Ejections for fighting? 3-on-3 playoff overtime? Olympics rules court is in session

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 form 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.

That NHL participation has meant that 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.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

The "Rule of Cool"? Loaning stars to other teams? NHL Rules Court is back in session

It’s time for another session of Rules Court, the feature where you make the case for any kind of change that you think would improve the NHL, and a jury of three of us votes on it. Convince at least two of us, and… well, nothing happens, but you get to feel like you’re not quite so alone in the world. That’s important, right? Sure it is.

This time around, we’ve got the usual jury of Shayna Goldman, Sean McIndoe, and Sean Gentille. We have seven of your proposals to consider, plus a bonus suggestion that will show up in today’s newsletter. (Subscribe now!) Last time, you were only able to get two of your proposals through. Will you do any better this time? Let’s find out, because court is now in session.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Long-shot NHL award picks: Quinn Hughes for Hart? Jack Hughes for Art Ross?

One of my favorite things to do each year is check the betting odds for all the various awards. Not because I want to actually wager on any of them, but because it’s always fascinating to see what kind of consensus is forming around who’s likely to win what – and who isn’t.

Despite all the effort and analysis that goes into setting those odds, it’s not unusual for a longshot to come out of nowhere and win a major award. Leon Draisaitl was 22-to-1 to win the Hart in 2020, Adam Fox was 35-to-1 to win the Norris in 2021, and Linus Ullmark was 80-to-1 to win the Vezina in 2023. Were the oddsmakers dumb? Not really. It’s just that the NHL is incredibly unpredictable, and the awards odds are just another reminder of that inescapable fact.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Canada vs. USA: Two fans forced to watch each country’s worst 2025 NHL playoff ads

Every year, there's one post that more people ask me about than any other. Which is weird, because it has next to nothing to do with hockey.

That would be this post, of course -- the annual "bad ads" piece, in which two Seans from different countries create an international exchange program for annoying commercials. You know the ones; the kind you see once or twice and maybe aren't too bothered by, right up until you realize that they're going to keep popping up constantly as you try to enjoy the NHL playoffs. That's when the annoyance begins to build. Sometimes, it grows into rage. Or despair. Or whatever that was that "Tara Tara look at her go" made us feel.

We first tried this back in 2020, and it's become an annual tradition. This time around, in a year where relations between our two countries have been strained, to put it mildly, it feels more important than ever. After all, we may have our differences. But at least we all know how to pronounce the word "liberty", and buy a proper cantaloupe. Here we go...

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Which bad Canadian ads should I make Other Sean watch?

It’s almost time for one of my favorite annual traditions: The exchange of terrible playoff commercials between a Canadian (me) and an American (other Sean).

But which ads should I force him to watch? The field is crowded this year, so I’m asking for your help. Please choose up to three ads from the list below, or post your own nominations in the comments.

But first, a quick word about Lay It On The Line, which is at the top of pretty much every Canadian’s “please no more I’m begging you” list this year. I didn’t put that one on the list, for two reasons. First, I think it’s actually a good ad that’s just been way, way, way (way way way) overplayed; somebody seeing it for the first time wouldn’t necessarily think it was all that bad. And second, I’m led to believe that a lot of Americans have already seen it, including Other Sean. I’ll make it’s included in the actual post one way or another, but I don’t think it’s a great candidate to be one of the official three Bad Ads.

With that in mind, let me know what you think with the form below (which I may update with new ads as they're suggested):

One-way offside? Free range faceoffs? NHL Rules Court is back in session

Welcome to Rules Court, the feature where you send in your proposals for NHL rule changes and three of us vote on them. Convince at least two of us, and your rule is passed.

This is, by my count, the ninth edition of this feature. Over the years, we’ve changed everything from the salary cap to replay review to the playoff format, in some cases multiple times. We’ve also made it so that coaches have walk across the ice to serve bench minors. We’re really doing the lord’s work, is what I’m trying to say.

Today we’re back with seven new suggestions sent in by readers. They’ll be reviewed by Sean, Other Sean and Shayna (aka Almost Sean). Will any get the required YES votes to be passed into the NHL rulebook? Let’s find out…

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

The 4 Nations Face-Off can't have any trades, obviously... but what if it did?

There are no trades in the 4 Nations Face-Off.

There couldn’t be. It wouldn’t make any sense. Players play for their home countries, just like every other international tournament. Each team has a GM, but that guy’s job is simply to assemble the best roster he can from the players available to him. Making trades with that roster? That would be dumb.

So let’s be very, very clear: We acknowledge that what you’re about to read is indeed dumb, and we’re doing it anyway.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Tax-adjusted salary cap? Single game playoff tie-breakers? NHL Rules Court returns

Welcome back to Rules Court, where things will look a little different this time around.

Without digging into the details, we had to make the difficult decision to fire one of our long-serving judges because he knows what he did. That opens a spot for Shayna Goldman to join holdovers Sean Gentille and Sean McIndoe. Welcome, Shayna, and we hope you realize what you’ve signed up for.

The rest of the gimmick hasn’t changed. You send in your proposals for changes to the NHL rulebook, CBA or whatever else. The three of us consider your argument and cast our vote. Convince at least two of us, and your new rule becomes reality, just as soon as Gary Bettman gets back to us.

We have eight cases on the docket this time. Let’s see how many can make the grade.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Which NHL players are the best at each age right now? Who are the best all-time?

If you’re a sports fan, you’re familiar with the adage “Father Time is undefeated.”

It’s ubiquitous because it’s true. It’s why we talk about the dreaded “wrong side” of 30, and even fret over long-term deals signed by 29-year-olds; even the greatest athletes on earth are still subject to aging.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

McIndoe vs. Gentille: Who wins the Cup?

McIndoe: Other Sean, we meet again. They’ve asked us to debate our winner picks for this year’s Stanley Cup final. An American and a Canadian, which some years would feel cliched. But this year, I suppose it’s appropriate, given we’ve got the Edmonton Oilers trying to end Canada’s 31-year Cup drought, a length of time that feels mathematically impossible. Standing in their way, the dastardly Florida Panthers, a team that only a genuinely terrible person could support. Who you got?

Gentille: Panthers in six, baby. I’ve tried to suss out why exactly I feel that way — am I pro-American? Am I anti-Canadian? Have three decades in Pittsburgh made me reflexively pick against anyone who might threaten Sidney Crosby's spot on Hockey Rushmore? The answer is “Yes.”  Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a shopping cart to leave in the middle of a parking lot.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Canada vs. USA: Two fans forced to watch each country’s worst 2024 NHL playoff ads

Back in the summer of 2020, I had a terrible idea that felt like a good idea, which wasn’t exactly a unique experience at the time. But while you were all experimenting with Tik Tok dances and sourdough starters, I decided it would be fun to set up an international exchange of terrible playoff commercials.

You know the kind – the ones that seem to show up every single ad break, tormenting you until you know every word, leading to you at least casually consider finding out who worked on it and paying them a visit. I knew there were some awful Canadian ads, I figured there were probably plenty happening south of the border, and I thought that if we held an exchange then a good time would be held by all.

Then Sean Gentille made me watch Tara Tara Look At Her Go, and I’ve never fully recovered.

I hit back with the Sportsnet Life Coach in 2021, and after a year off, we were back last year with a heart like a truck. But we were worried, because after that first year, the ads hadn’t been quite as bad. They were maybe even getting better. We wondered if we’d have to abandon the gimmick, because the advertising industry had stopped producing annoying garbage.

Well, let’s just say our concerns were addressed this year. We’ll get to that.

But first, let’s take a peek behind the curtain and see what this year’s game plan looked like for both sides.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Rules court: Draft your playoff opponents? Goalies serve penalties? Guaranteed OT?

A few weeks ago, the NHL GMs got together, talked about a bunch of potential rule changes, and then voted to barely do anything at all. The game is great, no need to change anything, let’s hit the golf course.

You guys don’t agree. We know this, because we have a mailbox where you can submit your ideas for rule changes, and it’s constantly overflowing. Some of you want to tinker, some of you are thinking a bit bigger than that, and some of you are quite frankly out of your minds. 

All of which is to say, it’s time for another edition of Rules Court, the feature where you submit your ideas, and the three of us vote on them. Convince two out of three, and your rule is passed. We have eight new cases on the docket this time around, so court is in session.

Have the higher-seeded playoff teams “draft” their opponents, meaning the top seed in each conference would have the right to choose any other team as their first-round matchup. That could be the worst team according to record, but could also be a team that was viewed as an easier matchup due to injuries, slumps, head-to-head history, etc. – A ton of you, especially after the PWHL announced that they’d be adopting this rule.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Penguins vs. Oilers: Which team holds all-time bragging rights?

The Edmonton Oilers have a chance to make history this week, as they’ll look to stretch a win streak that currently stands at 16 games. They’ll try to get to 17 tonight in Vegas and then 18 on Friday in Anaheim, which would break the all-time NHL record currently held by the 1992-93 Penguins.

In a way, that feels fitting. The Penguins and Oilers have felt like two teams connected for the better part of four decades. Wayne Gretzky gave way to Mario Lemieux as the league’s best player, around the same time that the Oilers dynasty was stepping aside for the Penguins. A generation later, it was Sidney Crosby passing the torch to Connor McDavid. And along the way, we’ve been able to debate Mark Messier vs. Jaromir Jagr, and Leon Draisaitl vs. Evgeni Malkin, and Paul Coffey vs., uh, Paul Coffey.

OK, great. So which team is better?

I don’t mean right now. I mean which team wins the all-time battle? The Penguins joined the league in 1967 and the Oilers arrived in 1979, and they’ve each won five Stanley Cups, tied for the most since they’ve both been in the league. They’ve both had legendary players. They both have devoted fan bases, and also plenty of other fans who can’t stand them.

Oilers vs. Penguins. Who you got?

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Cap discounts for draft picks? Mid-game substitutions? NHL Rules Court returns

Please rise, the sixth session of Rules Court is now… uh, in session.

Sorry, I’m a little thrown off, and I blame you. It turns out, you guys are weird. Or at least your ideas can be, as we’re going to see in just a bit.

First, for those of you who are new to this, here’s how it works. The readers submit a rule proposal, about the on-ice rules or the CBA or anything else you’d like to see change. Our three-man panel of Sean Gentille, Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe vote on whether the NHL should adopt it. If you can convince at least two of us, the motion is carried and your rule becomes official. (Note: This does not happen.)

You can find previous editions here, here, here, here and here, in which we’ve already made changes like abolishing offsides, adopting the 3-2-1-0 point system, and making it so that the referee has to skate around holding up both arms if there are two delayed penalties at the same time. Honestly, that last one may have been our finest work so far. The bar is high, but let’s see what you were able to come up with this time…

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

An American and a Canadian forced to watch each country's worst NHL playoff ads

 Three years ago, with the NHL working their way through a very strange bubble postseason, an idea was born. This league and its broadcast partners love to bombard hapless viewers with the same awful commercials, over and over again. But those ads are different depending on which side of the border you’re on, meaning Canadians don’t get to see the ones that are driving Americans crazy, and vice versa.

So I found an American – Sean Gentille – and we agreed to force each other to watch our country’s three most annoying ads, and then react to them in real time. The concept was a hit, thanks to Jim Hughson’s hair, Tony the Tiger’s celly, and the infamous Tara Tara earworm. People loved the resulting post, and pretty soon Sean and I were doing national media hits for some reason. We brought the idea back in 2021, featuring the Sportsnet life coach, Rupert the Turtle, and a very real Oiler fan who thought Leon Draisaitl was the best in the league. More good times were had.

And then… nothing.

We took last year off. We considered doing that again this year. It’s not that we’re too busy (we are) or that we’ve run out of jokes (we have not). Something more shocking is going on.

For the last few years, the ads… haven’t been that bad?

Oh, they haven’t been good. But most fans seem to agree that nothing has approached Tara Tara levels of awfulness. And the ads that are bad don’t seem to run quite as often they used to.

Did… did we do that? Did the world’s biggest advertising firms see us making fun of them, and radically change the way they did business?

We can’t say for sure, so let’s just go ahead and assume that yes, that’s exactly what happened. And if so, we have a duty to keep doing the lord’s work, if only so that society is never again plunged back to following our dreams into taxidermy.

We’re back, baby. Let’s see where this goes.

Pre-game strategy

McIndoe: The first step in building a solid list of terrible ads is to reach out to the public, and this is where I ran into my first problem. When I tweeted out a call for nominations, one ad was the clear leader: That Rogers commercial where a coffee shop gives out a free cookie and we’re supposed to be inspired. That one really bothers people, to an almost comical degree. But tragically, Rogers seems to know this, because despite airing the ad constantly through the playoffs, they’ve managed to scrub any versions of it off of the internet. If I can’t show it to Sean, it’s of no use to us. Sorry, cookie haters. (But don’t go thinking you’re off the hook, Rogers.)

I considered making him watch one of those annoyingly obtuse yet uniquely Canadian drug ads, where they’re not allowed to say what the thing does, so it’s just catchy music and vague references. There’s the weekly exercise in overwrought Canada’a Got Talent treacle. And of course, there are the dozens of gambling ads that have infested our hockey coverage over the last year. It’s almost impossible to pick the worst out of that bunch, although it’s fun to imagine the meeting where some executive said “You know who Canadian hockey fans love and respect? Chris Pronger!”

In the end, I went for three brands that have been all over our playoff coverage. My next problem was narrowing it down to just one ad each, which was tougher than it sounds. But this is important work, so I had to persevere.

Gentille: My strategy begins and ends with one thing: earworms. I ruined my guy’s life with the aforementioned Tara a couple years back — look at her go, then and forever — and I’m trying to do it again. “Find something that works, then run it into the ground” is a personal mantra.

That means a few otherwise solid contenders had to get the boot. The Pete Davidson “Breakfast With Peter” Taco Bell bit, combined with his Peacock show, have me legitimately worried about whatever buddy’s next step is going to be. Also, the performance by co-host Rhonda made the whole thing a little less unfunny, and there’s no earworm to speak of.

The last cut was the Amazon ad starring a young woman who, with the help of Queen and some conspicuous consumption, learns to love her unwanted upper-lip hair. Did you know Olivia Wilde directed that one? I didn’t until a bit before we wrote this, but I’ve never been less surprised in my life. Either way, sometime in early May, I heard “Cool Cat” at a Chipotle and almost broke into tears, but I’ve since healed.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

No more offsides? Uncontested faceoffs? The end of EBUGs? Rules Court returns

Welcome back to Rules Court, where you submit your ideas for NHL rule changes and three of us (Sean McIndoe, Ian Mendes and Sean Gentille ) vote on them. Everything is up for discussion – on the ice or off, big or small, ideas that feels realistic and others that very much don’t. You make your case, and then the three of us reach a verdict. Convince at least two of us, and your rule is passed.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Three-point games? Legal hand passes? Trading points for cap space? Rules court returns

Welcome back to Rules Court. Please rise, court is in session.

If you’re new to Rules Court, the concept is simple. You, the readers, submit your ideas for changes to the NHL rulebook. They can be new rules, tweaks to old ones, or the elimination of something that’s already there. On the ice or off. Small, big, or insanely game-changing. You make your best case, and then a three-judge panel of me, Ian Mendes and Sean Gentille make our ruling. Convince at least two of us, and your new rule is passed and the NHL is legally bound to adopt it. (Our lawyers are still working on that part, as the league is being weird about returning out calls.)

Previous sessions of rules court have seen us adopt extended overtime if a team is shorthanded, replace the shootout with 2-on-1s, and adopt a half-court rule. And yet the suggestions keep pouring in, sending a clear signal that you people are insane our readers have a ton of great ideas for improving the league.

Let’s see what you have for us this time…

The way the current system for points in the standings is set up doesn’t make sense from a fairness perspective or a mathematical perspective.  Instead of two points for some games and three points for others, points should be set up as follows:

- Outright win in regulation:  three points

- Shootout/overtime win: two points

- Shootout/overtime loss:  one point

- Outright loss:  zero points

In addition to giving out three points for every game, it rewards a win in regulation (real, non 3-on-3 hockey).  It gives everyone at least one point for getting to overtime, and rewards the team that wins in overtime/the shootout/the 2-on-1 thing you approved last time. – Chuck F. (and many others)

 McIndoe: Yep. I’ve been crusading against the current point system for nearly a decade. There’s really no defending how we do things now. The loser point is awful – it screws up the standings, inflates everyone’s record, makes the NHL the laughingstock of other leagues, and (worst of all) incentivizes boring play late in tie games, which is when the drama should be at its highest. 

So yes, let’s switch to 3-2-1-0. Is it perfect? No. It’s still giving out a loser point, for example, and breaks with the traditional two points for a win the league has had for a century. I know some people would prefer to just go to wins and losses, or bring back ties, or a dozen other possible plans. But that’s the problem with how we do things now: It’s so stupid that literally any alternative would be better, so we get paralyzed by all the options. We need to just pick something and go with that, because literally anything else will be a massive improvement. The 3-2-1-0 system works, so I’m on board. YES.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Debating all those bizarre new 3ICE rules in a special session of Rules Court

Someday, maybe, we’ll look back at the 3ICE three-on-three hockey league’s inaugural season as the start of something. A reliably fun summer distraction? Perhaps. A way for players on the fringe of pro hockey to make solid money? We’re already there, in fact.

No matter what happens down the line, though, the league has already accomplished something huge. It’s a rules test kitchen. What’s more honorable than that? What could be more important?

So, for our third edition of Rules Court, we didn’t ask for your submissions. The 3ICE rulebook took care of that. All that’s left is for us — Sean McIndoe, Ian Mendes and Sean Gentille — is to cherrypick some of the league’s gutsier innovations and figure out whether they could (or should) be applied to NHL games. We weren’t necessarily limiting them to overtime, either.

What works? What doesn’t? And what maybe-kinda-sorta-someday could make sense? We debated seven separate 3ICE-specific rules, as outlined in Greg Wyshynski’s deep dive on the league’s first season at ESPN.

As always, we sent a copy of our work to the NHL’s Manhattan office (via fax) and expect to hear back from them forthwith.

No power plays

That’s right. The folks at 3ICE have decided to do away with special teams entirely. There are still penalties, but they no longer result in a man advantage. Instead, every call leads to a penalty shot. (More on those in a second.)

Team Trottier takes the 3-1 lead after this penalty shot ⬇️ @3IceHockey pic.twitter.com/QOIwJfiBGz

— CBS Sports Network (@CBSSportsNet) June 25, 2022

McIndoe: Nope!

Look, I can already sense that I might be the grumpy old man of the group here, and I’m good with that. The waistband on my pants is chafing my armpits, I want you to get off my lawn, and I don’t think we need radical changes to the very soul of the sport to improve things in the NHL. I’m not against change — I’m the guy who thinks we could solve all sorts of problems by just making the nets bigger and is willing to fight you about it — but this sort of thing is a bridge too far.

Power plays are cool. Penalty killing is cool. Penalty shots are also cool, when they’re rare, which they were back before the shootout came along and made them feel pedestrian. Replacing power plays with penalty shots would be overkill, would turn even-strength play into a diving contest, and would just make everyone even madder at the referees for not calling obvious fouls in the name of game management.

We’re one proposal in and I’m already cranky. NO.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Replace shootouts with 2-on-1s? No free icing on penalty kills? Goalies are fair game? Rules Court is back in session

Everyone please rise, Rules Court is back in session.

If you missed the first edition a few months ago, the concept is simple. You send in your proposed NHL rule changes – big or small, realistic or silly – and make your best case for them. A jury of me, Sean Gentille and Ian Mendes will consider your arguments and deliver our verdict. Convince at least two out of three us, and your proposal becomes an official new NHL rule. (Note: It will not become an official new NHL rule.)

Last time, we considered seven proposals and voted yes on three of them. Not bad, but now that you’ve had a while to think about making your case, I’d expect the success rate to go up. You submitted over 100 new entries for this edition, and we picked eight to consider. Let’s see how you did…

Note: Submissions have been edited for clarity and style.

Call icing infractions for teams on the penalty kill. Why does a guilty team get the advantage of being able to clear the puck and change? Never made sense to me. – Anthony L

Mendes: I’ve also never understood why a penalized team gains an exception to a rule (icing) that is in effect while teams are at even strength. Like, imagine if penalized teams were allowed to clear the puck over the glass as many times as they wanted during a penalty kill. It’s basically the same logic here. A rule that is in effect during even strength situations mysteriously vanishes for random two-minute intervals during the course of a game.

When penalized teams are allowed to ice the puck, they’re able to change on the fly during a penalty kill – putting a fresh unit on the ice. But if the icing was enforced as it should be, all penalty killers would be forced to stay on the ice for the ensuing face off in their own zone. I could see how this could make it difficult for shorthanded teams to execute line changes, especially in the second period when the “long change” is in effect. But I believe this should lead to more goals and I’m always in favour of that. YES.

McIndoe: As the guy who gets to sort through all the suggestions you guys send in, I can say that this one was extremely popular, maybe even the one that showed up most often. And on the surface, I get it. We want offense, powerplays should be more dangerous, and watching a team shoot the puck all the way down the ice to kill time is boring.

My one concern is the same one I have with lots of offense-friendly changes: That coaches would ruin it, in this case by just having their teams ice it anyway, under the logic that killing even ten seconds of a two-minute powerplay is worth the offensive zone faceoff. Or maybe we just see players perfect the art of the rink-wide flip that doesn’t quite make it all the way to the icing line. Either way, I don’t think this one would work as well as people seem to think, but I’m willing to give it a try. Mark me down for a hesitant YES.

Gentille: That’s the way a lot of these debates tend to go, yeah? One of us says, “Yeah, of course this should be a rule,” another says, “Sure, but coaches are gonna find some way to warp and ruin it,” and then we eventually settle on, “OK, mark up another tentative yes.” And fellas, we’ve got another one. Do I think some coaches would eventually instruct players to ignore the illegality of it all? Yeah. I also tend to think that there’s something ingrained in coaches — it could be genetic, I’m not a scientist — that’ll still win out, in plenty of cases.

And either way, it’s worth it. Legalized icing during the P.K. is one of those things that we’ve watched our entire lives and internalized, for whatever reason, as being something other than nonsensical and unfair. It’s both, actually. If your guy is in the box, there shouldn’t be a temporary rule change to your advantage. YES

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Remember Some Guys: We built a roster made up of the the best ex-NHL players in Beijing

When the NHL bailed on the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, you had your choice of two doors.

The first was an exit. No NHL players, no dice. Fair enough. The second — the product of hundreds of roster spots opened across 12 teams — was a lot more fun.

The men’s hockey tournament, you see, is now filled with Guys. Guys you’ve probably heard of. Guys you probably remember.

Thusly, The Athletic’s chief Guy Rememberer and his American understudy got together to build the best possible roster (outside of the Canadian and American teams, because we’ve talked about them enough) of players who a) were good enough to make some sort of impression in the NHL and b) are no longer good enough to hold down an NHL roster spot themselves.

The rules are simple enough; they had to play NHL games, but they couldn’t have been that good. We invoked that rule once.

Most of all, they were available. They are now Olympians. You probably remember them. Let’s go.

Finland

Gentille: The Finns took as hard a hit as any team when NHL participation went out the window — no Aleksander Barkov, no Sebastian Aho, no Juuse Saros — but they’re still a pre-tournament favorite for a few reasons; part of that comes from the system they play and the culture they’ve built. “The Pesky Finns” is a moniker for a reason, and their recent history of international success speaks for itself.

Beyond that, they were able to reshape a roster that would’ve been top-to-bottom NHL players with some guys who, not long ago, were in the big league themselves. Valtteri Filppula and Sami Vatanen had been roster staples for most of this century. Leo Komarov was close enough. Mikko Lehtonen played for the Leafs, so he’s automatically important.

There are other forwards that could help. Markus Granlund had a 19-goal season with the Canucks in 2016-17, and he’s Finland’s first-line center. Teemu Hartikainen, after years of failing to stick with the Oilers, has become a point-per-game guy in the KHL and is playing on Finland’s wing. We’ve got options here

The question here, I guess, is whether Filppula and Vatanen transcend Remember That Guy status.

McIndoe: First of all, put some respect on Leo Komarov’s name. That’s “former Maple Leafs representative at the all-star game because of the one-player-per-team rule” Leo Komarov to you.

Also, I can’t wait to go “Wait, isn’t he on the Predators right now?” every time Markus Granlund’s name is mentioned throughout this entire tournament. So, maybe twice.

Gentille: I thought both brothers played for the Wild at some point. Nope — just Mikael. That’s a That Guy.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)