3ICE is a new league with weird new rules. Would they work in the NHL?

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
— 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.

Mendes: We need to talk about 3Ice’s long-term plan when it comes to replacing penalties with penalty shots. Eventually, they plan on having a smartphone app that will allow fans to select the shooter for their favorite team.

Let’s workshop this in the NHL for a moment. Imagine the chaos of a bunch of Flyers fans downloading the Penguins app so they could choose Chad Ruhwedel to take the penalty shot for Pittsburgh instead of Sidney Crosby.

Ok, now back to reality.

I would hate this because, as Sean says, referees are going to be way more reluctant to call infractions knowing that every call leads to a penalty shot. Now, if you want to get a little creative and find a hybrid idea, what about allowing teams to select whether or not they want to go on the power play or take a penalty shot?

I’m guessing most teams would opt for the penalty shot, because you are guaranteed to have one Grade-A scoring chance. But maybe your team is ahead by a goal with under two minutes left in regulation time and you know that by choosing a power play, you’ll basically kill the other team’s chances of winning.

Overall, however, I just think there are too many flaws with this idea. And I think power plays and penalty killing has become such an integral part of the sport, to suddenly wipe it out with the snap of a finger feels far too radical for my liking. NO

Gentille: I don’t know why we started with this one. Might as well have come out of the gates with “pucks have been replaced with balls” or something.

Yes, playing a full game at three-on-three represents a fundamental change to the game. Does that turn the sport from real-life hockey into something else? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, we’re not debating whether the NHL should adopt that model, and ditching power plays would be nearly as drastic. Also, aren’t we trying to cut back on how many results hinge on the skills contest? Hardest of passes. No no no no. NO

“Jailbreak” penalty shots

A penalty shot is no longer a direct one-on-one showdown with the goaltender, separate and isolated from the rest of the game. Instead, the shooter gets a head start, but then everyone else (opponents and teammates alike) can join the play, leading to more pressure, plus the possibility of rebounds or even designed passing plays.

McIndoe: OK, now this is an idea I could get behind, if only for the novelty. This is basically the soccer concept, where the play is still live after the initial shot. You’d have to figure out how the game-timing would work, and I don’t think it would be quite as exciting in reality as it looks in your head. (Greg’s ESPN piece has a clip of a penalty shot where everyone is just kind coasting behind the shooter instead of furiously chasing after him.) But like I said above, the shootout has made penalty shots boring. This would spice them up, at least for a little while.

My favorite rule change that we’ve approve in Rules Court was switching the shootout to a two-on-one format. I still think that’s a way better way to decide ties. But for in-game penalty shots, I’d be OK with this change. YES.

Mendes: OK, maybe I’m in the minority here, but I don’t think that penalty shots in regulation time have been ruined by the shootout. Yes, shootouts are gimmicky, but a penalty shot in regulation time is still pretty rare. And a goal or save can provide a wild swing of momentum in either direction.

Suddenly adding this “jailbreak” option is exactly what would make it a gimmick. NO

Gentille: I’m split on this one; I think I’d rather see it instituted during the shootout, not regulation time. A run-of-play penalty shot is rare enough — and consequential enough — to just leave it alone. Maybe we institute this during the shootout — I’d rather see the two-on-one for all the reasons McIndoe outlined, but this would be a decent compromise. For even more compromise, maybe we only see the “jailbreak” method if the shootout is still going after three rounds.

In the end, those are a lot of tweaks made and conditions placed on the original proposal. Feels like another pass from me. NO

Pucks off the netting are live

A puck that hits the netting above the glass will be live and in play once it bounces back down to the ice.

McIndoe: A lot of you like this idea and clog up the Rules Court mailbag with it, and I’ve never fully understood why. It’s a play that happens a handful of times each game, and I think it would look weird to watch the players stand around while a puck Plinko chipped its way back down from the top of the netting. I don’t really see a benefit here. But sure, if you really want to try it, go ahead and put me down for an unenthusiastic YES.

Mendes: As a huge fan of bubble-top hockey, my ultimate dream would be to see the players play inside an arena that was almost totally surrounded by plexiglass, so we’d never see stoppages for pucks leaving the playing surface. But since that will never happen, I think I’ll settle for pucks off the netting being live. I’m usually in favor of any rule that leads to fewer stoppages in play. It would certainly make power plays more interesting, as the plays would be kept alive in the offensive zone — potentially leading to another scoring chance instead of another faceoff where the attacking team could lose possession. YES

Gentille: Fewer stoppages is good. More time in the offensive zone is good. Also, it might lead to more power plays, at least initially. The puck would go in the net, and there’d be some wild jostling for position below it. Theoretically, interference would be committed. The benefit, basically, is added chaos. Good enough for me. Down the line, maybe we’d get a “Happy Gilmore” situation where players go off the net deliberately. YES.

Intentional icing is a penalty

Shoot the puck down the ice in purpose to relieve the pressure, and it’s a penalty. Accidental icing will still be allowed, with the ref making the judgment call on what’s intentional.

McIndoe: Why do I feel like all of my “just treat a puck-over-glass play the same as icing” complaints just curled a monkey paw somewhere?

I can’t see this one getting any support, because it specifies “intentional” icing and half of you “puck-over-glass” acolytes think it’s completely impossible to determine intent even though we do it on virtually every other page of the rulebook. You love the “puck-over-glass” rule because it’s always completely black-and-white, right after the five-minute meeting between officials where they triangulate the exit point while everyone falls asleep. Imagine doing that for icing too. No thanks.

Icing is boring and it should be discouraged, but we’ve got it about right already — a faceoff in your zone with no line change. We don’t have to turn it into a minor, let alone a penalty shot, especially if we’re also giving the officials an out to not call it. NO.

Gentille: McIndoe has converted me on a number of things over the years — he’s even more effective with this stuff in social settings, if you can believe it — but “treat a puck-over-glass play the same as icing” isn’t on the list yet. I don’t care about intent on that one, and I think it’s fine as an outlier. I’d rather have the five-minute triangulation session than an honest-to-god attempt by officials to figure out whether Dude X did it on purpose.

The “puck-over-glass” rule is what it is; if you violate it, you pay the price. Same goes for icing. Also, from a more functional standpoint, if this came up at the GMs meetings, everyone would laugh and move on. NO

Mendes: It’s time for an” outside-the-box” idea for me to greenlight — at least a version of this idea. I could get behind the idea of penalizing icings with one important caveat. That the infraction would have to incur below the faceoff dot in your own zone. So if you dump the puck down to the other end of the ice from that part of the ice, go ahead and assess a two-minute major because there is a good chance you were trying to relieve pressure in your own zone. And then you don’t get into this silly game of trying to figure out intent or get inside the player’s mind to figure out if he was doing something on purpose. Make it a black-or-white rule, but with that little twist: Shoot the puck down the ice and it travels more than 180 feet and boom, it’s a penalty. No questions asked.

Now outside of that, I don’t want to see icings called, period.

I hate when a player is tagged with an icing when he dumps the puck into the opposition zone just prior to hitting the red line. To me, that goes against the true spirit of the icing infraction.

If you want to penalize icings because you think a team is trying to relieve pressure in their own zone, then go ahead and call it when they fire the puck down the ice in that 180-to-200-foot range. But then I want them to stop calling icings that occur in the neutral zone or close to the opposition blue line. So put me down for a very tentative YES — provided my caveat is accepted.

A big crease and more freedom for goalies

There’s no more trapezoid, and goalies can play the puck anywhere. But they’re only protected within a modified and much larger crease, one that the league apparently calls “the mushroom.”

McIndoe: First things first — the mushroom looks weird. I know that shouldn’t matter and we’d probably all get used to it, but right now it’s a big yikes for me.

But OK, let’s focus on what seems to be the main point here: Giving goalies more freedom within a clearly defined zone, while presumably making them vulnerable in others. We already voted down the idea of goalies being fair game to get trucked when they leave the net, so that’s a non-starter. But more standard-fare stick checks and pressure? Sure, that could work.

Also, the “(g)oalies can play the puck anywhere on the ice” rule presumably means that stuff like this would be legal, and I’m all for that. Huh. I’m torn here. I’d want to see the mushroom in action to really get a feel for it, and I’m not against the general concept, but for now I’m a NO.

Mendes: Only in hockey could we have a legitimate debate about trading a trapezoid for a mushroom. But as much as I’m curious about the idea of goalies going anywhere on the ice and handling the puck, I just don’t think this works from a safety standpoint.

And quite frankly, I don’t think there is much the goalies can do with the puck anyway. There isn’t some Shohei Ohtani freak who might be able to do something special outside of his crease. Keep goalies in the blue paint. NO.

Gentille: Nope. I don’t care about goalies playing the puck. I barely remember when it was a bigger part of the game. I don’t miss it. Get the puck to the people who know what they’re doing.

Beyond that, the safety aspect has been covered well enough, but it’s worth saying this, too — expecting today’s goaltenders to all of a sudden morph into prime Martin Brodeur is an accident waiting to happen. Most of them have made it this far with a severely limited move set outside the crease. Saying “actually, now we want you to wander around” would put some of them in the hospital. NO.

There are almost no faceoffs

Other than the start of a period, the 3ICE league won’t have faceoffs at all. Any play, including saves, stoppages and even goals, will keep flowing with a free rush for one team. That means goalies can’t just freeze the puck on a save — now they have to play it on to a teammate, with the attacking team having to clear the zone to keep play going.

McIndoe: Almost no faceoffs? No. Hard pass. This is silly.

Fewer faceoffs? As in, we encourage goalies to play the puck instead of giving them an insta-whistle as soon as they touch it? That I could get behind. It wouldn’t even be a new rule — the current NHL rulebook makes it clear that goalies can’t just freeze the puck whenever they want, and are supposed to play it unless they’re being actively checked. It’s never called that way, but that’s what the rule says, as I’ve covered before.

So sure, let’s keep the play moving when we can. Would goalies hate it? Yes. Would they complain constantly? Yes. Would they accidentally pass the puck to the other team for an empty-net tap in? If my NHL94 years taught me anything, absolutely. These are all reasons to do it, by the way.

But no faceoffs at all, in what’s basically a ripoff of basketball? Come on. NO.

Mendes: This is very tantalizing when you consider we would never again have to see a player waved out of the circle for some mysterious faceoff violation that seems to be arbitrarily called by the linesman.

And I think I could be talked into this idea for three-on-three overtime. Force the goalies to play the puck and there is probably a good chance they can either spring a teammate for an odd-man rush — or they make an egregious mistake and hand the puck directly to an opponent. Either way, it’s probably a little more chaotic and would lead to more games being resolved in overtime. And if something leads to fewer shootouts, I think I’m on board.

But doing this for the full 60 minutes of regulation time feels like overkill. And as Sean says, it does feel like a total ripoff from basketball. NO.

Gentille: What we have here is a clear case of “solving a problem that doesn’t exist.” So Goalie A covers the puck, then everyone skates down to Goalie B’s end so he can start another rush? And that’s supposed to save time, or create more offense than a team winning a faceoff in the offensive zone? I hate this one. Now I’m in a bad mood.

Honestly, I’m all for the NHL stealing stuff from hoops at any/all opportunities, but this one feels pointless. I like set plays! I don’t care about guys getting thrown out of the circles! Forcing goalies to play the puck more often? That’d be great. It’s also as simple as calling the existing rulebook. No need to blow anything else up over it. The only reason to do this would be to track the reaction from old-school coaches. All of a sudden, “he’s good at the dot” would cease to have meaning. Half of all deadline deals would disappear. Players would lose jobs. This is anti-labor. No. No! NO.

The “half-court rule”

With a nod to basketball, 3ICE won’t allow teams to double back into their own half of the ice once they’ve crossed the red line.

McIndoe: This concept comes up a lot when people complain about three-on-three overtime. We all hate it when a team that has the puck in the offensive zone decides to bring it out and circle back instead of attacking. I think it’s a bit of a “careful what you wish for” sort of thing, because it’s actually pretty tough to generate a scoring chance from a standstill when you only have two teammates to pass to, but I get the frustration.

I don’t love this rule, but it would end the dreaded neutral-zone drop pass play, and that’s enough to tilt me into a YES.

Mendes: I think every fan base believes their team is the only one that does the stupid neutral-zone drop pass play. So just to have everybody shut up about it, I would definitely be in favour of seeing this implemented in the NHL. YES

Gentille: Finishing with an easy one, huh? This is the easiest way to fix the snoozefest that three-on-three has become over the last couple seasons. Yeah, there’d be unintended consequences, and yeah, coaches would figure out a way to clog things up again within a season or two, but that’s no excuse. It’s a good solution to an actual problem, even if it winds up being temporary. YES

Thus concludes our third edition of The Athletic’s Rules Court. We only adopted two new rules, but we were unanimous in our approval to see the following in the NHL:

Pucks that bounce off the netting and stay on the ice will remain in play.
The “half-court rule” that prevents teams from crossing back over the red line as they approach the attacking zone.

The other four proposals from 3ICE were met with a significant amount of resistance from the panel, although with a little bit of tweaking and creativity there are some scenarios where we could see these being adopted. And maybe some ideas like forcing goalies to play the puck instead of freezing it or the “jailbreak penalty shot” would be better suited if they were used exclusively in the three-on-three overtime or shootout portion of NHL games.

While 3ICE might appear gimmicky and unconventional on the surface, there was certainly some legitimate food for thought here. And if the 3ICE format has sparked your imagination for how NHL rules can be improved, submissions for our next edition of Rules Court can be sent here.

As always, we will now hear your appeals in the comment section.

(Photo: Bruce Bennett / 3ICE / Getty Images)