Things I could be posting about: that time I went to Pisa with myricarubra when neither of us had really slept on account of the Rangers losing (tragically), and how on the way back to Rome I cried over Ryan Callahan's stupid sad brave beautiful little face (kill me); who the fuck Steven Stamkos is (because I can't believe are people on my flist who don't know); going to Paris on Saturday yessss fuck you Rome.

What I am posting about instead: rule changes in hockey! Also, incidentally, the lockout.

We already know that the 2004-5 lockout ruined hockey (see also: the salary cap; the elimination of the red line; that fucking delay of game penalty; THE SHOOTOUT^* -- I'd say you can ask me to expand on any of these but it will just be vitriolic word vomit, ftr, but I guess that might be what you're looking for) and now they're trying to do it again. Here are the highlights:

- In a post-season game, in order to discourage teams from "send[ing] a message" to others, there's the suggestion that "penalties incurred in the closing minutes of a post-season game [...] be 'travelled' or carried over to the next game in the series." These would be penalties that are "not incidental" to the game (e.g. hooking, tripping, etc.) but that also don't warrant supplementary disciplinary action, like, uh, apparently, Shea Weber smashing Zetterberg's face repeatedly into the glass. Are you fucking kidding me? Here's a radical idea: ACTUALLY DISCIPLINE ASSHOLE BEHAVIOUR LIKE THIS. This shit doesn't need to be carried over if it's dealt with correctly in the first place. I'm looking at you, Brendan Shanahan.

- "Several of the managers are also concerned that the game is becoming too defensive-minded and trending more toward a soccer-type style", so they might try to introduce "a package of new rules to spice up the game" like they did last time they negotiated. Only this time, scoring is still too low, so they want to discourage shot blocking, because those New York Rangers totally scammed their way into top seed in the East through excessive use of the much frowned-upon tactic known as "not letting the other team score" hahahaha are you kidding me? Let's just never mind that it was the 2005 rule change that brought us here in the first place, with the elimination of the red line and decreased tolerance of obstruction^** leading to increased emphasis on shot blocking league-wide. What are they going to do now, eliminate the offside? Here's another radical idea: stop pretending that hockey isn't entertaining if there aren't a million pucks in the back of the net at the end of sixty minutes!!

tl;dr I think we should institute a rule change called Fire Gary Bettman.

P.S. if anyone is looking to relive the experience of the lockout/experience it for the first time, just watch the first thirty seconds of this video on repeat until your screen goes blurry. And then imagine holding onto that feeling for sixteen months straight. You're welcome.

^* In before someone thinks I intend this as a slight against anyone who enjoys these elements of post-lockout hockey: I don't. I think those rule changes suck, but I was also a big fan of the No Score Nineties, so obviously my priorities are not everybody else's priorities.
^** If you watched pre-lockout hockey, you didn't see anywhere near as many blocked shots, because the majority of defensive plays were happening up in the neutral zone or along the boards.