USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Potential rule changes coming
- Thread starter Hammer
- Start date
Re: Potential rule changes coming
Or you could look at it as the offending team never serves a penalty if the other teams scores on the delayed call. The offending team still has five skaters and a goaltender. They have never been shorthanded for the penalty they committed...
Or you could look at it as the offending team never serves a penalty if the other teams scores on the delayed call. The offending team still has five skaters and a goaltender. They have never been shorthanded for the penalty they committed...
Re: Potential rule changes coming
If the offended team gets their goalie off the ice, the offending team is playing with one fewer player than their opposition. If there is a goal before the goalie is replaced by the extra skater, you are right. I've seen cases where teams do get a good amount of time to play with the EA after a delayed penalty. To me, that's like tacking on an unknown amount of extra time onto the penalty.
If the offended team gets their goalie off the ice, the offending team is playing with one fewer player than their opposition. If there is a goal before the goalie is replaced by the extra skater, you are right. I've seen cases where teams do get a good amount of time to play with the EA after a delayed penalty. To me, that's like tacking on an unknown amount of extra time onto the penalty.
hockeyfan77
Registered User
Re: Potential rule changes coming
The offending team is not playing with one fewer player, they are playing with one fewer skater: Big Difference...I don't mind the rule, but I would rather have it stay the same...
The shorthanded icing rule is the change that is by far the stupidest.
Agree 100 percent with this...Let's not run the game we all love...
The offending team is not playing with one fewer player, they are playing with one fewer skater: Big Difference...I don't mind the rule, but I would rather have it stay the same...
The shorthanded icing rule is the change that is by far the stupidest.
Agree 100 percent with this...Let's not run the game we all love...
Re: Potential rule changes coming
I don't think many people would disagree with this. The suggestion that minor penalties be served out is one that makes more sense for juicing up the power play,
I don't think many people would disagree with this. The suggestion that minor penalties be served out is one that makes more sense for juicing up the power play,
CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
Nate LePage, Siena '13
Re: Potential rule changes coming
Per USCHO's newest report:
NCAA Pulls Shorthanded Icing Proposal
So, moving this into the "experimental" category, that makes our proposed rule changes (to be decided upon July 29th) as this:
Proposed for full implementation:
-Stopping play when video review is imminent
-Allowing use of a Half Shield (Men only)
-Enforcing a penalty even if a goal is scored during "delayed call"
-Major and Game Misconduct/DQ for targeting head or neck area with a hit
-No change of players for team that shoots puck directly out of play from defensive zone
-Faceoff stays in offensive zone when shot goes off cage and out of play
-Require handpasses to be deliberately directed or create a gained advantage
-<strike>Shorthanded team not allowed to ice the puck</strike>
-Remove "obtainable pass" rule
-Goalkeepers change ends before each overtime period
-Goal awarded when a player is fouled during a breakaway with an empty net
-Team may use Timeout to change players when otherwise not allowed to change
-Home team waits on bench after each period if common exit is used. If bench exit is available, players are not to enter the ice.
-When there is a stalemate (both teams refuse to play the puck), official stops play and administers the rule that caused stoppage.
-Allowing commercial logos behind goal line and in offensive zone near blue line
-Change recommended net specifications to match those of NHL
-Jersey number must contrast overall jersey color
-DQs carry over to following season if eligibility remains
-Officially state goaltender interference rule that was previously only implied
Experimental (for use in exhibition games):
-Shorthanded not allowed to ice the puck
-Hand passes legal in all zones, at all times, deliberate or not
-Offending team must possess puck outside of defensive zone to stop play in delayed call situation
- Four-on-Four overtime
Future Considerations:
- high-sticking the puck allowed when it does not put another player at risk.
-Teams serve full 2:00 regardless of Powerplay Goals against.
Per USCHO's newest report:
NCAA Pulls Shorthanded Icing Proposal
So, moving this into the "experimental" category, that makes our proposed rule changes (to be decided upon July 29th) as this:
Proposed for full implementation:
-Stopping play when video review is imminent
-Allowing use of a Half Shield (Men only)
-Enforcing a penalty even if a goal is scored during "delayed call"
-Major and Game Misconduct/DQ for targeting head or neck area with a hit
-No change of players for team that shoots puck directly out of play from defensive zone
-Faceoff stays in offensive zone when shot goes off cage and out of play
-Require handpasses to be deliberately directed or create a gained advantage
-<strike>Shorthanded team not allowed to ice the puck</strike>
-Remove "obtainable pass" rule
-Goalkeepers change ends before each overtime period
-Goal awarded when a player is fouled during a breakaway with an empty net
-Team may use Timeout to change players when otherwise not allowed to change
-Home team waits on bench after each period if common exit is used. If bench exit is available, players are not to enter the ice.
-When there is a stalemate (both teams refuse to play the puck), official stops play and administers the rule that caused stoppage.
-Allowing commercial logos behind goal line and in offensive zone near blue line
-Change recommended net specifications to match those of NHL
-Jersey number must contrast overall jersey color
-DQs carry over to following season if eligibility remains
-Officially state goaltender interference rule that was previously only implied
Experimental (for use in exhibition games):
-Shorthanded not allowed to ice the puck
-Hand passes legal in all zones, at all times, deliberate or not
-Offending team must possess puck outside of defensive zone to stop play in delayed call situation
- Four-on-Four overtime
Future Considerations:
- high-sticking the puck allowed when it does not put another player at risk.
-Teams serve full 2:00 regardless of Powerplay Goals against.
norm1909
Larry Normandin
Re: Potential rule changes coming
DIVISION III - GOVERNANCE ISSUES BOOKLET available here for your reading (171 pages, including "Show me the money") pleasure (or perhaps displeasure).
Also:
Playing Rules Oversight Panel Duties & Responsibilities
DIVISION III - GOVERNANCE ISSUES BOOKLET available here for your reading (171 pages, including "Show me the money") pleasure (or perhaps displeasure).
Also:
Playing Rules Oversight Panel Duties & Responsibilities
MountieBoyOz
Eater of Worlds
Re: Potential rule changes coming
Thank goodness Shorthanded Icing was allowed to stay. It would've been beyond idiotic for that rule to get through.
Thank goodness Shorthanded Icing was allowed to stay. It would've been beyond idiotic for that rule to get through.
MW4Bucky&SNC
Done with Winter
Re: Potential rule changes coming
Agreed Mountie. That would have been a horrible change.
Agreed Mountie. That would have been a horrible change.
cooperalls
Registered User
Re: Potential rule changes coming
Here is a comment from off of the Eastern DIII where do we go from here thread.
"The one thing I can't get is that the NCAA Div. III Rules Committee why are the wasting time messing with the game when they should be looking to expand the tournament field to more teams and changing current rules or how about changing the rules to allow DII schools which basically have DIII hockey teams to play and compete and have almost all or the same benefits that all DIII members have. Why not grow the sport. There was a time when D1, D2, and D3 all played against each other. If DIII and DII schools can move up in a sport then it should be allowed as the school abides by the rules of DIII in that sport should be able to compete at that level so long as the majority of schools wants them in their conference. Rules committee uh lets see halfies or cages. How about the DECLINE of COLLEGE ICE HOCKEY IN GENERAL!!!!!! DO SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR A CHANGE RATHER THAN THINK ABOUT DOING SOMETHING TO CHANGE HOW PEOPLE PLAY THE GAME THAT IS AN INSULT TO ALL THE PLAYERS AND ALUMNI THAT PLAYED 10,20,30, 40 YEARS AGO! That's like saying that hockey in the 80's sucked that is why Gretzky was so good.
The only people that I see having a problem with the DII"s playing DIII are the tightwads that got rid of UM Crookston in the West all because if the DII's were allowed to play it would give the East a 2 -1 ratio in bids to the NCAA. Get over it time to expand the sport there are varsity teams in Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, and PA that are fully funded programs that the ECAC and those schools probably know nothing about".
It's an interesting idea of why college hockey programs are disappearing and nothing is being done to help but yet more and more rule changes continue on to make the game slower and crappier. Are these changes really needed and when you put together a rules committee they obviously are going to feel obligated to change something. What if the rules committee said we feel that there is nothing worth changing?
Here is a comment from off of the Eastern DIII where do we go from here thread.
"The one thing I can't get is that the NCAA Div. III Rules Committee why are the wasting time messing with the game when they should be looking to expand the tournament field to more teams and changing current rules or how about changing the rules to allow DII schools which basically have DIII hockey teams to play and compete and have almost all or the same benefits that all DIII members have. Why not grow the sport. There was a time when D1, D2, and D3 all played against each other. If DIII and DII schools can move up in a sport then it should be allowed as the school abides by the rules of DIII in that sport should be able to compete at that level so long as the majority of schools wants them in their conference. Rules committee uh lets see halfies or cages. How about the DECLINE of COLLEGE ICE HOCKEY IN GENERAL!!!!!! DO SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR A CHANGE RATHER THAN THINK ABOUT DOING SOMETHING TO CHANGE HOW PEOPLE PLAY THE GAME THAT IS AN INSULT TO ALL THE PLAYERS AND ALUMNI THAT PLAYED 10,20,30, 40 YEARS AGO! That's like saying that hockey in the 80's sucked that is why Gretzky was so good.
The only people that I see having a problem with the DII"s playing DIII are the tightwads that got rid of UM Crookston in the West all because if the DII's were allowed to play it would give the East a 2 -1 ratio in bids to the NCAA. Get over it time to expand the sport there are varsity teams in Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, and PA that are fully funded programs that the ECAC and those schools probably know nothing about".
It's an interesting idea of why college hockey programs are disappearing and nothing is being done to help but yet more and more rule changes continue on to make the game slower and crappier. Are these changes really needed and when you put together a rules committee they obviously are going to feel obligated to change something. What if the rules committee said we feel that there is nothing worth changing?
Re: Potential rule changes coming
Cooperalls
Yes, back in the day, D-I and D-II/III (depending on the year) played each other. That was before the NCAA decreed that only games against schools playing in your classification counted towards tournament selection BUT all games (minus the exceptions) counted towards your max game count.
D-I is D-I and we're not going to change the way they operate. BUT, if some D-III college president(s), or a multisport D-III conference put forward legislation for a national collegiate championship for D-II and D-III's and the NE10 puts forward legislation to reduce the allowed scholarships for D-II men's ice hockey to 0, then we have a solution.
Once we get that, then we can grow the game with some sanity.
(back to the rules changes thread)
Does anyone think the 1/2 shields is going to pass and if it does, will it reduce the number of head shots???
Cooperalls
Yes, back in the day, D-I and D-II/III (depending on the year) played each other. That was before the NCAA decreed that only games against schools playing in your classification counted towards tournament selection BUT all games (minus the exceptions) counted towards your max game count.
D-I is D-I and we're not going to change the way they operate. BUT, if some D-III college president(s), or a multisport D-III conference put forward legislation for a national collegiate championship for D-II and D-III's and the NE10 puts forward legislation to reduce the allowed scholarships for D-II men's ice hockey to 0, then we have a solution.
Once we get that, then we can grow the game with some sanity.
(back to the rules changes thread)
Does anyone think the 1/2 shields is going to pass and if it does, will it reduce the number of head shots???
hockeyfan77
Registered User
Re: Potential rule changes coming
I don't know but if it does the head shots won't be reduced: Look at the NHL, AHL: Both league's are looking to reduce head shots...There is very little respect from the players and until that changes there will always be head shots...
I don't know but if it does the head shots won't be reduced: Look at the NHL, AHL: Both league's are looking to reduce head shots...There is very little respect from the players and until that changes there will always be head shots...
CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
Nate LePage, Siena '13
Re: Potential rule changes coming
New Article by Tim Costello about the half-shield debate.
It was titled "a parent's perspective", but as I read it I realized it was about one particular athlete, and Mr. Costello's personal perspective on it. Didn't make much sense to me, until the acknowledgements at the very end.
I don't think he leaves much doubt that he is definitely in support of the proposed half-shield change.
New Article by Tim Costello about the half-shield debate.
It was titled "a parent's perspective", but as I read it I realized it was about one particular athlete, and Mr. Costello's personal perspective on it. Didn't make much sense to me, until the acknowledgements at the very end.
I don't think he leaves much doubt that he is definitely in support of the proposed half-shield change.
norm1909
Larry Normandin
Re: Potential rule changes coming
A good article to support either: a) Combination Hockey Mask, b) FULL Shield (fog & all) or c) stay with the current full facemasks. Claiming half-shields make players safer because it reduces "the air of invincibility and lack of respect for the head", sounds like an argument against seat belts and air bags - if they took seat belts and air bags out of cars, people would be more scared of accidents so everyone would drive safer. Heck, while they are at it, they might as well eliminate speed limits, then joggers and cyclists would be more careful and hence there would be fewer injuries.
A good article to support either: a) Combination Hockey Mask, b) FULL Shield (fog & all) or c) stay with the current full facemasks. Claiming half-shields make players safer because it reduces "the air of invincibility and lack of respect for the head", sounds like an argument against seat belts and air bags - if they took seat belts and air bags out of cars, people would be more scared of accidents so everyone would drive safer. Heck, while they are at it, they might as well eliminate speed limits, then joggers and cyclists would be more careful and hence there would be fewer injuries.
Last edited:
Re: Potential rule changes coming
Good analogies....you put into words the sentiment I was trying to articulate!
Good analogies....you put into words the sentiment I was trying to articulate!
Re: Potential rule changes coming
Back in the day when I played hockey at Clarkson (intramurals), nobody and I mean NOBODY, no matter how lowly skilled you were (me!), carried the stick high or went head hunting. This was before face protection (73-78).
The most serious injuries that I can remember watching the varsity and JV were players who got hit in the mouth or facw with deflected pucks. In the former it was milkshakes for a while, in the latter it was stiches, sometimes a lot of stiches. I think I saw one accidental stick that cut someone and the player got tossed (note I also say Bobby Miller drill one of our guys from behind and get tossed, too. The refs did their job way back when).
When the ECAC put in face cages, the sticks went up and the game went to heck in a head basket. Once the NCAA followed suit, the rest was history. We now have checks from behind, shots to the snoot, increased concussions, and an overall disrespect for yoour opponent.
It's been about 30 years of face protection. The bad habits over a generation cannot be wiped out by a simple application of a face shield instead of a full cage. It will take 10+ years for the mites to get taught right and filter through the system to reclaim respect.
Face shields are nice, convenient, and a feel happy solution. But it is not the solution that will work. Neither will increased penalties. We need education starting at the lowest levels and constant enforcement that head shots are not to be tolerated. But if every head shot is penalized with the death penalty (so to speak), won't the refs be reluctant to call them? How about a double minor to start and then work your way up to a 5 + game/dq depending on the force / intent / injury?????????
Back in the day when I played hockey at Clarkson (intramurals), nobody and I mean NOBODY, no matter how lowly skilled you were (me!), carried the stick high or went head hunting. This was before face protection (73-78).
The most serious injuries that I can remember watching the varsity and JV were players who got hit in the mouth or facw with deflected pucks. In the former it was milkshakes for a while, in the latter it was stiches, sometimes a lot of stiches. I think I saw one accidental stick that cut someone and the player got tossed (note I also say Bobby Miller drill one of our guys from behind and get tossed, too. The refs did their job way back when).
When the ECAC put in face cages, the sticks went up and the game went to heck in a head basket. Once the NCAA followed suit, the rest was history. We now have checks from behind, shots to the snoot, increased concussions, and an overall disrespect for yoour opponent.
It's been about 30 years of face protection. The bad habits over a generation cannot be wiped out by a simple application of a face shield instead of a full cage. It will take 10+ years for the mites to get taught right and filter through the system to reclaim respect.
Face shields are nice, convenient, and a feel happy solution. But it is not the solution that will work. Neither will increased penalties. We need education starting at the lowest levels and constant enforcement that head shots are not to be tolerated. But if every head shot is penalized with the death penalty (so to speak), won't the refs be reluctant to call them? How about a double minor to start and then work your way up to a 5 + game/dq depending on the force / intent / injury?????????
CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
Nate LePage, Siena '13
Re: Potential rule changes coming
Just a reminder:
The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel is, at last check, scheduled for a conference call to discuss the proposed rule changes (including half-shields) for Ice Hockey on Thursday, July 29th. We may have an answer regarding these rules changes by the end of the week.
Just a reminder:
The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel is, at last check, scheduled for a conference call to discuss the proposed rule changes (including half-shields) for Ice Hockey on Thursday, July 29th. We may have an answer regarding these rules changes by the end of the week.
CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
Nate LePage, Siena '13
Re: Potential rule changes coming
And now we wait for anything to be announced...
And now we wait for anything to be announced...