIHF gets it right here; having a 45-second clock is for the best, to keep things moving along — granted that there are no delays in getting all replay angles to the coaches. YES.
Gentille: YES, and I also think 45 seconds is probably the right amount of time. Fire up the replay and start the clock as soon as the goalie fishes the puck out of the net. Who’s gonna notice?
One more that wasn’t in Pierre’s piece, but we should include here since it’s suddenly very topical: Should playoff overtime be three-on-three?
McIndoe: Short answer: NO. Long answer: Hell no.
Advertisement
Goldman: Absolutely not. The Olympics have forced me into talking poorly about three-on-three, and I love three-on-three. It’s just too gimmicky for these high-pressure moments. NO.
Gentille: The Americans just won a gold medal on a three-on-three goal. It’s good now, actually. NO.
Court is now adjourned. Thanks to our pals in the international hockey world, we now have four new NHL rules:
Also, three-on-three overtime narrowly failed, but we’re open to reconsidering if anyone wants to suggest two-on-two.
Spot the pattern. Connect the terms
Find the hidden link between sports terms
Play today's puzzle
Hockey News