Having watched so much of the game under IIHF (International Ice Hockey Federation) rules in the last couple months, I'd like to address a few of those rules that people feel should be adopted by professional hockey in North America. Some have merit, and some do not, but all of them are worth a look - not in the interest of raising scoring, though; that is something that will iron itself out, but I'll talk about that another time. Today, however, I'll start off with the removal of the red line, a topic that TSN viewers recently heard colour commentator Pierre McGuire rant about from North Dakota on a nightly basis.

It's hard to argue against the fact that allowing two-line passes creates a great deal of excitement. Admittedly, I'm a traditionalist, and it took quite a while for me to decide whether taking out the red line was a good idea or not, but the Juniors convinced me. There are few things that can change the tempo of a game as quickly as a goalie firing a hail-mary pass to a streaking forward, sending him alone on the opposing 'tender. Short-handed goals would also increase, as penalty killers could sneak up ice as soon as their team gained possession, and receive a long clearing attempt - imagine, what once was a desperate icing effort can now turn into a scoring chance! Besides, breakaways always charge up a crowd, and taking out the red line will create more of them without having to use that disgusting "S" word ("Shootout").

Some contend that two-line passes will only drive more teams into playing the trap, something that no one wants to watch. The main problem that I can see with this argument is that the version of the trap found in the NHL calls for the defending team to clog up the neutral zone, making it difficult for offensive forwards to carry the puck through into the attack zone. One surefire way to get through a trap is with precision passing - enter the two-line pass. With current rules, the attacking team has to pass from within the neutral zone, meaning that they are already at risk from pressuring forwards. But by removing the red line, the trapping team will either have to stretch out to discourage the passer, or retreat behind their own blue line in order to focus on the receiver. If the defense stretches out, this immediately creates more room in the neutral zone for strong stickhandlers to work their way through whatever opposition remains, and the defense's forecheckers will have to fall back rapidly or risk getting stranded on the wrong side of the rink. If the defense collapses into their own zone, however, this allows attackers to at least gain the opposition's side of centre, where they can immediately work on getting puck possession deep in the zone and setting up their offensive strategy, instead of wasting time merely trying to gain the zone itself.

Whether a team plays a conservative trapping strategy or a run-and-gun offense will not change with the removal of the red line. "Attack-first" coaches like Pat Quinn and Mike Keenan will undoubtedly take advantage of the opportunity to let their offensively-gifted forwards work, while defensively-minded teams like the New Jersey Devils will find a way to make the trap work for them (I would expect with a 1-4 configuration, with a speedy forward staying as far up ice as they dare, ready to receive a quick pass from his own zone). While it won't completely change the face of the game, and likely won't create the 7-6 scores that Gary Bettman wants to see so badly, allowing two-line passes will at least add a few more offensive flurries to the game, giving scorers and goalies alike a chance to shine, and fans one more chance to cheer - assuming that this lockout ends while fans still want to cheer for NHL hockey.