Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

[CrazyDave]

From here on USCHO.com -- NCAA ice hockey rules committee proposes 3-on-3 overtime, shootout for conference games, in-season tournaments

The NCAA men’s and women’s ice hockey rules committee has proposed moving directly to a five-minute, 3-on-3 sudden-death overtime period to decide a winner in games tied after 60 minutes.

If neither team scores, a three-person shootout could be used in conference games or for in-season tournaments to decide which team advances.

Additional proposals:

• Offensive team be allowed to choose from which faceoff circle the puck would be dropped at the start of a power play or after icing.
• Officials be allowed to issue a warning on faceoff violations, instead of ejecting the center from the draw. (As is the current rule, a second violation would result in a two-minute bench-minor penalty for delay of game.)
• Remove the current rule that requires teams to shake hands after a game. (This would become a conference or school decision.)

Discuss.

[Timothy A]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

3 is lame. It looks really bad in the women's college hockey, they have to deal with is so infrequently they look like they have no idea what they are doing out there. When I have seen 3 on 3 is not hockey. 4 on 4 would be better, but just play 5 on 5, that IS hockey. I'd also go back to a 10 or even a full period of 5 on 5 OT. What's the rush to get home? The women's games run just over 2 hours, men's games run about 2 1/2 hours, football goes well over 3 hours.

Don't they already get a warning before they get booted from the draw? There's quite a bit if yapping going on out here already.

I guess which dot they use can help with the O, so why not?

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

...just play 5 on 5, that IS hockey. I'd also go back to a 10 or even a full period of 5 on 5 OT. What's the rush to get home? The women's games run just over 2 hours, men's games run about 2 1/2 hours, football goes well over 3 hours.

I agree 100%. Keep it 5 on 5, set the OT for one full period, and whoever scores first gets the win. If it's still a tie after the OT period, both teams get a tie. If it's a tournament and the game needs a winner, play another OT period (or more) until someone scores.

I guess which dot they use can help with the O, so why not?

I agree here, too. Who cares which faceoff dot they use?

As for the handshake line at the end of a game, why in the world would they want to eliminate that?

[Offsides Guy]

I agree 100%. Keep it 5 on 5, set the OT for one full period, and whoever scores first gets the win. If it's still a tie after the OT period, both teams get a tie. If it's a tournament and the game needs a winner, play another OT period (or more) until someone scores.



I agree here, too. Who cares which faceoff dot they use?

As for the handshake line at the end of a game, why in the world would they want to eliminate that?

I wonder if removing the handshake rule is it all related to the COVID-19 concerns. And watch for Muzz to take advantage of this rule and tell her team not to shake hands after the Friday night game as a way of getting in their opponent’s heads for the Saturday game! 😂

[Skate79]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

I don't see what the big deal is about 3 on 3 during the regular season. The shootout I'm not crazy about but if it's a package deal, fine. Skill players thrive in 3 on 3 situations and women's hockey especially needs more of that to showcase the game.

[D2D]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

I wonder if removing the handshake rule is it all related to the COVID-19 concerns. And watch for Muzz to take advantage of this rule and tell her team not to shake hands after the Friday night game as a way of getting in their opponent’s heads for the Saturday game! ��

At this point I'm just waiting for each of the WCHA teams to confirm that they'll play their full conference schedule. And beyond that we'll have a full 2021 NCAA playoff, and a NCAA champion.

[D2D]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

I don't see what the big deal is about 3 on 3 during the regular season. The shootout I'm not crazy about but if it's a package deal, fine. Skill players thrive in 3 on 3 situations and women's hockey especially needs more of that to showcase the game.

If push comes to shove, I fall into the traditionalist camp. Play one overtime period of 8 to 10 minutes, and if neither team scores they each earn a point in the conference standings. If one team does score in the overtime, they earn two points and the losing team earns nada. The way it used to be. The only question is how long the overtime period lasts.

If the powers that be declare something different, I would hope they would settle on something that's universal across all conferences and it puts an end to this seemingly annual controversy. If the "traditional" approach (as outlined above) is not accepted, then please no shootouts! And if they must extend the game, either to a 4 on 4 - or a 3 on 3 - format, choose the latter! 4 on 4 usually boils down to a very boring defensive minded scheme, whereas the 3 on 3 is much more offensive, and interesting.

That said, I do favor the more simplistic, traditional approach. What's wrong with a tie???

[ARM]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

That said, I do favor the more simplistic, traditional approach. What's wrong with a tie???

I agree. Covid-19 stopped the tournament, but apparently nothing can stop these yearly rule-change proposals that do the opposite of improving the game.

[Timothy A]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

I don't see what the big deal is about 3 on 3 during the regular season. The shootout I'm not crazy about but if it's a package deal, fine. Skill players thrive in 3 on 3 situations and women's hockey especially needs more of that to showcase the game.

How many 3 on 3 periods of hockey you have seen in women's college hockey?

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

3 on 3 rules. It should be 10 minutes of 3 on 3 imo. But I'll be more than satisfied with 5 minutes.

The usual caveat that NOBODY PREFERS 3 ON 3 OVER UNLIMITED OVERTIME applies.

[In the blue]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

Less players will get the chance to be the OT hero with 3 on 3

[HckyFanFreak]

This will be interesting if it passes. I can see problems arising but doesn't that just mean coaches have to now teach players how to play 3 on 3? Adds an interesting twist

[ARM]

Re: Rule change proposals 2020: "Really?"

3 on 3 rules.

You're right ... I do need a neg-rep button.

It makes sense that BC would prefer 3-on-3, so they don't need to send out a couple of skaters pretending to focus on D.

[CrazyDave]

The changes have been approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-...vertime-format

[ARM]

The changes have been approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-...vertime-format

The article in Dave's link includes:

Finding a way to align NCAA ice hockey overtime rules with those of other hockey leagues has been a thoroughly debated topic in recent years.

Having NCAA OT rules align with other league's OT rules is important because why? None of these other leagues use the PairWise Rankings, so why try to align with them if we're going to hold onto that misguided system. You would think they would see that we're already in uncharted waters with the coming season, so that they should not introduce other changes that could be avoided. No, instead they jump to a system designed to please fans, even though we may not have any fans, in a year where there will likely be fewer games, and thus, the result of a 3-on-3 OT or shootout gets amplified.