Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

[CrazyDave]

Todd Milewski, on the men's side of USCHO, put out a blog entry indicating some proposed rule changes for next season. I don't know how many of these would carry over to the women's game, but I thought I'd document the links to the blog entries for your perusal.

Contact to Head Crackdown Among Rules Changes

But in reaction to the first blog entry, Todd put out a second blog entry...

Icing Rule Change Gets Early Heat

... It’s clear from the Twitterverse and on the story’s comments what the real talker is out of the list unveiled today.

It’s what I’m going to call always-on icing. Teams skating shorthanded will no longer be able to send the puck down ice without an icing call if the rule changes are approved next month by the NCAA’s Playing Rules Oversight Panel.

I won’t go through every comment I’ve seen today, but let’s just say that I haven’t seen one in favor of that change yet.

Personally, I don't like it either. I think not allowing the short-handed team to ice the puck would put too much pressure on them.

I'm not totally sold on the idea of still awarding a power play after the non-offending team scores a goal on a delayed penalty call, either. I could see either side of this argument, but my thought is that (even though the offending player doesn't go to the box until the play is whistled dead) the power play begins the minute the referee's arm goes up, so any goal scored after that time ends the power play.

Additional thoughts?

[taz91]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

The contact to the head rule will leave too much grey are for the officials just like the checking from behind. I've seen too many players turn to take the check from behind and the offending player gets a game DQ. We all know how smart some of these officials are. Maybe put in a system of first offense is a misconduct, the second is a one game DQ and third or more is a 5 game DQ. Just a thought on that. As far as the hybrid icing system, who is responsible for the first person severly injured when players get tied up trying to get to a spot on the ice to get the icing waived off. And not allowing an icing on a penalty kill, lets just give the team on the PP a goal. The offensive team can change at will and if the team on the kill can't ice it you will see penalty killers on the ice for two minutes quite a bit, especially some of the lower rung teams against the top half.

[5 4 Fighting]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010 Edition

Todd Milewski, on the men's side of USCHO, put out a blog entry indicating some proposed rule changes for next season. I don't know how many of these would carry over to the women's game, but I thought I'd document the links to the blog entries for your perusal.

Contact to Head Crackdown Among Rules Changes

But in reaction to the first blog entry, Todd put out a second blog entry...

Icing Rule Change Gets Early Heat


Personally, I don't like it either. I think not allowing the short-handed team to ice the puck would put too much pressure on them.

I'm not totally sold on the idea of still awarding a power play after the non-offending team scores a goal on a delayed penalty call, either. I could see either side of this argument, but my thought is that (even though the offending player doesn't go to the box until the play is whistled dead) the power play begins the minute the referee's arm goes up, so any goal scored after that time ends the power play.

Additional thoughts?

Maybe they could also introduce a puck that has a blue flame behind it when it's going slow and a red flame when it's going fast.... .

Just leave the game alone!

[Wild E. Cat]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

Let's not sugarcoat this.

Unless this is overturned, the game of college hockey will become a joke (for at least the next two seasons). Below is a link to an article that was posted in the Men's Forum. It appears that virtually the entire D1 Men's and Women's coaching community is in full revolt.

Let's not even waste time analyzing these rules because it's not worth it. The Rules Committee has finally jumped the shark. Hockey, of course, is the greatest sport in the world. And while I like the pros, I have always felt that college hockey is, in its purest form, the best expression of the game.

It seems like the coaching community was completely caught off guard. They should have been much more vigilant about this. The Rules Committee has been flirting with this ridiculous icing rule for several seasons now. I am upset that these people are trying to destroy the game I love. Hopefully the right people are upset as well and do whatever is necessary to stop it. If you're upset too, I would encourage you to e-mail your conference office. I am very interested in Commissioner Bertagna's perspective. Do the individual conferences have any legal avenue to stop or delay this?

I also think that these will have an even greater impact on the women's game than the men's game.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/164981

[brookyone]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

Let's not sugarcoat this.

Unless this is overturned, the game of college hockey will become a joke (for at least the next two seasons). Below is a link to an article that was posted in the Men's Forum. It appears that virtually the entire D1 Men's and Women's coaching community is in full revolt.

Let's not even waste time analyzing these rules because it's not worth it. The Rules Committee has finally jumped the shark. Hockey, of course, is the greatest sport in the world. And while I like the pros, I have always felt that college hockey is, in its purest form, the best expression of the game.

It seems like the coaching community was completely caught off guard. They should have been much more vigilant about this. The Rules Committee has been flirting with this ridiculous icing rule for several seasons now. I am upset that these people are trying to destroy the game I love. Hopefully the right people are upset as well and do whatever is necessary to stop it. If you're upset too, I would encourage you to e-mail your conference office. I am very interested in Commissioner Bertagna's perspective. Do the individual conferences have any legal avenue to stop or delay this?

I also think that these will have an even greater impact on the women's game than the men's game.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/164981

A fine post. You can speak for me on the topic of these ill advised proposed rules changes any time.

[dogwatcher]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

I think before rules are added, maybe it would be best if they focused on enforcing the ones already in place. It seems to mean that the rules have already out grown the talent pool of refs. I think an increased effort in training and consistant calling of games would be the best way to improve the game.

[vellnueve]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

The proposed icing rule is ********.

So is the proposed delayed PP rule.

[Wild E. Cat]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

The proposed icing rule is ********.

That's putting it as mildly as possible.

[Wild E. Cat]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

A fine post. You can speak for me on the topic of these ill advised proposed rules changes any time.

Thanks. I'm glad New Hampshire and Minnesota can find some common ground.

[zamboni99]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

Hybrid icing - I like the old idea of "if you stop skating for it, it's going to get waved off" as opposed to "who will make it to the dots first".

No icing on the PK - While my initial gut reaction was "this is the dumbest idea ever", in reading the intended purpose of not giving the "bad" team a break seems like a good idea; someone on your team broke the rules, your team is going to suffer for it. Might help cut down on penalties due to post-game "discussions" between teammates who got stuck on the ice for 2-mins and the offending player Now, I may be behind on rules, but it's my recollection that college hockey doesn't have the "If you ice it you can't change lines" rule like the NHL. So if you're on the PK, ice it and get your line change if you've been out there too long; heck, that's what people do even when it's even-strength and they're stuck in their zone.

Delayed penalty/goal/penalty still called - This seems silly. As others have said, a PP begins the instant the ref's arm goes up. The offending team can not touch the puck without the whistle being blown (for nitpickers, the offending team can't control the puck without the whistle being blown) and therefore have no chance at offense. If the non-offending team scores during the delay, great for them. To still allow them a PP would be like saying "Hey, you scored on a PP and it doesn't end the penalty." Shouldn't really go half-way with this idea; if scoring doesn't end a penalty, then scoring shouldn't end a penalty.

Check to the head - Good. Make this disappear. That and check-from-behind in the danger zone are two of the scariest things in hockey.

Men wearing half-shields - I'd say let them. If they want to put their teeth on the line so they can lose them and look like "real" hockey players, and have a greater chance at getting very hurt, then it's their business. Personally, I'd never play a game without a full face shield because I appreciate having a face/eyes/mouth/brain, but if someone is more comfortable with a half-visor, more power to them.

[CrazyDave]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

Hybrid icing - I like the old idea of "if you stop skating for it, it's going to get waved off" as opposed to "who will make it to the dots first".

In theory, I like the hybrid icing rule. It adds the element that the defense has to go back to get the puck while keeping down the likelihood of the potential crash-and-burn on the end boards.

In practice... it's another judgment call by the officials. In a word: yuck. And it's not even the refs -- it's the linesmen. Double-yuck. They have a hard enough time calling the no-touch icing in its current format.

No icing on the PK - While my initial gut reaction was "this is the dumbest idea ever", in reading the intended purpose of not giving the "bad" team a break seems like a good idea; someone on your team broke the rules, your team is going to suffer for it. Might help cut down on penalties due to post-game "discussions" between teammates who got stuck on the ice for 2-mins and the offending player Now, I may be behind on rules, but it's my recollection that college hockey doesn't have the "If you ice it you can't change lines" rule like the NHL. So if you're on the PK, ice it and get your line change if you've been out there too long; heck, that's what people do even when it's even-strength and they're stuck in their zone.

Ummm... you're behind on the rules. The NCAA added the no-line-change-on-icing rule a couple years ago. That's why I disagree with the new icing-not-allowed-on-PK rule proposal. If line changes were allowed on icing calls, then I might give the no-PK-icing rule at least a test run.

[5 4 Fighting]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

Fanhouse has nailed it...

http://nhl.fanhouse.com/2010/06/12/p...ood-for-sport/

[FranchisePlayer]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

I love the idea of still giving a power play to a team that scores on the delayed call. They do something similar in lacrosse - on a delayed penalty (flag down), the attacking team has to keep the ball in the box and can shoot away until the defending team gets the ball. If a goal is scored, the player serves regardless...

After thinking about, the hybrid icing idea has some merit. I like it better than the NHL's touch-up icing, and it rewards the once-or-twice-a-game times when a team could have nullified the icing

Check to the head - Good. Make this disappear. That and check-from-behind in the danger zone are two of the scariest things in hockey.

Men wearing half-shields - I'd say let them. If they want to put their teeth on the line so they can lose them and look like "real" hockey players, and have a greater chance at getting very hurt, then it's their business. Personally, I'd never play a game without a full face shield because I appreciate having a face/eyes/mouth/brain, but if someone is more comfortable with a half-visor, more power to them.

Regarding these two: applying mandatory guidelines to certain penalties sometimes has the unintended consequence that they aren't called as much. For instance, when USA Hockey wanted to tack on automatic misconducts and game misconducts to hits-from-behind, refs tended to call boarding/charging on "borderline" calls. I would be in favor of giving the ref more options to call stiffer penalties rather than tying his/her hands when making a call.

On the half-shields -if they truly think this is a good idea, why limit it to the men? Why not give the women the option as well? Although I understand the idea/reasoning (and actually don't totally disagree with it), the place to introduce the no-face-masks is not in college: it's at the mite level. Teach the kids to play, from the very beginning, with respect for the head. It doesn't strike me as very likely that college players are going to be able to successfully change their games to accommodate the disappearance of face masks.

[CanHockGuy]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

I love the idea of still giving a power play to a team that scores on the delayed call. They do something similar in lacrosse - on a delayed penalty (flag down), the attacking team has to keep the ball in the box and can shoot away until the defending team gets the ball. If a goal is scored, the player serves regardless...

After thinking about, the hybrid icing idea has some merit. I like it better than the NHL's touch-up icing, and it rewards the once-or-twice-a-game times when a team could have nullified the icing



Regarding these two: applying mandatory guidelines to certain penalties sometimes has the unintended consequence that they aren't called as much. For instance, when USA Hockey wanted to tack on automatic misconducts and game misconducts to hits-from-behind, refs tended to call boarding/charging on "borderline" calls. I would be in favor of giving the ref more options to call stiffer penalties rather than tying his/her hands when making a call.

On the half-shields -if they truly think this is a good idea, why limit it to the men? Why not give the women the option as well? Although I understand the idea/reasoning (and actually don't totally disagree with it), the place to introduce the no-face-masks is not in college: it's at the mite level. Teach the kids to play, from the very beginning, with respect for the head. It doesn't strike me as very likely that college players are going to be able to successfully change their games to accommodate the disappearance of face masks.

Young kids are going to get hurt regardless if you teach them respect. Sticks and pucks can do crazy things along with all the other variables involved with the game. Leave the masks on, it's not worth it.

[Wild E. Cat]

Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

Here's a link to an article that was posted over in the DIII forum. It's encouraging that everyone is standing their ground against this assault on the game.

http://www.areavoices.com/undhockey/?blog=80842