Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Rule Changes?

  1. #1
    Still upright
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    42.3686 W 83.4821
    Posts
    7,022

    Rule Changes?

    I believe this is a rule change year and so I thought it might be nice to see what types of changes the fans would like to see.

    Personally I'd like the pairwise to be tweaked so that the QWB only applies to OOC games, but if you have a rule you'd like to see implemented or changed, now's your chance.
    MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

    It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

  2. #2
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,613

    Re: Rule Changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by manurespreader View Post
    I believe this is a rule change year and so I thought it might be nice to see what types of changes the fans would like to see.

    Personally I'd like the pairwise to be tweaked so that the QWB only applies to OOC games, but if you have a rule you'd like to see implemented or changed, now's your chance.
    You are referring to two different things. This is indeed a rules change year for playing rules. I believe that the pairwise rules can be changed every year.

    Sean
    Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
    Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

    Watch BU Hockey highlights
    NCAA Hockey Financials
    Women's Division I Longest Hockey Games

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    4,654

    Re: Rule Changes?

    They need to institute the minor penalty for coaches challenges that arenít confirmed. Certain Coaches are using these challenges as a free timeout at strategic moments in games. I wouldnít mind seeing three on three OT as well, with no shoot out.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,301

    Re: Rule Changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by LTsatch View Post
    They need to institute the minor penalty for coaches challenges that aren’t confirmed. Certain Coaches are using these challenges as a free timeout at strategic moments in games. I wouldn’t mind seeing three on three OT as well, with no shoot out.
    Yes a 2 minute minor for delay of game and lost of timeout...as for Overtime, a take from the BIG1o...but 2 out of the 3 they do...5x5/5minute OT...if still tied, 3x3/5 minute OT...if still tied...goes in the books as a tie...in the BIG1o...they do the the first 2...plus then a shoot out...3 rounds...if still tied continue till there's a goal scored. BUT I am with you NO SHOOT-OUT's.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    911

    Re: Rule Changes?

    I would be in favor of a couple of changes. First a 2-minute delay of game penalty for hitting the puck out of play from your defensive zone like in the NHL. Next, as they do in International Rules for face-offs, a player isnít thrown out of the faceoff for a violation but receives a warning and results in a delay penalty should it happen a second time.

  6. #6
    Raider Fan
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,742

    Re: Rule Changes?

    While we're on the topic of rule changes, I noticed in this year's Beanpot both games involving BU went to double overtime, but the 1st OT was 5 minutes and the 2nd OT 20 minutes. Even more weird, there was an intermission between the first and second OTs, with the zamboni coming out to resurface the ice, but no intermission between the 3rd period and OT1.

    The NESN commentators mentioned this was "because of the Pairwise". I'm guessing these 2 games are ties for NCAA selection purposes, and in each case, the 2nd OT was simply to "extrapolate a winner"?
    Colgate '09

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20832/20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    38,990
    Quote Originally Posted by manurespreader View Post
    I believe this is a rule change year and so I thought it might be nice to see what types of changes the fans would like to see.

    Personally I'd like the pairwise to be tweaked so that the QWB only applies to OOC games, but if you have a rule you'd like to see implemented or changed, now's your chance.
    The new OT rules for 19-20 permit this format. Apparently the NCAA wants to standardize the tie (and it sure looked like they played for the tie in the 5 min OT) and then you can go, for conference play or in season tournaments, 3x3 then SO, or, just for in season tournaments, zam and then do unlimited 20s.

    Post season is always zam and unlimited 20s.

    What I wish
    win 5x5-> 3 points winner, 0 points loser
    win 4x4,3x3 or SO -> 2 points winner, 1 point loser.

    Other than that, one change would be aggressive fouls (i.e. the non restraining or technical fouls) must be served in their entirety.

  8. #8
    Follow me on Twitter: @EdTrefzger Ed Trefzger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,757

    Re: Rule Changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    Other than that, one change would be aggressive fouls (i.e. the non restraining or technical fouls) must be served in their entirety.
    I'd settle for them actually being called.

  9. #9
    Ofcl Riverhawk Radio Meteorologist
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    South of Boston
    Posts
    9,234

    Re: Rule Changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pucknut View Post
    First a 2-minute delay of game penalty for hitting the puck out of play from your defensive zone like in the NHL.
    No. This is one of the dumbest rules in hockey. This is one where the NCAA has it right. You treat it like icing, faceoff in the defensive zone, and you can't change players.
    Charter Member of darin's "UML Seven"

    "I just hate Boston College to be perfectly honest'' -Ken Dorsey
    "It's time for my favorite NCAA tradition ... that's right, rooting against BC!" -Bill Simmons

  10. #10
    All Hail
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,715

    Re: Rule Changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    ...win 4x4,3x3 or SO -> 2 points winner, 1 point loser....
    Loser points are for LOSERS #NotHockey
    "Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    15,004
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottK View Post
    No. This is one of the dumbest rules in hockey. This is one where the NCAA has it right. You treat it like icing, faceoff in the defensive zone, and you can't change players.
    Agreed

  12. #12
    Drunkard
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Promised Land
    Posts
    17,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Split-N View Post
    Loser points are for LOSERS #NotHockey
    What

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    150

    Re: Rule Changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by LTsatch View Post
    They need to institute the minor penalty for coaches challenges that arenít confirmed. Certain Coaches are using these challenges as a free timeout at strategic moments in games. I wouldnít mind seeing three on three OT as well, with no shoot out.
    There is not a separate coach's challenge. A coach must use their timeout to initiate a review so it is not a free timeout. If their timeout was used, they can't challenge.

    I'm not sure it would make sense to penalize them even more when they already have to use a timeout (regular season only).

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    150

    Re: Rule Changes?

    I would like to see them go to the NHL-style overtime where each team gets a point after 60 minutes.

    The 5v5 sudden death OT is old and outdated and ties do nothing to keep casual fans involved. Give each team the point they earned and let some exciting 3v3 hockey decide the winner...no shootout is necessary if they want to skip that.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    south sioux city, ne
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Rule Changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by CKrouth View Post
    I would like to see them go to the NHL-style overtime where each team gets a point after 60 minutes.

    The 5v5 sudden death OT is old and outdated and ties do nothing to keep casual fans involved. Give each team the point they earned and let some exciting 3v3 hockey decide the winner...no shootout is necessary if they want to skip that.
    I do think the NCAA has even dumber rules than the NHL on this. "OK, we're going to play some overtime, but just a little bit, and if that doesn't resolve it, then we'll call it a tie."
    Either play it all the way out with no point for the team that loses, call it after 60 minutes and split the points, or do some sort of a hybrid where you produce a winner through other means (3 on 3 or shootout) and both teams get points. But the current setup is inconsistent in design.

  16. #16
    Drunkard
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Promised Land
    Posts
    17,714

    Re: Rule Changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by CKrouth View Post
    The 5v5 sudden death OT is old and outdated and ties do nothing to keep casual fans involved.
    For the life of me, I cannot understand this mentality.

  17. #17
    2016 Hockey East Overlords
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    604

    Re: Rule Changes?

    For the love of god anything but the NHL's 2-1-1 system. At least keep 3 points on the table like the western conferences already do if we're going to introduce OT points.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    4,654

    Re: Rule Changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by CKrouth View Post
    There is not a separate coach's challenge. A coach must use their timeout to initiate a review so it is not a free timeout. If their timeout was used, they can't challenge.

    I'm not sure it would make sense to penalize them even more when they already have to use a timeout (regular season only).
    Thank you for the clarification. So if the Coach is correct, he retains the timeout for the future and the team still gets a rest without using a timeout.

    93.7 Team Timeout Request/Coach's Challenge - A team may use its timeout
    for the purpose of reviewing situations that are in the video replay criteria
    or a potentially non-detected goal. If the challenge is successful, the team
    retains its timeout; if the challenge is unsuccessful, the timeout is charged.
    This timeout policy applies to any video replay procedure used. The on-ice
    official makes the final decision.
    In order for a time out to be granted a coach must:
    • Identify from the onset of the request that the time out is for purpose
    of video review. A coach may not request a video review if the timeout
    is taken for another purpose. A coach may not stall in any manner prior
    to requesting the review.
    • Identify the specific video replay criteria requested to be reviewed.
    When any aspect of the video replay criteria is challenged, it allows the
    referee to utilize all aspects of the review criteria to be judged (e.g., high stick
    challenged, but video shows the puck was kicked into the goal).
    When a video review, due to technical issues with the video replay system,
    is unable to provide an adequate review, a team timeout will not be charged.
    YALE HOCKEY
    2013 National Champions

  19. #19
    Still upright
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    42.3686 W 83.4821
    Posts
    7,022

    Re: Rule Changes?

    What about the checking from behind majors vs minors? And what about these bogus embellishment calls I keep seeing? It seems as if the refs don't make a call, they just go to replay. And contact to the head, if I'm 6'6 and I check someone who is 5'8 it's almost guaranteed isn't it?
    MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

    It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    15,004
    Quote Originally Posted by ExileOnDaytonStreet View Post
    For the life of me, I cannot understand this mentality.
    Completely agree. I am fine with ties. I don't need to be there an extra half hour so we can fiddle around with two different five minute OTs and a shootout just so we can have a "winner". It's a long season, ties are fine. The only tweak I would support is a 4 on 4 OT. If nobody scores a tie is fine.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •