Rule Changes

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes

Why is there an obsession with engineering more scoring opportunities? What about offensive creativity, hm? I don't want to see a power play at 40%. I don't want to see three hour games! I drive to Duluth and back sometimes!

Some people are inclined to believe the amount of scoring is why that sport with the orange round thing is popular. If they were that desperate, they would make the goals the size of barrels and remove the goaltenders.

Lastly, this lovely Mr. Karr thinks players will be less likely to take a penalty because a PP is more costly. This just incentivizes diving. St. Cloud would have 30 PPs a game.

I know I already called this out with the CTH majors, and compared to the CFB majors. Did the CFB auto-major rule also get repealed after 2 years by the same means? I know I see plenty of 2 minute CFB calls, at least in the ECAC.

[Wild E. Cat]

Re: Rule Changes

I know I already called this out with the CTH majors, and compared to the CFB majors. Did the CFB auto-major rule also get repealed after 2 years by the same means? I know I see plenty of 2 minute CFB calls, at least in the ECAC.

No, it's still in effect. Remember that the mandatory major and game misconduct for checking from behind is only if it's into the boards or goal cage. If it's in open ice then the officials can still call only a minor. But, of course, the officials always have an out by calling a minor for boarding rather than a major for checking from behind.

[FireKnight]

Re: Rule Changes

These are certainly some "winner" changes:

First, the penalty after the delayed penalty. In most cases, the purpose of a penalty call is to nullify the advantage a team incurs due to an illegal act. If the offended team scores anyway, then why the need for the penalty.

The shootout rule is a direct attack on the smaller schools in D-1 hockey. It is widely known that the majority of the "blue chip" players will go to the top 5 or 6 programs. They are also the guys that have the most raw talent and would excel in a shootout. Smaller schools can field a competitive team in hockey by teaching good team defense, finishing checks, and good puck control. They can sometimes effectively neutralize the skill players. I know the NC$$ would rather have the Gophers or Wolverines in the Frozen Four than Bemidji or RIT but let's not legislate them out of competition.

The no icing rule is an interesting one. I've actually always wondered why you penalize a team but then give them an advantage but that's the way it's done at every level of hockey and it seems to work pretty darn well.

Looking back at the last 5 years of college hockey, we've had some of the most exciting and competitive seasons and tournaments in the history of college hockey. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

[Wild E. Cat]

Re: Rule Changes

The shootout rule is a direct attack on the smaller schools in D-1 hockey. It is widely known that the majority of the "blue chip" players will go to the top 5 or 6 programs. They are also the guys that have the most raw talent and would excel in a shootout. Smaller schools can field a competitive team in hockey by teaching good team defense, finishing checks, and good puck control. They can sometimes effectively neutralize the skill players. I know the NC$$ would rather have the Gophers or Wolverines in the Frozen Four than Bemidji or RIT but let's not legislate them out of competition.

They're not making shootouts mandatory. Two years ago they added shootouts as an option to decide conference games. Only the CCHA and Hockey East women's leagues implemented it. It looks like the CCHA is going to abandon shootouts next season anyway so they're probably gone for good.

[boblav1]

Re: Rule Changes

CHN article: New Icing Rule May Not Pass Scrutiny.
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/new...4_newicing.php

[Runninwiththedogs]

Re: Rule Changes

Some people are inclined to believe the amount of scoring is why that sport with the orange round thing is popular. If they were that desperate, they would make the goals the size of barrels and remove the goaltenders.

Pumpkin pushing is popular because anyone can play it. It's practically free and really easy to organize. It's also easy to understand. I find that the high scoring is totally dull. I mean, there's very little drama. Their overtimes are stupid, too. No tension there.

[LynahFan]

Re: Rule Changes

The no icing rule is an interesting one. I've actually always wondered why you penalize a team but then give them an advantage but that's the way it's done at every level of hockey and it seems to work pretty darn well.

Well, theoretically, you can tinker with the rules to achieve any (average) PP conversion rate that you want. If you want it at 40%, then don't allow the PK to ice the puck or change after icings, don't release the player when the PP scores, and make the PP 3 minutes long instead of 2. Those are all "levers" that the rules committee can pull to make the conversion % go up or down. The right combination of those is a value/aesthetics judgement.

[SCSU Euro]

Re: Rule Changes

Two years ago they added shootouts as an option to decide conference games. Only the CCHA and Hockey East women's leagues implemented it.

WCHA women's league uses shootouts too.

The shootout rule is a direct attack on the smaller schools in D-1 hockey. It is widely known that the majority of the "blue chip" players will go to the top 5 or 6 programs. They are also the guys that have the most raw talent and would excel in a shootout. Smaller schools can field a competitive team in hockey by teaching good team defense, finishing checks, and good puck control. They can sometimes effectively neutralize the skill players. I know the NC$$ would rather have the Gophers or Wolverines in the Frozen Four than Bemidji or RIT but let's not legislate them out of competition.

I will preface this by saying that I am against shootouts. However, I don't buy at all the idea that the "best" teams get an advantage in a shootout. In college football, often the smaller schools go for 2 in OT because they figure that in the long run, its better to shorten the game and have it come more down to luck than plays after plays. That's how Boise State beat Oklahoma. And while I'm not saying its the same thing, you certainly can find people who'd apply that same logic. And the conference I follow doesn't use shootouts, so I don't really know, but I'm sure there are examples of top end teams that don't do all that well in shootouts and bottom teams that had success.

A large percentage of times that a team that's not nearly as talented steals a win or tie in a hockey game is because they've got a hot goalie, and certainly having a hot goalie is a HUGE plus in a shootout. I don't like shootouts, but this certainly isn't a situation in which I feel that the small schools are being oppressed.

[Suze]

Re: Rule Changes

CHN article: New Icing Rule May Not Pass Scrutiny.
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/new...4_newicing.php

See my earlier post (#130)

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Rule Changes

On (maybe) getting rid of shootouts:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KP32Aid8Vd...e+the+lawd.jpg

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: Rule Changes

Here is the latest article on the no-icing rule. Sounds like it may not pass after all:

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/new...4_newicing.php

The quotes from Forrest Karr in that piece are infuriating. He and the rules committee strong-armed this icing on the PK thing through without consulting all of the coaches. Seems pretty clear he wants the NCAA to be the testing ground for this stuff rather than do more with it in development camps or just let USA Hockey do their goddaam job and continue to figure things out for themselves.

That gang of retards can go f-ck themselves.

[Patman]

Re: Rule Changes

This is to you Karr.

Issue a public release defending your statements and defending the committee's decision. Justify what you did and not go for cover in that so and so was "persuasive" or this was "inconclusive" so on.

You, somebody else on your committee... do it. You obviously made that decision... own up to it.

[Suze]

Re: Rule Changes

This is to you Karr.

Issue a public release defending your statements and defending the committee's decision. Justify what you did and not go for cover in that so and so was "persuasive" or this was "inconclusive" so on.

You, somebody else on your committee... do it. You obviously made that decision... own up to it.

Won't happen. I emailed him about this, citing two studies (done by the NHL and highschool hockey), linking fatigue to increased injuries. Sticking players out there on the PK and not letting them ice the puck to get off the ice leads to fatigue.

He would not answer any of my questions. Just said to call him and he would discuss the committee's decision. I don't think he wanted a hard copy of his comments anywhere. If anyone else wants to call him, his phone number is easy to find.

[aparch]

Re: Rule Changes

Even better, Karr's own coach was against the icing on the PK rule change. There was a conference call between the coaches. ZERO CCHA coaches wanted this change, and "very few" from across all 58 schools.


Luckily, I've heard that the NCAA Rules Oversight Committee has a meeting in July to discuss, and then approve/disapprove of these changes.

[Wild E. Cat]

Re: Rule Changes

Luckily, I've heard that the NCAA Rules Oversight Committee has a meeting in July to discuss, and then approve/disapprove of these changes.

Unfortunately the people who sit on this NCAA Rules Oversight Committee probably think icing is when the Zamboni resurfaces the ice. The best chance of having this overturned is for the Rules Committee to retract it.