NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

[joecct]

Oops; missed my guess on your age. Thanks for putting a positive spin on it.

I still say there's a correlation between age & tiebreaker opinion. But of course there's going to be variation of opinion within each age group.

Really interesting stuff. Who says hockey people aren't creative?

Most of your comment concerns the post-season, of course. But if I'm understanding you correctly, MSHSL plays 17 minute periods in regulation time, both regular season & post-season. That would still fit my suggestion that roughly half of a period should be used to break regular season ties. 8 minutes is obviously slightly less than half of 17. But that's just rounding off to an even minute.

The NFHS rule book allows 17 minute periods and calls for an 8 minute OT for non tournament games.

SECTION 11
TIED GAMES ART. 1 . . . In case of a tie score at the end of the third period, if an a three-minute intermission, ends shall be changed, and play shall be continued for not more than eight minutes. Teams shall remain in the bench area between the end of the third period and the beginning of the overtime period. The team that scores first wins, and the game is ended. If no score is made in these eight minutes, the game shall be declared a tie.
NOTE: All games may be played under overtime policies adopted by the state high school association.

 

[shelfit]

The NFHS rule book allows 17 minute periods and calls for an 8 minute OT for non tournament games.

I think it's pretty clear that not many people are too thrilled with only 5 minutes for OT. You know it's bad when even the high school leagues in various states are making smarter decisions with their overtime format. College is supposed to be the next level and should be a step up from high school in every way or at very least on par with high school.

 

[joecct]

I think it's pretty clear that not many people are too thrilled with only 5 minutes for OT. You know it's bad when even the high school leagues in various states are making smarter decisions with their overtime format. College is supposed to be the next level and should be a step up from high school in every way or at very least on par with high school.

Blame the CCHA. They started it.

 

[NUProf]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

I understand this argument but really you have just played 60 minutes of mostly 5 on 5 Hockey and it’s tied. What’s the point of more of the same? Change it up and go to 4 on 4. It’s still “real hockey”. It happens all the time in regulation. Teams prepare for it. For overtime it’s exciting for fans and it’s more likely to get a winner. No one likes a tie.

If the game isn't going to be played to a conclusion, what is the point of overtime? Third period ends, call it a tie. If overtime is played it should be a format that is guaranteed to determine a winner.

 

[ne7minder]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

If the game isn't going to be played to a conclusion, what is the point of overtime? Third period ends, call it a tie. If overtime is played it should be a format that is guaranteed to determine a winner.

So, a coin toss? Maybe a punt, pass and kick competition? Swim suit judging? Anything so long as there is no tie? Nobody has ever explained what is so horrible about a tie that any solution is better than one.

 

[NUProf]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

So, a coin toss? Maybe a punt, pass and kick competition? Swim suit judging? Anything so long as there is no tie? Nobody has ever explained what is so horrible about a tie that any solution is better than one.

I'm saying if the goal is to break ties, have an OT procedure that guarantees a winner. If you are willing to accept ties as a valid outcome, there is no need for any overtime procedure. 3 periods in the books, both teams have the same number of goals, call it a tie. No need to waste time with an OT.

 

[joecct]

I'm saying if the goal is to break ties, have an OT procedure that guarantees a winner. If you are willing to accept ties as a valid outcome, there is no need for any overtime procedure. 3 periods in the books, both teams have the same number of goals, call it a tie. No need to waste time with an OT.

Soccer is, I think, the only other NCAA sport that accepts ties (after 2(?) sudden death overtimes?)

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

If the game isn't going to be played to a conclusion, what is the point of overtime? Third period ends, call it a tie. If overtime is played it should be a format that is guaranteed to determine a winner.

College hockey has always had overtime, although on occasion the overtime period was not played or multiple overtimes were played through the 1920s. However, starting around 1930 through the 1936-37 season overtime consisted of a 10-minute overtime and if still tied a second 10-minute overtime. Starting in 1937-38 overtime was reduced to a single 10-minute overtime and starting with the 1949-50 season a single 10-minute sudden death overtime period was played. Failure to played overtime was to result in a forfeit. These are NCAA Ice Hockey Rules and I have no idea what the NHL or other leagues used.

Sean

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

So, a coin toss? Maybe a punt, pass and kick competition? Swim suit judging? Anything so long as there is no tie? Nobody has ever explained what is so horrible about a tie that any solution is better than one.

Amen!

I'm saying if the goal is to break ties, have an OT procedure that guarantees a winner.

The idea is that teams are given the opportunity to break the tie, not a guarantee of that result.

If you are willing to accept ties as a valid outcome, there is no need for any overtime procedure.

Ideally, one team finds a way to win within the agreed upon rules. But if a regular season game is genuinely a standoff, so be it. Valid outcome as far as I'm concerned. Still, having the OT period adds some legitimacy to the tie, IMHO. We gave the offenses every opportunity, but it was still a standoff... etc. There may not be a "need" per se, but I believe it allows for better results -- whether the tie is broken or not.

3 periods in the books, both teams have the same number of goals, call it a tie. No need to waste time with an OT.

My above comments notwithstanding, I have some sympathy with this argument. If it was my decision to make, but the only two options on the table are the 5 Minute OT & No OT, I'd have to give that choice a lot of thought. The short five minute OT often feels like a dissatisfying compromise.

In the end, I'd probably opt for the 5 minutes. It provides a small deterrent to playing for the tie in regulation time. It offers "some" opportunity to break that tie for teams willing to go on the attack.

But I still say that 10 minutes would serve both of those objectives much better than 5 minutes.

 

[D2D]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

The idea is that teams are given the opportunity to break the tie, not a guarantee of that result.

Well said.

 

[shelfit]

College hockey has always had overtime, although on occasion the overtime period was not played or multiple overtimes were played through the 1920s. However, starting around 1930 through the 1936-37 season overtime consisted of a 10-minute overtime and if still tied a second 10-minute overtime. Starting in 1937-38 overtime was reduced to a single 10-minute overtime and starting with the 1949-50 season a single 10-minute sudden death overtime period was played. Failure to played overtime was to result in a forfeit. These are NCAA Ice Hockey Rules and I have no idea what the NHL or other leagues used.

Sean

Ah yes the good old days! How I miss them! Using magazines for shin pads, thick wool sweaters for jerseys, and so on. Now that was hockey! Lol.

 

[Still Eeyore]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

I think I've said this before, but in cricket, it's considered perfectly valid to play for a draw. (A draw and a tie are not the same thing in cricket*, and there's functionally no way to play for a tie except in extremely limited circumstances.) A pitch can be criticized as making it too easy to do so, by making it too hard to take wickets, but not the strategy itself. In many tests, there is a point where the team that bats first in the second innings has to decide whether they want to play for a win, and declare their innings over with enough overs left to take ten wickets, or keep batting and play for the draw. It's an interesting strategic question.

*A tie is when both sides complete their innings and have scored an identical number of runs; this is very rare. A draw, which can only happen in tests rather than one day cricket, is when the team that is ahead fails to take all ten wickets in its opponent's second innings. I was lucky enough to be following live the Edgbaston test of the 2005 Ashes series, when, after five full days of cricket, all four possible results (England victory; Australian victory; draw; and tie) were very real possibilities all the way to the final over. England won by 2 runs, 589-587, with three balls remaining, making it the second closest international test in history.

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

For teams that have only 2 goalies dressed for games that 19th skater becomes the other door opener instead of wasting an assistant coach to do it. Very valuable role to fill. Great rule change. Lol.

It was pointed out on eLynah that the 19th player will put a premium on having a player who can play both F and D because when a team loses a player due to a match penalty, a DQ, or injury during a game, they will still be able to skate 4 lines and 3 defense pairs.

 

[Still Eeyore]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

It was pointed out on eLynah that the 19th player will put a premium on having a player who can play both F and D because when a team loses a player due to a match penalty, a DQ, or injury during a game, they will still be able to skate 4 lines and 3 defense pairs.

In men's hockey, this is true. On the women's side, most teams aren't skating four lines or six defensemen to begin with.

 

[DDad16]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

The idea is that teams are given the opportunity to break the tie, not a guarantee of that result.

Don't the teams have 60 minutes already to do this?

I know you all don't care about my opinion, but you're going to get it anyway. I agree with the comments that if there is going to be an OT, it should be something that will "help" get a different result. Otherwise, why have OT? I don't particularly care for the 3-on-3 format, and neither do the players (the majority that I have spoken with). It's fun for the fans because of all of the opportunities that get created, but it's essentially a bag skate at the end of a game.

Maybe do something different with the points... If the game ends in a tie at the end of OT, neither team gets a point, instead of both teams getting a point. And, only the winner gets the points at the end of OT. Maybe that would push some more offensive play during the game, especially at the end and in OT.

Just one man's opinion!

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

In men's hockey, this is true. On the women's side, most teams aren't skating four lines or six defensemen to begin with.

Oops! I posted this on the wrong thread.

 

[NUProf]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

Don't the teams have 60 minutes already to do this?

I know you all don't care about my opinion, but you're going to get it anyway. I agree with the comments that if there is going to be an OT, it should be something that will "help" get a different result. Otherwise, why have OT? I don't particularly care for the 3-on-3 format, and neither do the players (the majority that I have spoken with). It's fun for the fans because of all of the opportunities that get created, but it's essentially a bag skate at the end of a game.

Maybe do something different with the points... If the game ends in a tie at the end of OT, neither team gets a point, instead of both teams getting a point. And, only the winner gets the points at the end of OT. Maybe that would push some more offensive play during the game, especially at the end and in OT.

Just one man's opinion!

You could do what they do in soccer (futbol). Award 3 points for a win, but only give each team 1 point for a tie. That would make a tie less attractive.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

You could do what they do in soccer (futbol). Award 3 points for a win, but only give each team 1 point for a tie. That would make a tie less attractive.

Essentially, that's what happens here in flyover country with the caveat of a shootout to determine who gets 2 pts instead of 1.

 

[In the blue]

Essentially, that's what happens here in flyover country with the caveat of a shootout to determine who gets 2 pts instead of 1.

Too few games in college. A shootout would skew the standings too much. Go to a 10 minute OT. Done

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA Hockey Rules Committee Announces Changes For 2018-19

Don't the teams have 60 minutes already to do this?

Indeed. That's one reason I conceded that simply stopping after 60 minutes was tempting.

I know you all don't care about my opinion, but you're going to get it anyway.

If you're directing this to me, you're going to have to refresh my memory as to what went wrong. Have we ever traded messages before? Regardless, I was perfectly happy to read your opinion -- even though I disagree in part.

I agree with the comments that if there is going to be an OT, it should be something that will "help" get a different result. Otherwise, why have OT?

Completely agree with "help." That's exactly why I favor the 10 Minute OT over the 5 Minute option. If you're saying 10 Minutes wouldn't help, or wouldn't help enough, I can respect that. My expectation is different; but this part of the conversation is mostly speculation. Predictions will inevitably differ.

I don't particularly care for the 3-on-3 format, and neither do the players (the majority that I have spoken with). It's fun for the fans because of all of the opportunities that get created, but it's essentially a bag skate at the end of a game...

Again, I'm scratching my head as to who this is directed to. Maybe I'd buy into 3x3 if it was the lesser of two evils. But in a yes/no decision, I'd reject 3x3 as an unwanted gimmick. Among other things, I appreciate the comment from the players; and it's pretty much what I'd expect the majority of players to say. Where's the disagreement?

The Fun Factor? I'd say observing 3x3 is "fun" for everyone -- from the rookie fan all the way to the head coaches. At the NHL level, I haven't noticed anyone on the benches turning away in disgust. But that isn't a sufficient reason to adopt the rule.


Standings points? Whole 'nother topic. Gotta leave something for other posters to respond to.