@Stubo_NHL24 Goes back to my point about lack of direction.
They are attempting to troubleshoot gameplay according to what they think people want, which pleases some people, some of the time.
That results in changes one group likes and other groups don't.
That lack of direction results in a lack of coherency and consistency. They are playing whack-a-mole instead of being proactive and plugging the holes.
If the focus is on getting the gameplay to as realistic a state as possible, the goals are clear. You focus on steadily approaching that state making improvements continuously in one direction.
When you go on these alternate paths trying to tweak core elements to change the dynamics or appeal to smaller groups of players, you create dissension. One group wants their hitting, another wants unimpeded access to the net, another wants special moves, etc.
The only thing every group has in common, is that they enjoy hockey. The farther the gameplay diverges from realism, the less united the players become.
If EA were to create the perfect hockey gameplay simulation, the players would adapt and fit into that framework. It may take time and education, and the process will be longer due to the years of grooming the player base towards a less realistic product that would have to be walked back, but that core gameplay when perfected will eventually be a point of unison and agreement on expectations.
You can create a very arcade type game instead, but that also has to have a consistent and coherent direction behind it. There is no model for that to follow so the direction must be even more concise and clearly presented, but there will likely never be a consensus on what that should look like.
At least with realism you have the advantage of being able to point to the real life sport and say "That's how it works there, that's how it should work here".