That NHL participation has meant 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 \u201cblended\u201d approach to officiating still left a few differences between the IIHF and the NHL<\/a>. And that got us wondering: Could the NHL learn something from international hockey?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s see. Pierre\u2019s article included nine differences between the two rulebooks. We\u2019re 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\u2019re relatively minor and we don\u2019t have a \u201cmeh\u201d option for our rulings.)<\/p>\n We convened the usual jurors \u2014 Sean Gentille, Shayna Goldman and Sean McIndoe \u2014 and cut-and-pasted Pierre\u2019s description of the differences. If at least two of us approve the change, it becomes a new NHL rule, effective immediately. (Editor\u2019s note: That\u2019s not true.) (McIndoe\u2019s note: OK, but it should be.)<\/p>\n 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\u2019s find out.<\/p>\n Coach\u2019s challenge<\/p>\n \u201cIn the NHL, in the last minute of play in the third period or at any time in overtime, the Situation Room in Toronto can initiate a review. In the IIHF, teams must initiate a coach\u2019s challenge at all times in the game.\u201d<\/p>\n McIndoe: I\u2019m going to invoke the rule of unintended consequences here. If we let coaches ask for reviews in overtime, wouldn\u2019t they just challenge every goal? There\u2019d be no reason not to, right? We\u2019re already doing enough to train fans not to get too excited when their team scores, we don\u2019t need to turn every OT goal into an obligatory review. NO.<\/p>\n Goldman: I have a lot of time for complaints about coach\u2019s challenge in the NHL, but this is one element the league actually gets right. Obviously things are different now in that coaches have multiple challenges and don\u2019t have to hold it for the bigger moments in the games. That being said, I don\u2019t really want to see coaches at risk for a penalty kill in the final minutes or overtime, either. If the priority truly is to be efficient and make sure the calls are right, then this should be a league-initiated challenge \u2014 and since the Olympics are only once every four years, that efficiency should be an even higher priority. NO.<\/p>\n Gentille: Absolute zero-doubt NO from me on this one. The NFL\u2019s replay process is, somehow, in half-decent shape at the moment solely because they\u2019ve removed some of the responsibility from the coaches. Honestly, I\u2019d be fine with more situation review help if it meant less time spent watching guys in suits huddled around iPads.<\/p>\n Replay review<\/p>\n \u201cBut also noteworthy, the refs in the Olympic tournament won\u2019t have people in a Situation Room to help influence their decisions on video review. While they will be talking in a headset to someone helping them navigate what they\u2019re looking at, only the refs will be involved in making the final call on video reviews.\u201d<\/p>\n McIndoe: I know everyone loves to complain about the \u201cwar room\u201d being against their team, but having actually had the chance to see it in action, I regret to have to inform you the whole thing seems to work about as well as it reasonably could.<\/p>\n Would it be better if the refs were the ones making the call? Maybe! Then again, we all complain about the refs constantly, so I don\u2019t see why this would be any more popular. At the end of the day, the referees would probably prefer this system, so I\u2019m willing to trade it to them in exchange for postgame media availability to explain their calls. Until they\u2019re willing to make that deal, put me down as a NO.<\/p>\n Goldman: Sean 1 makes the point \u2013 if there was literally one (1) ounce of transparency from the on-ice officials, I would be on board with the IIHF\u2019s rules. Having the situation room for support adds in an outside perspective that has the benefit of a million non-iPad sized screens makes this a more efficient process. How many of us want some sort of eye-in-the-sky perspective to help the officiating? This basically provides it in reviewable moments. NO. <\/p>\n Gentille: I just asked for more situation room, not less. What the hell? NO<\/p>\n Coincidental minor penalties<\/p>\n \u201cIn the NHL, it\u2019s four-on-four; here in the Olympic tournament, it\u2019s five-on-five.\u201d<\/p>\n McIndoe: My default setting is that four-on-four is better, because there\u2019s more open ice which in theory leads to more offense, and offense is good. That said, I can see the logic here. If offsetting penalties cancel out, why should they fundamentally change the way the next chunk of the game is played? Are some teams better than others at four-on-four, and if so, doesn\u2019t this give those teams an incentive to try to instigate the scrums and post-whistle confrontations that most coincidental minors come from? Does it really make sense that coincidental minors are four-on-four, but fighting majors keep us at five-on-five?<\/p>\n I\u2019ll be honest, I\u2019m not sure which way to go here. So since I\u2019ve already peeked ahead and seen that Shayna said no, I\u2019ll vote YES and force Other Sean to make the call.<\/p>\n Goldman: I don\u2019t know, is the IIHF allergic to four-on-four play or something? If overtime was four-on-four, and the IIHF wanted to reserve those situations for that, it would be one thing. But I don\u2019t really have an issue seeing four-on-four play for coincidentals \u2014 it opens up the ice and throws a challenge at the coaches and players. NO.<\/p>\n Gentille: My default setting is that hockey tends to be better at its default setting, which is five-on-five. Power plays are fine, but I need less four-on-four in my life, not more. YES.<\/p>\n Fighting<\/p>\n \u201cIn the NHL, it\u2019s a five-minute major for each combatant. Here in the Olympic tournament, as per IIHF rules, each fighter gets a major plus a game misconduct penalty.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"Nico](\"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nhl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/GettyImages-2262343234-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\n