NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

[Chirp]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

[QUOTE=mar7967;5980650] Experimental women’s rule: The panel also approved an experimental rule in women’s ice hockey only to allow the puck to be played legally with a high stick.

Falls under the category of, you've got to be kidding me!

[CrazyDave]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

"Experimental" means that it will only be applied in exhibition games. Even so, IIRC, the last rule that was "experimental" didn't survive the scrutiny over the limited number of said exhibition games and was dropped in the next cycle.

[ARM]

What possible benefit is to be gained by allowing women to skate around with their sticks at head-level whacking at pucks?

Sometimes you just wonder....What are these NC2A folks smoking?

I don't like the proposal either; in trying to think what may have been behind it, all I could come up with was that at women's games there is very little useful video evidence to determine if a puck was played with a high stick before winding up in the goal. This could be a way to make that issue go away, but IMO, at too great of a risk.

[puckskillz]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Just had a conversation with a couple of players. They have no clue why they would adjust the high stick rule, even around the net. Just more whacks on the head. However they are going to start incorporating a lacrosse carry in their drills.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

This is interesting to me: Experimental women’s rule: The panel also approved an experimental rule in women’s ice hockey only to allow the puck to be played legally with a high stick.

With the ongoing shield vs visor debate (at least on the men's side), you would think they wouldn't want to encourage high sticks. Interesting to see how this will play out

Just when you thought you've heard everything...

OK, we should wait for the official explanation before passing final judgment. But it's very difficult for me to imagine a persuasive argument in support of such a rule. Hearing this news made me feel like I went into a deep sleep and woke up on April Fools' Day.

I don't like the proposal either; in trying to think what may have been behind it, all I could come up with was that at women's games there is very little useful video evidence to determine if a puck was played with a high stick before winding up in the goal. This could be a way to make that issue go away, but IMO, at too great of a risk.

Insightful thought. Also agree with your conclusion.

If inadequate video is really the issue, why not just make the ref's on-ice call non-reviewable? Another alternative would be to require the familiar "indisputable video evidence" in order to overturn a goal that was awarded live. Any reasonable doubt? The goal stands.

Neither of those approaches is perfect. But IMHO either of them would be better than declaring an open season for high sticking.

[ARM]

Another alternative would be to require the familiar "indisputable video evidence" in order to overturn a goal that was awarded live. Any reasonable doubt? The goal stands.

I think that is what they have been doing in practice. Even if they get the call wrong, at least nobody is taking a slash to the throat in the process.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I think that is what they have been doing in practice.

That's what I thought too -- until I read the announcement. But consider: If that is the standard, and the video is completely inadequate, where's the problem? It's an extremely easy decision; the call stands.

On second thought, though, there's still an issue in practice. Contrary to the cynical views often heard the stands, the refs want very much to get the calls right. The type of judgment call we're talking about can be both difficult and game-altering. I'm sure that skating over to an angry coach only to say, "Sorry, the video stinks, nothing we can do" must be both frustrating and stressful. Viewed that way, wanting to take this particular controversy out of the game is understandable. Unfortunately, as per the last several posts, it's not the best thing for our sport.

Even if they get the call wrong, at least nobody is taking a slash to the throat in the process.

Exactly.

[driventoit]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

If "experimental" means exhibition games only, what coach in his/her right mind is going to endorse for one or two pre-season games a practice (high sticking) that leads to penalties and/or injuries in the regular season? So, there's likely to be little or no "data" to analyze, which of course is a good thing in this case.

[brookyone]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

http://www.uscho.com/2014/09/15/pres...-theyre-human/

[D2D]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

http://www.uscho.com/2014/09/15/pres...-theyre-human/

"It’s no secret that referees take offense to attempts to deceive them with a dramatic fall. In addressing the group, Piotrowski calls it 'a disgrace to the game' that needs to be eliminated through a collective effort of officials, coaches and players."

Too bad they don't have the same attitude in the game of soccer! There's so much diving and embellishment that goes on that it's laughable.

[Timothy A]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

"It’s no secret that referees take offense to attempts to deceive them with a dramatic fall. In addressing the group, Piotrowski calls it 'a disgrace to the game' that needs to be eliminated through a collective effort of officials, coaches and players."

Too bad they don't have the same attitude in the game of soccer! There's so much diving and embellishment that goes on that it's laughable.

Madison Packer bumped into a UMD goalie last year above the circles and the UMD goalie went down so fast it was laughable and we did laugh. Then we were privileged to hear F bombs to the 9th degree for the rest of the period that would make a hardened sailor blush out of a certain coach's mouth.

[driventoit]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Too bad they don't have the same attitude in the game of soccer! There's so much diving and embellishment that goes on that it's laughable.

Yeah, especially when Brown plays Maine . . . Oops! Sorry. I must have stumbled onto the wrong thread.

[driventoit]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Too bad they don't have the same attitude in the game of soccer! There's so much diving and embellishment that goes on that it's laughable.

But yes, for sure, the one flaw in an otherwise near-perfect game. Too much wasted time and lost momentum, to say nothing of bad acting, but these are pros, after all. It would be a crime to have that infect women's hockey (though the helmets would spare us the fake grimaces). But how many times do we actually see it in any given hockey game, apart from those tripping calls/no-calls where sometimes neither party really knows what happened? There's more self-policing, because so much more self-respect, in women's hockey. But the refs (or the rules committee) must be seeing something.

[HockeyEast33]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

yeah, especially when brown plays maine . . . Oops! Sorry. I must have stumbled onto the wrong thread.

lol!!!!

[D2D]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

There's more self-policing, because so much more self-respect, in women's hockey. But the refs (or the rules committee) must be seeing something.

I see it being more of an issue in the men's game, which I believe they were addressing in this pre-season training. Even there it's by no means common, but over the course of the season you do see it every now and then.