The Untold Story of 5 Players Who FORCED NHL Rule Changes 

You're right. Thank you for your feedback 👍🏻

You just saved me a long post :) and are 100% correct. It was the first rule change I thought of, when I saw the video title. Could you imagine how many more goals Wayne, Orr, Bossy, Ovie, etc. would have scored, if this rule change did not happen!! Crazy to think about, in general! A very important rule change but one that we could discuss for days! Glad you brought it up :) Cheers from Montreal.

Could definitely be called the 'Jean Beliveau Rule', as he scored 3 goals in 44 seconds on the same power play.

I remember

You had Beliveau, Bert Olmsted, and Maurice Richard as forwards, Doug Harvey and forward Boom-Boom Geoffrion on the points, the Canadiens power play was awesome.

I remember Rob Ray but what was the rule? I’m not familiar.

@@kirkmcknight7595 You have to have your jersey tied down. Ray used to let his sweater get pulled off so nobody could hold onto it during a fight (or to show off his muscles).

@@smithryansmith is that why all the new jerseys have fight straps now too? We never had those growing up.

Agreed. It's better known in Canada because of the so called, "Bettman Curse". He did award the Cup to Montreal in 93 but it's only been a U.S. won trophy since. As you obviously know. Do you beleive in "The Curse" , think Bettman has tried to ensure U.S. teams win, or just see it as a numbers game? That question is for anyone who reads this. I'm curious what other people think. Personally I think it's the fact Canada has only had 6 or 7 teams, during his tenure, while the U.S has almost 4 times that. Canada has had chances in the final; Vancouver twice and Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton with one each. Still, it is starting to get ridiculous. It's been 30 years! And I remember being pissed off when an American team Won the Grey Cup. Lol Salut from Montreal.

​@@steveharvey2102Canadian teams are simply not managing their assets well at all. They're still playing the 1 or 2 superstars game. US teams are managing their teams significantly better. Building teams with far more depth. Look at mtl for example. They haven't had depth in decades and have always been reliant on their first line and price. Well that left price hurt and tired. Now look at vegas. They picked up solid players for cheap and bully a team that mo matter which line was on the ice, could dominate. So sure when the opposing teams top line is on the ice it's still even but once you get to the 3rd and 4th... now vegas is just skating circles around the opposition. Depth is the name of the game and Canadian gms need to get this in their head

@@steveharvey2102 I hate Bettman as much as anyone else but the NHL is a business and doing that business is simply more difficult/expensive in Canada. The US also has roughly 9 times the population of Canada so it makes sense that the eyes of the NHL owners and brass would look south of the border for locations that can best ensure the profitability of current as well as future teams. Having lost my team (the Hartford Whalers) to the economics of the NHL 25+ years ago I feel for my fellow fans in Canada and perhaps naively wish that the NHL could have remained the relative "small town" league it was 30-40 years ago but it's all about the money now and that money resides in the US.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Good job mentioning the concussions. That's what brought about the changes, more than anything else. Also, just to clarify. Are you saying coincidentals Should be 4 on 4, plus the goalies, or without because coincidentals take off 1 player from each side already. I'm a bit confused. Please clarify when you get the chance. Thanks.

Some people forget, or don't know that Bettman came over from the NBA. So a lot of his changes, were influenced by his "previous life." Cheers from Canada

@@steveharvey2102 Yes, go back to 4 on 4 when coincidentals occur. The reason for having them has gone. Unrelated, and you might agree: the NHL should change its points system. Dump the ludicrous "OT win" and do what the IIHF does: 3 for regulation win, 0 for a loss. If regulation ends in a tie, a five minute OT or immediately have a shootout, winner gets 2 and the loser gets 1. All games are worth three points total.

Thank you for your feedback 👍🏻

Thank you for your comment - Now I'm aware that it's quite confusing - hoppefully this link can this explain better than me - www.quora.com/What-is-the-Gretzky-rule

I’ve hated the regular season overtime rules ever since they implemented them. Shootout penalty shots belong in soccer.

@@kirkmcknight7595 What do you mean, initially, it was 5on5, five minutes and if no goal a draw with 1 points each side.

@@benthelearner6104 all apologies. What I had meant was I’ve disliked the overtime rules ever since they switched it from the format you speak of to the 4 on 4 and now 3 on 3 for 5:00 followed by a shootout if nobody scores during the overtime period. Under the older rules not only did you get one point for a draw, but you would get one point in the standings for an overtime loss as well. I just don’t care for the shootout. I undrstand why they don’t, but I’d love to see the playoff overtime rules apply to the regular season as well.

@@kirkmcknight7595 No problem. I am a Habs fan and this years Boston beats the habs all time points for a season. The 1976-77 team had a record of 60-8-12 For 134 points... With the actual rules, they would have at least 12 more points... They would have probably won 10 of those games and would have probably won the 2 additional games... So probably 146 points...

so should screening be banned as well.?.. that's all Avery did .

Him and Ron Hextall were scoring too many M T net goals at the end of close games. Marty was almost like a defenseman moving the puck too.

good at being a crybaby as well... His CRYING is what changed the rule.

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it and I will try my best to do better in the future