What can the NHL learn from its 4 Nations rule experiments?

New York Times

20-02-2025

BOSTON — The 4-Nations Face-Off hasn't just been about superstar performances, dream matchups and growing hockey.
It's also been, to a certain extent, about tinkering.
One interesting facet of the tournament has been how the NHL brought in new ideas and rules to see how they'd work and if they one day could be implemented in the league.
Advertisement
Not every idea is in consideration. Some were specifically designed for a four-team tournament among Finland, Sweden, the U.S. and Canada. But nevertheless, every rule change was once a new idea — and some of the ones used in the tournament have looked like hits (extended overtimes) while others have … not as much (longer TV timeouts and shorter intermissions).
We've also seen cool new looks on the telecasts, such as a cameraman skating onto the ice from the penalty box to capture goal celebrations (like in the World Juniors), as well as referees wearing cameras, players wearing cameras in warmups and players and refs mic'd up. This summer, the league and television partners will meet to present ideas, exchange feedback and potentially make changes to the telecasts.
But the rule changes are worth assessing while the tournament is fresh, so for now, let's dive in on those.
The tournament-opening game featured the longest-ever three-on-three overtime involving NHL players, taking more than six minutes before Canada's Mitch Marner ended it.
That prompted a wave of reaction and discussion — because it was six incredibly entertaining minutes, featuring 12 combined shots by Canada and Sweden, with four coming off Nathan MacKinnon's stick alone.
The NHL's general managers have previously discussed extending the length of overtime periods from five minutes to seven minutes, and in a broader sense would like to reduce the number of games decided by a shootout. But one of the reasons it hasn't happened is there are concerns about how much more taxing it will be for the league's top skaters.
So, what's the takeaway from here?
It's mixed.
MacKinnon made it clear that he feels a 10-minute overtime period is too long. He said he'd consider supporting a switch to seven minutes. He was gassed after getting four overtime shifts covering 2:21 of the 6:06 played against Sweden.
'I usually feel better than that normally, but it was just an adrenaline dump,' he said. 'I can't believe I looked off Connor (McDavid) on that two-on-one, honestly, but I could barely see I was so tired on that rush. So I was happy when Marner scored because I didn't have much left to give.'
Marner with the overtime winner!!! 🥳pic.twitter.com/7ngC5J2Xmg
— Team Canada (@TeamCanada) February 13, 2025
The only other overtime played during the event ended quickly. Mikael Granlund sealed a win for Finland over Sweden at 1:49 by finishing off a three-on-one rush.
None of the 4 Nations games required a shootout.
The range of player opinions on a longer overtime makes it tough to handicap where we go from here. U.S. goalie Jake Oettinger said he was in favor of a change but noted that it required asking more of the skaters than someone playing his position.
Advertisement
'For the goalies, it's nothing crazy,' he said. 'I like it. It's more fun, overtime, and there've been games where we've had great overtimes and it sucks when they end.'
Finnish forward Patrik Laine, meanwhile, joked that he wouldn't mind if games went directly to a shootout and skipped overtime altogether.
'I don't personally care,' he said. 'I think some guys have a preference, but I think five minutes is enough. Especially the amount of great players that are out there, I think we should get an ending to a game in five minutes with all the guys on the ice.'
One notable voice in favor of a longer overtime period is McDavid, the game's best player. He's glad it was put in place for 4 Nations.
'I think it's a great kind of trial run,' McDavid said. 'Something that I think maybe the players liked. I think the fans liked it. It felt a little bit more like it's in our hands.'
If Thursday's final goes to overtime, it'll be NHL Stanley Cup playoff rules: five-on-five, 20-minute overtimes until there's a winner.
Had any 4 Nations games gone to a shootout, the NHL would have tested one other rule tweak affecting tiebreakers: Repeat shooters were going to be permitted in any shootouts that remained tied after the third round, just as they currently are in IIHF-sanctioned competitions.
In the NHL this season, a record 74.3 percent of games that have gone to overtime have ended before a shootout.
When everything was said and done in the round robin portion of the 4 Nations, Canada and the U.S. had two wins each, while Sweden and Finland each lost two games. But the final standings ended up like this:
That's because of a points system that awarded three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime win and one point for an overtime loss. Canada had the tiebreaker and earned a spot in the championship game by virtue of its head-to-head win over Sweden.
Clearly, instituting something similar in the NHL's regular season would have a dramatic impact on how the standings look. But don't count on it being a topic of serious internal debate or discussion any time soon.
Advertisement
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has been very clear that he sees the league's 'parity' as something worth celebrating. There's certainly less separation in the existing system where two points are awarded for both regulation wins and shootout wins. Basically they're valued the same way.
In fact, the main reason a different standings format was used for 4 Nations is because it made the tiebreaking procedure cleaner in a short event featuring just three games apiece.
Still, it was hard to ignore how drastically the pace picked up late in regulation of a tied Sweden-Finland game as both teams pushed for the three points rather than sitting back and waiting for a guaranteed loser point by reaching overtime.
There was also the potential for an entertaining scenario in which Canada might have pulled its goalie in regulation if it was tied late against Finland. It needed a regulation victory from that game to guarantee a spot in the championship, and coach Jon Cooper indicated they had planned for every scenario.
'Everything's been thought about, trust me,' Cooper said. 'I'll have a rolodex list out there on the bench. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.'
Ultimately, it didn't — although it was close.
Finland scored twice with its own goalie pulled Monday afternoon to get the game back to 4-3 before Sidney Crosby iced the game with an empty-netter.
You may not have noticed watching on TV at home, but in the arena, it sure was noticeable.
The league and broadcast partners experimented with TV timeouts that were 30 seconds longer — going from two minutes to 2:30 — and intermissions that were one minute shorter — from 18 minutes to 17.
The consensus, U.S. defenseman Brock Faber said, is 'most guys don't like it.'
Some players were even stronger, like Finland's Erik Haula: 'Awful. Terrible. Just awful.'
Advertisement
'It can take you out of the game, especially if you're a third or fourth liner not getting a lot of minutes as it is,' said Haula, who plays for the New Jersey Devils. 'Third period, after TV timeouts, coaches are just gonna go with top-six guys, so it just kills you. The break is so big, you can play with two lines. I hate it personally.'
It's clear, maybe out of habit, that it has thrown players off. Late in TV timeouts, as they wait for the game to resume, they skating around aimlessly. Linesmen aren't used to it, either. They've been going to the faceoff dots and just standing there waiting to get a signal to drop the puck. Players have followed and lined up ready to take the drop for 15, 20, 30 seconds.
'It feels long,' Devils forward Jack Hughes said. 'I didn't even know they were trying this, but you definitely notice. … You start looking at the clock. It seems long. The minute mark, everyone is gearing up for the faceoff and guys are waiting at the dot for 45 seconds.'
And this is a superstar who theoretically would benefit from a longer TV timeout. If top players get an extra 30 seconds to rest, a coach can keep throwing the top lines onto the ice even if they just played the shift before the TV timeout.
That sure has happened throughout the 4 Nations.
'TV timeouts are long as it is,' Cooper said. 'Can you recharge some of your top-end players? Of course you can. But then what does it do to the guys that haven't been out there, haven't been out before the TV timeout? And now you've got to wait through that. It's kind of the double-edged sword.'
The United States' Matt Boldy doesn't see any reason to change it, but he also said '30 seconds is 30 seconds. It adds 90 seconds to a period. I don't think there's a lot of guys in the league that would say that's crazy beneficial for them in a lot of ways. It's not like you're feeling on top of the world because you got an extra 30 seconds of rest.
Advertisement
'So I think it all depends on situations and scenarios, too. I think you'd still see certain guys you'd want on D-zone draws and the guys you want on O-zone draws.'
Faber said what he really doesn't like is the shorter intermission because he has his routine down to the second.
'I'm normally ready right up until we have to go back out on the ice,' Faber said. 'With my routines and stuff between periods, I've noticed that has affected that a lot. I feel like I'm in a rush in the intermissions. It's much different. Feels much shorter.'
One reason the league is experimenting with the change is to make it more consistent with other professional sports leagues and to tighten up the intermission shows on television.
But judging on feedback from coaches and players, this likely won't see the light of day during an NHL regular-season or playoff game.
(Illustration: Demetrius Robinson / The Athletic, with photo by Ben Jackson / Getty Images)