NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

[ARM]

Still, the women's game, perhaps maybe just at the "pro" level, won't advance in popularity until people can see the faces. You might not agree but it's true.

You think that the women's game's popularity is going to change perceptibly because people would be able to see the players' mouths and chins? I don't buy it. This sounds like another demographic that isn't going to attend anyway, because those fans will still be more likely to attend volleyball, basketball, or gymnastics instead if what they want to see is the face of a female athlete. As a whole, women and men are different when it comes to the importance they place on how they look -- in street clothes, not on the ice. That is why department stores have numerous cosmetic counters selling products with price tags into the hundreds. What is the male equivalent? A can of shaving cream that guys aren't about to spend ten bucks on, even if it is the only thing they put on their face in the morning. A few scars might add "character" to a guy's mug, but a woman is less likely to want her face rearranged. Fans will still buy tickets to watch men play without face shields, even though some of them would look better with tinted shields where you can't see their faces at all.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I agree that its the players who should decide this question - if it was ever really asked- which is unlikely. My bet is that those players who grew up playing boys' hockey into the checking levels would be in favor of checking/more contact and the majority of those who played mainly girls hockey would choose the current rules. Either way, its a great debate. What I find disturbing, and it was alluded to earlier, is that the default for female sports is the "safer" or no contact form of the sport. If its girl on girl or woman on woman, why can't they play by the same rules without modification? I understand the argument that some make that they are in fact "different sports" but they are not really, they are modifications of the original to allow for females to play. Girls lacrosse is a complete joke. Its unwatchable. My hockey playing D plays girls lacrosse and says its terrible. Why can't they put the pads on and play more like the boys? I think this day in age they should allow the women to play by the real rules without modification, or at least offer both options. Why can't their be a parallel girls/women's leagues that allow checking or a girls lax league where they wear the pads and whack the crap out of each other?

men and women don't play by the same rules in the real world, why do you expect them to play by the same rules in sport?

 

[ExHockeyguy]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Yes, it is, and the data suggests very strongly that you are wrong. Studies consistently show that full face masks drastically reduce the incidence facial injuries, including those to the mouth and jaw, while having little or no effect on injuries to the other parts of the body.

http://bjsportmed.com/content/36/6/410.full#sec-13
https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/104575/hockey1.pdf

There are plenty of others.

I haven't read the second one you've listed there, but a quick skimming of the first article showed that severe spinal injuries "increased dramatically" at about the same time full facemasks were fully implemented across most countries; as well as an increase in stick penalties and checking-from-behind. Concussions went up, too. Hmmm. Why? People get fearless when they're wearing armor; and coaches are encouraging them to take more chances instead of playing the game. The more you protect someone (at least in this sport) the more violent it will become. So at least in regards to the first article, I'd say you missed the target.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I haven't read the second one you've listed there, but a quick skimming of the first article showed that severe spinal injuries "increased dramatically" at about the same time full facemasks were fully implemented across most countries; as well as an increase in stick penalties and checking-from-behind. Concussions went up, too. Hmmm. Why? People get fearless when they're wearing armor; and coaches are encouraging them to take more chances instead of playing the game. The more you protect someone (at least in this sport) the more violent it will become. So at least in regards to the first article, I'd say you missed the target.

Yes, that's why you have controlled populations, so you can separate out what is due to the visor and what isn't. And what it found is that severe injuries went up in both leagues that switched to face masks and in leagues that didn't. So, no, you have not interpreted it properly.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Shot blocking has been an effective tactic - and just plain good defense - since the game began. There's a right way and wrong way to do it. Throwing yourself face first at anything is usually a bad idea; same with checking. Armor begets reckless play. "Back in the day" sticks were much lower.

As an abstract principle, yes: successfully blocking a shot has always been "commended." But look at some old video from the 70's or 80's. It's a night and day difference. I'm really surprised that anyone would disagree with that.

And of course nobody tries to block a shot face first, then or now. But current techniques do expose the facial area (fully masked or otherwise) to a greater risk of contact.

You are all over exaggerating the incident of face injuries (loss of vision? Really? Studies have shown more loss of peripheral vision with facemasks - and thus more shoulder/upper body injuries. It's a statistical thing. But if you don't want to take the risk, I get it.

We appear to be using the word vision two different ways here. So before I decide if I'm offended by your comment, let me try to clarify.

If we're talking about seeing the ice in a competitive sense, any form of face protection compromises peripheral vision. Anyone who's played in a rec league knows that. And the faster the game, the more relevant the issue. If that's 100% of what you're saying, fine.

But if you're trivializing eye injuries, you're wrong to do so. Yes, a 3/4 shield would prevent the vast majority of eye injuries. But let's be honest. The traditionalist position is that there should be no faceshield, period. While it's certainly possible to sincerely favor the partial shield as your first choice, the traditionalist position is inevitably part of the conversation. The full facial area is "in play" in this debate.

A specific case: A high school friend/teammate of mine took an unintentional stray stick to the eye at a practice. The result? A permanent partial loss of vision in that eye. I'm old enough that none of the guys my age wore face shields until after we were out of high school; there simply wasn't a choice at the time. A full, 3/4 or 1/2 shield presumably would have prevented the injury. A visor might have been enough. Or, maybe the stick gets up under the visor. But in any event, one injury of this nature is one too many. No exaggeration; it's a consequence that lasts a lifetime. Willfully returning that risk to high school or college hockey is a heartbreaking thought to me.

If the 3/4 shield is the final outcome of this debate, obviously that's much less heartbreaking than the traditionalist position. But "less bad" doesn't exactly get me excited about supporting a change.

 

[ExHockeyguy]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

As an abstract principle, yes: successfully blocking a shot has always been "commended." But look at some old video from the 70's or 80's. It's a night and day difference. I'm really surprised that anyone would disagree with that.

And of course nobody tries to block a shot face first, then or now. But current techniques do expose the facial area (fully masked or otherwise) to a greater risk of contact.

We appear to be using the word vision two different ways here. So before I decide if I'm offended by your comment, let me try to clarify.

If we're talking about seeing the ice in a competitive sense, any form of face protection compromises peripheral vision. Anyone who's played in a rec league knows that. And the faster the game, the more relevant the issue. If that's 100% of what you're saying, fine.

But if you're trivializing eye injuries, you're wrong to do so. Yes, a 3/4 shield would prevent the vast majority of eye injuries. But let's be honest. The traditionalist position is that there should be no faceshield, period. While it's certainly possible to sincerely favor the partial shield as your first choice, the traditionalist position is inevitably part of the conversation. The full facial area is "in play" in this debate.

A specific case: A high school friend/teammate of mine took an unintentional stray stick to the eye at a practice. The result? A permanent partial loss of vision in that eye. I'm old enough that none of the guys my age wore face shields until after we were out of high school; there simply wasn't a choice at the time. A full, 3/4 or 1/2 shield presumably would have prevented the injury. A visor might have been enough. Or, maybe the stick gets up under the visor. But in any event, one injury of this nature is one too many. No exaggeration; it's a consequence that lasts a lifetime. Willfully returning that risk to high school or college hockey is a heartbreaking thought to me.

If the 3/4 shield is the final outcome of this debate, obviously that's much less heartbreaking than the traditionalist position. But "less bad" doesn't exactly get me excited about supporting a change.

Not wishing to trivialize anything. I'm just saying that since we've ramped up the armor these kids wear, the game has become more violent (please, please, please don't think I said "violence" in the game; violent as in the play is more reckless, the hits are harder and more suspect (hit from behind, blows to the head & neck, sticks higher, etc.) and less a game of skill and grace. That's the whole premise of my argument. I'm sorry that people get hurt playing any sport. And every sport has that same issue - injuries all the way from scratches to paralyzed. All I'm saying is that sometimes the best intentions don't produce the best results. My personal opinion is that at the higher levels of the game (Jr., college and pro), we would be better served with a half-shield.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Not wishing to trivialize anything. I'm just saying that since we've ramped up the armor these kids wear, the game has become more violent (please, please, please don't think I said "violence" in the game; violent as in the play is more reckless, the hits are harder and more suspect (hit from behind, blows to the head & neck, sticks higher, etc.) and less a game of skill and grace. That's the whole premise of my argument. I'm sorry that people get hurt playing any sport. And every sport has that same issue - injuries all the way from scratches to paralyzed. All I'm saying is that sometimes the best intentions don't produce the best results. My personal opinion is that at the higher levels of the game (Jr., college and pro), we would be better served with a half-shield.

And when it happens in every league no matter what choices they make on equipment mandates, the data simply does not support your hypothesis as to the cause.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

As an abstract principle, yes: successfully blocking a shot has always been "commended." But look at some old video from the 70's or 80's. It's a night and day difference. I'm really surprised that anyone would disagree with that.

And of course nobody tries to block a shot face first, then or now. But current techniques do expose the facial area (fully masked or otherwise) to a greater risk of contact.

Denis Potvin addressed this very subject on NHL Network Radio today. (XM Channel 211) Potvin played in the NHL from 1973-1988. A couple of Potvin's points:

1. Back in his day, teams tended to have a couple of shot blocking specialists, generally on the D Corps. Today, all 5 skaters on the ice are expected to block shots, forwards and 'D' alike.

2. Back in his day, players rarely left their feet to attempt a block. Perhaps they'd go down on one knee, depending on the situation. But even if so, they could still pop up quickly to make another play, join a counter-attack, etc. That took priority over the block. Now, players are flopping around all over the place, doing whatever it takes to block the puck as a first priority.

There was more to the interview, but you get the idea.

Not wishing to trivialize anything. I'm just saying that since we've ramped up the armor these kids wear, the game has become more violent (please, please, please don't think I said "violence" in the game; violent as in the play is more reckless, the hits are harder and more suspect (hit from behind, blows to the head & neck, sticks higher, etc.) and less a game of skill and grace. That's the whole premise of my argument.

True enough. But simply removing part of the face shield won't be enough to turn back the clock. The extra protection goes from head to toe. Players will still feel pretty invincible.

If you're old enough to have some '70s gear around, show it to a group of kids currently playing and gauge the reaction. I did this with a pair of old gloves a few years back. I got some giggles, along with the question: How could anyone play hockey wearing those mittens? I smiled too. On at least one level, the kid was absolutely right: there's a huge difference between the old and new gear.

I'm sorry that people get hurt playing any sport. And every sport has that same issue - injuries all the way from scratches to paralyzed.

Fair enough; I'm not offended.

All I'm saying is that sometimes the best intentions don't produce the best results.

Well put.

My personal opinion is that at the higher levels of the game (Jr., college and pro), we would be better served with a half-shield.

Apologies for ripping off your prose, but here goes. If we go to the 1/2 shield at the college level, my belief is that while the change would be made with the best intentions, it wouldn't produce the best results.

 

[CrazyDave]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I'm sure this is getting attention in the Men's forum as well. Anyway, Todd Milewski had an article on the main USCHO page...

http://www.uscho.com/from-the-press-box/2014/06/01/should-responsibility-for-issuing-suspensions-move-from-referees-to-conferences/

 

[CrazyDave]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Update from the NCAA: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations

Follow-up story on main USCHO page: NCAA rules committee keeps status quo on overtime, face shields and discipline

 

[brookyone]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

http://www.uscho.com/2014/07/22/rules-changes-for-2014-15-season-approved-by-ncaa-oversight-panel/

 

[mar7967]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

This is interesting to me: Experimental women’s rule: The panel also approved an experimental rule in women’s ice hockey only to allow the puck to be played legally with a high stick.

With the ongoing shield vs visor debate (at least on the men's side), you would think they wouldn't want to encourage high sticks. Interesting to see how this will play out

 

[CrossCheck]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

This is interesting to me: Experimental women’s rule: The panel also approved an experimental rule in women’s ice hockey only to allow the puck to be played legally with a high stick.

With the ongoing shield vs visor debate (at least on the men's side), you would think they wouldn't want to encourage high sticks. Interesting to see how this will play out

What possible benefit is to be gained by allowing women to skate around with their sticks at head-level whacking at pucks?

Sometimes you just wonder....What are these NC2A folks smoking?

 

[mar7967]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

What possible benefit is to be gained by allowing women to skate around with their sticks at head-level whacking at pucks?

Sometimes you just wonder....What are these NC2A folks smoking?

less stoppages? not worth it in my opinion

 

[D2D]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

What possible benefit is to be gained by allowing women to skate around with their sticks at head-level whacking at pucks?

Sometimes you just wonder....What are these NC2A folks smoking?

Assuming this rule modification applies all over the ice I see the biggest impact in games coming in the form of shots from the point. Defensemen taking head-high shots will be able to pick up a few more assists over the course of the year, and the goaltenders' job will be that much tougher as they face some rather radical deflections.

 

[Chirp]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Experimental women’s rule: The panel also approved an experimental rule in women’s ice hockey only to allow the puck to be played legally with a high stick.

Falls under the category of, you've got to be kidding me!

 

[CrazyDave]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

"Experimental" means that it will only be applied in exhibition games. Even so, IIRC, the last rule that was "experimental" didn't survive the scrutiny over the limited number of said exhibition games and was dropped in the next cycle.

 

[ARM]

What possible benefit is to be gained by allowing women to skate around with their sticks at head-level whacking at pucks?

Sometimes you just wonder....What are these NC2A folks smoking?

I don't like the proposal either; in trying to think what may have been behind it, all I could come up with was that at women's games there is very little useful video evidence to determine if a puck was played with a high stick before winding up in the goal. This could be a way to make that issue go away, but IMO, at too great of a risk.

 

[puckskillz]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Just had a conversation with a couple of players. They have no clue why they would adjust the high stick rule, even around the net. Just more whacks on the head. However they are going to start incorporating a lacrosse carry in their drills.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

This is interesting to me: Experimental women’s rule: The panel also approved an experimental rule in women’s ice hockey only to allow the puck to be played legally with a high stick.

With the ongoing shield vs visor debate (at least on the men's side), you would think they wouldn't want to encourage high sticks. Interesting to see how this will play out

Just when you thought you've heard everything...

OK, we should wait for the official explanation before passing final judgment. But it's very difficult for me to imagine a persuasive argument in support of such a rule. Hearing this news made me feel like I went into a deep sleep and woke up on April Fools' Day.

I don't like the proposal either; in trying to think what may have been behind it, all I could come up with was that at women's games there is very little useful video evidence to determine if a puck was played with a high stick before winding up in the goal. This could be a way to make that issue go away, but IMO, at too great of a risk.

Insightful thought. Also agree with your conclusion.

If inadequate video is really the issue, why not just make the ref's on-ice call non-reviewable? Another alternative would be to require the familiar "indisputable video evidence" in order to overturn a goal that was awarded live. Any reasonable doubt? The goal stands.

Neither of those approaches is perfect. But IMHO either of them would be better than declaring an open season for high sticking.