Jim Kelley

Jim Kelley writes regularly on the NHL for Sportsnet.ca and can be heard on Primetime Sports on the FAN590.

Brendan Shanahan is leading the charge at the NHL's research, development and orientation camp.

I say "kudos" to the National Hockey League for having a research and development camp. Even if the two-day affair in Toronto produces nothing in the way of significant rule changes the league deserves credit for bring new (and some old) ideas to the ice and presenting them to coaches, general managers and league administrators.

Perhaps most importantly, the NHL took the time and spent the money to present change in a way that, at the very least, should create a dialogue about what's good for the game and what works for the betterment of the game.

From that kind of talk, backed by actions one can see and feel as they work themselves out on the ice, good things can happen.

But I also say not all new (or old ideas) are good ones. At the risk of jumping the gun on everything that went on during the R&D seminar, here's one man's opinion of what might work, what might be the beginning of an idea that still needs work and what is flat out wrong or unnecessary now that the look-see has come to a close.

Looks good to me

Hybrid icing -- The concept is a simple one, a linesmen or perhaps another on-ice official would be following what appears to be a routine icing play. As two opponents chase down the puck at or around the face-off dots, the official would be charged with calling icing if he determines the defender will get to the puck first. If it's the attacking player, the play carries on. Ties go to the defender.

This is a reasonable compromise on the issue of no-touch icing which is something the NHL ignores at great risks to its' players, while the rest of the hockey world embraces it as a sensible alternative to having two players crashing into the end boards going full speed at great risk of serious injury. True it will take some big hits out of the game, but there will still be big hits and they will be made by players who are on the ice simply because the rules don't allow for them to be taken out by a high-speed crash.

Chance of passage: Good to very good, maybe even in time for 2011-12.

No line changes after an offside -- I love this, punish the lazy forward who intentionally goes offside in order to get a line change and force a teammate to do the heavy lifting in the other team's end. We've all seen it happen, a lot, but now the player who won't bust a gut to stay on the play will have to pay the price as a defender defending his own mistake. That leads to scoring opportunities, especially against players who've stayed out to long to begin with. Ah there's a rub, coaches hate giving up control to judgment or automatic official calls and they also won't like how it might upset the rhythm of their general line changes.

Chance of passage: Slim without an extensive lobbying campaign by GMs and that's not likely.

Switching ends in overtime -- Not a bad idea, easy to do and takes into account the fact that most goals are scored in the second period when players have to go the extra distance from their benches and mistakes are made or fatigue becomes an issue. If it helps decide a game in OT and avoids the shootout, I'm all for it.

Chance of passage: 50 percent or higher.

A yellow line just beyond the goal-line and between the pipes -- Easy, simple and smart. How many times did we see a video replay where everyone knew the puck was beyond the goal-line but the overhead camera was obscured by the crossbar? If the puck is seen to be touching the yellow line behind the redline, it will be obvious that it had to cross the goal-line completely to get there.

Chance of passage: likely very good and in the not too distant future in part because television will love it.

Has potential

Four on four followed by three on three and then two on two in overtime -- An idea that needs work. Detractors argue that four-on-four play is not producing enough goals for a win in overtime and that teams are playing defensively to get to the shootout. They have an argument, but dropping to three on three and then two on two seems to interrupt flow especially when it's down to two on two. The advocates for change have brought forth something, but it needs work, maybe just stopping at three on three will do the trick, but more trials are needed.

Chance of passage: 30 percent or less.

No changes on short-handed icing -- I'm all for making penalty killers kill a penalty without the advantage of dumping the puck the length of the ice to get fresh penalty killers out. It puts bite back into the consequences of taking a penalty in the first place but the reality is teams will just smother the puck more, buying more time and forcing more face-offs. It's good in theory, but one with too many downsides.

Chance of passage: Zero percent. The penalty-killers lobby will be out in force against it and let's face it, the rosters are peopled with these guys because they usually play for less.

Shrunken goal cages -- The opening is the same but the depth of the cage is limited so that there is more room to make plays from behind the net and for easier wrap-around attempts. It has promise, but it also opens up the so-called "kill zone" for defenders looking to make big hits as players come around at top speed. It also will keep fewer pucks in the cage, perhaps necessitating more video replays to determine whether or not a goal was scored. It's a concept that needs work.

Chance of passage: -- No time soon. Traditionalists would be up in shortened arms.

Larger goal creases -- An extra few inches, the idea being the goalie has a little more room in which to operate without a big lug in his face inches from the goal-line. Forget about it, these guys are padded like the Michelin Man and if you want to protect them further, simply call the crease crasher for the penalty he's committing.

Chance of passage: Zero percent.

Wider blue lines to increase the size of offensive zone -- I've always like this idea. In widening the lines, there's more room to keep the puck in the zone when it goes out to the line, but the zone itself remains the same size and the neutral zone doesn't shrink. It's an idea whose time has come, but only if the linesmen is vigilant in getting into position to make the close calls.

Chance of passage: 10 percent. It's logical but a little too radical for too many traditionalists.

On a delayed penalty, offending team must not only touch the puck but control it and get it out of its zone before the power play gets underway -- Why not? Touch isn't always possession and why should some lunker only have to get his stick in the way to upset a good scoring chance with an extra man racing in off the bench. The idea of the game is for players to make plays, and no matter how tired the defenders are, they should have to do something besides get in the way.

Chance of passage: Tradition rears its ugly head here but we'll go out on a limb and say that this gets looked at in-depth by the GMs and especially by those who feel scoring is starting to lag in the game again and an edge is needed.

Snowball's chance in Phoenix

Three primary face-off dots -- The idea is to have just three large face-off circles, all in a line. One will be at centre ice, one in the attacking and defending zones. Regarding the zones, play would always start directly in front of the goalie (about mid-distance from the blue line into the goal crease) and perhaps create a scoring chance right off the face off if the attacking team gains control or cut down on the number of chip-off-the-glass outlet plays if the defensive team gains control. A noteworthy concept, but coaches like to have options from the different face-off circles. They won't like giving that up.

Chance of passage: Virtually none.

Face-offs by whistle instead of puck drop -- While this would save some linesmen's fingers from time to time, the idea of lining up for a face-off and going at it when someone blows a whistle is just too foreign to the NHL game. Besides don't we all love that endless jockeying for position only to see players thrown out of the circle for reasons we can't begin to fathom from way up in the used-to-be-cheap seats?

Chance of passage: Zero percent.

Red mesh netting -- The idea is that it would give the shooter the sense that he has a larger target area then what he sees now. Hey, you can put red, yellow and blue balloons on the mesh and the goalies still look like a red brick wall to a shooter breaking in. You want change; trim down the darn goalie equipment like you've been promising for seeming longer that Martin Brodeur has been in the league.

Chance of passage: Zero percent.

After a face-off violation, opposing centre may choose face-off opponent -- Yeah like coaches will let this happen, too much delay time here.

Chance of passage: Zero percent.

Second referee located off ice -- Between the benches would be nice, he can see a lot, get out there if necessary and yet be out of the way on most occasions. Who knows, play that way in the Olympics and maybe Bill McCreary doesn't make the foot-pass play that sets up Sidney Crosby for Canada's gold-medal-winning goal. Oops, can't have that happen.

Chance of passage: On par with Andy van Hellemond coming back to head the officiating department, especially if analysts are forced out of their spots and back into the broadcast booths.