Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

[norm1909]

The proposed changes are here and include:

Goal pegs: 10-inch goal pegs that are anchored into the ice or floor must be in place at all NCAA levels by the 2016-17 season.

Faceoff Location: Offensive Scoring Opportunity: If the offensive team is attempting to score and the puck goes out of play, the faceoff will remain in the attacking zone.

Faceoff Location: High stick/hand pass: In these cases, the ensuing faceoff will be one zone closer to offending team’s goal.

[Former NUSuntan]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

Not sure i like the "anchored goal pegs" change. Sure as I'm sitting here, some hapless player is going to be impaled on that peg when the net gets dislodged, as it surely will. I believe it was Gordie Howe that got an unplanned hemroidectomy that way back when he was playing, which led to changes in goal pegs. I'm sure there are better solutions to keeping the net in place.

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

Not sure i like the "anchored goal pegs" change. Sure as I'm sitting here, some hapless player is going to be impaled on that peg when the net gets dislodged, as it surely will. I believe it was Gordie Howe that got an unplanned hemroidectomy that way back when he was playing, which led to changes in goal pegs. I'm sure there are better solutions to keeping the net in place.

I believe it was Gordie Howe's son, Mark Howe, that happened to which changed the goal pegs.

[joecct]

I believe it was Gordie Howe's son, Mark Howe, that happened to which changed the goal pegs.

Didn't change the pegs, it removed the pointed joint in the middle of the net.

Pegs have been in evolution since the "March pegs" back in the 80's.

[norm1909]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

If you would like to to provide feedback or add a discussion item to the committee’s list, this is the link.

[joecct]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

What I'd like to see it ditch the delayed penalty goal + original minor penalty in favor on non releasable minor penalties for all but restraining and delay of game penalties. In other words, you sit for the full 2 minutes for a slash, but would be released for a hook.

[MountieBoyOz]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

What I'd like to see it ditch the delayed penalty goal + original minor penalty in favor on non releasable minor penalties for all but restraining and delay of game penalties. In other words, you sit for the full 2 minutes for a slash, but would be released for a hook.

Kind of like in lax, right? (I understand there's no hooking in lacrosse.)

[joecct]

Kind of like in lax, right? (I understand there's no hooking in lacrosse.)

Yep

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

The NCAA Oversight Committee approved the minor rule changes, plus a couple that weren't on the previously published list.


The list of approved rule changes for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons (with new additions in bold):

Major penalty for interference: To assist officials in properly penalizing significant contact — particularly blindside hits — that is not to the head or neck area, the panel approved the addition of a major penalty for interference.

Hand pass by faceoff player: The players taking a faceoff are no longer allowed to use their hand to play the puck. A violation of this rule will result in a minor penalty, similar to the NHL rule.

Faceoff procedure: During end zone faceoffs, the defending team’s player is required to put their stick down first. Previously, the attacking team was required to do so. Center ice and neutral zone faceoffs will continue to require the visiting team to put their stick down first.

Goal pegs: 10-inch goal pegs that are anchored into the ice or floor must be in place at all NCAA levels by the 2016-17 season.

Faceoff location (offensive scoring opportunity): If the offensive team is attempting to score and the puck goes out of play, the faceoff will remain in the attacking zone.

Faceoff location (high stick/hand pass): In these cases, the ensuing faceoff will be one zone closer to the offending team’s goal.

Penalty shot/shootout: During a shootout or penalty shot, if the goal becomes dislodged by the goalkeeper, the referee can either award a goal (if intentional, or if the goal was obvious and imminent) or allow the team to shoot again.

Penalty shot: If a player who is awarded a penalty shot is injured and unable to take the shot, one of the players on the ice at the time of the infraction will be chosen to shoot.

Look-Up Line: The committee approved the use of a warning-track-style line intended to positively impact safety near the boards. The installation of this line will not be mandatory, but is permissible.

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.

Video Replay: Several changes were made to the criteria for allowing video replay and the process followed:
• It is reviewable to determine if a goal was scored before a penalty occurred.
• If an offsides or too many men on the ice penalty is missed and a goal is scored, it is reviewable until the puck leaves the offensive zone. This replaces the previous wording that only allowed the review to occur if the missed play directly led to a goal.
• It was clarified that video review may be used without the restriction of games that are being broadcast on television.

My thoughts:

-The new major penalty for significant impact on interference penalties that occur away from the head/neck (because that's already a major unto itself) is obviously rooted in player safety, which is a good thing, but it could get ugly. We already see major delays after kind of hits because referees want to call it a 5, but can't say it hit the head. In some cases, the referees already do call it for 5:00, much to the dismay of coaches and fans. But now we're green-lighting what is, ultimately, a subjective call. What constitutes "significant contact" exactly? I have a feeling the red line that players should not cross will be a moving target, changing from game-to-game and even within games.

-The experimental (i.e. exhibition-only) rule, which is only applying to women's hockey, to allow the puck to be played with a high stick is, in my humble opinion, absolute lunacy. In a game where head injuries occur far too often already, and in the middle of the debate on Half- or 3/4-shields vs Full Cages, do we really want these women skating around with their sticks in the air slashing away at a puck? It makes no sense! This rule would go well in one of Norm's April Fools Day posts!

-"Scoring Opportunity" and "Attempting to Score". Is this going to be like in lacrosse, where the referee has to determine if it was a shot or a hard pass that caused a ball to go out of play, and the offense keeps possession if it was a shot? I think I could live with this one. For years now the committee has been trying to subtly promote more offense, so you can't say that this is a surprise. The same can be said for the Faceoff Procedure change. I personally like a more defensive game, so I hate that they keep penalizing the defensive players with rule changes like this, but I do see the purpose for it. I say we undo all of these pro-offense changes and just reduce the size of the goalie's pads and/or increase the size of the net a little bit. But that's just me.

-The rest of the changes: I am worried about the pegs, but I would have to see what they are talking about before judging. Everything on the list I didn't specifically mention here makes sense to me, and is ultimately a very minor change in procedure.

What do you all think?

[norm1909]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

The NCAA Oversight Committee approved the minor rule changes, plus a couple that weren't on the previously published list.


The list of approved rule changes for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons (with new additions in bold):



My thoughts:

-The new major penalty for significant impact on interference penalties that occur away from the head/neck (because that's already a major unto itself) is obviously rooted in player safety, which is a good thing, but it could get ugly. We already see major delays after kind of hits because referees want to call it a 5, but can't say it hit the head. In some cases, the referees already do call it for 5:00, much to the dismay of coaches and fans. But now we're green-lighting what is, ultimately, a subjective call. What constitutes "significant contact" exactly? I have a feeling the red line that players should not cross will be a moving target, changing from game-to-game and even within games.

-The experimental (i.e. exhibition-only) rule, which is only applying to women's hockey, to allow the puck to be played with a high stick is, in my humble opinion, absolute lunacy. In a game where head injuries occur far too often already, and in the middle of the debate on Half- or 3/4-shields vs Full Cages, do we really want these women skating around with their sticks in the air slashing away at a puck? It makes no sense! This rule would go well in one of Norm's April Fools Day posts!

-"Scoring Opportunity" and "Attempting to Score". Is this going to be like in lacrosse, where the referee has to determine if it was a shot or a hard pass that caused a ball to go out of play, and the offense keeps possession if it was a shot? I think I could live with this one. For years now the committee has been trying to subtly promote more offense, so you can't say that this is a surprise. The same can be said for the Faceoff Procedure change. I personally like a more defensive game, so I hate that they keep penalizing the defensive players with rule changes like this, but I do see the purpose for it. I say we undo all of these pro-offense changes and just reduce the size of the goalie's pads and/or increase the size of the net a little bit. But that's just me.

-The rest of the changes: I am worried about the pegs, but I would have to see what they are talking about before judging. Everything on the list I didn't specifically mention here makes sense to me, and is ultimately a very minor change in procedure.

What do you all think?

That women's high sticking is beyond my imagination - even as an April Fool's joke!!

[joecct]

That women's high sticking is beyond my imagination - even as an April Fool's joke!!

Are some of their shoulders below the height of the crossbar?

[Hammer]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

The womens' high-stick rule is unconscionably stupid.

As for a major for inteference, that's a bit much as well. If there's enough contact to warrant a major, call it 5 for roughing or CTH and be done with it.

The goal pegs: we're going to get somebody hurt here.

The look up line: idiotic. These guys are big enough to know where they're at on the ice. What's next, the STOP sign on the back of the jersey?

[Hammer]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

Are some of their shoulders below the height of the crossbar?

Maybe. Some of the girls you look at and think, "if you get hit, you're going to break in half. How can you play hockey at this level when you're so little?"

[joecct]

The womens' high-stick rule is unconscionably stupid.

As for a major for inteference, that's a bit much as well. If there's enough contact to warrant a major, call it 5 for roughing or CTH and be done with it.

The goal pegs: we're going to get somebody hurt here.

The look up line: idiotic. These guys are big enough to know where they're at on the ice. What's next, the STOP sign on the back of the jersey?

Norwich has pegs. Salem State does not. The net did not dislodge as much at Norwich as it does at Salem. Makes it easier on the refs to call goal/no goal if the net is where it belongs.

[Hammer]

Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

10 inch pegs?

I'm missing something rather obvious here. Help me out.