Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

[NUProf]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

I hope you meant shot clock, otherwise, I think it it a little fowl - or some might think offensive.

Maybe he meant a shuttlecock although using that instead of a ball might slow the game down quite a bit. Really controlling that item might make the game noisier - lots of rackets.

 

[bayliner2555]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

Delayed penalty administration. In this proposal, when a penalty is called on a team in its defensive zone, the offending team must clear the puck out of its defensive zone before play is stopped.
___________________________________________________________________

I can picture a situation where the offending team could use the delay to their advantage. If they could delay the start of the penalty they could run out the clock without ever having the penalty assessed. If game time remaining was less than the length of the penalty they could run out the clock with no one in the box as long as they never left the defensive zone. A one goal lead could be preserved with no penalty assessed. Multiple offenses could take place with no stoppage of play.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

Delayed penalty administration. In this proposal, when a penalty is called on a team in its defensive zone, the offending team must clear the puck out of its defensive zone before play is stopped.
___________________________________________________________________

I can picture a situation where the offending team could use the delay to their advantage. If they could delay the start of the penalty they could run out the clock without ever having the penalty assessed. If game time remaining was less than the length of the penalty they could run out the clock with no one in the box as long as they never left the defensive zone. A one goal lead could be preserved with no penalty assessed. Multiple offenses could take place with no stoppage of play.

Though the offensive team would still have an extra attacker.

 

[joecct]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

Lacrosse would be ten times better with a shot cock! I hate watching the ball being thrown around the goal for two minutes with no/little intent to go on the offensive!

Lacrosse on ice, with hitting allowed might be cool!

I'd do 2 things in lax:
(a) Only 3 long poles
(b) 30 second shot clock one the ball crosses midfield. If the clock expires before a shot at net, then it is keep it in.
If that still does not increase scoring, then go to the MLL 60 second clock and the 2 point line.

Back to hockey - what about the 2 ref, 1 line system in D-III? Does anyone like it? If not, would you rather see the 2 Ref/2 Line or 1 Ref/ 2 AR's?

Also on the delayed penalty call -- does that mean I have to have posession in the neutral zone, or can I just fire it out of there, and once the puck crosses the blue line, play is stopped?

 

[bayliner2555]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

Though the defending team would still have an extra attacker.

There would not be an extra attacker if the clock remains running following the offense. If they don't leave the defensive zone the clock would not stop and the offending player would never go to the box.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

There would not be an extra attacker if the clock remains running following the offense. If they don't leave the defensive zone the clock would not stop and the offending player would never go to the box.

Odd, I corrected my post at 9:25, yet you quoted the original text at 9:28 (I'm not implying you editted the text, rather there must be a system delay in posting).

Since the proposed rule change is only for teams committing a penalty in their defensive zone, as soon as the offensive team's goalie left the ice, they could add the extra attacker, was my point.

 

[bayliner2555]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

Odd, I corrected my post at 9:25, yet you quoted the original text at 9:28 (I'm not implying you editted the text, rather there must be a system delay in posting).

Since the proposed rule change is only for teams committing a penalty in their defensive zone, as soon as the offensive team's goalie left the ice, they could add the extra attacker, was my point.

I agree with that but it would not be a power play like it would be under the current rules with the clock stopping at the point of infraction.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

I agree with that but it would not be a power play like it would be under the current rules with the clock stopping at the point of infraction.

True, but as the offensive team, I'd preferring having the puck stay in the defensive zone with the extra attacker versus taking my chances with a face off, particularly if I were down and time was running out - I'd likely pull my goalie for the extra attacker, except now, I wouldn't have to worry about loosing another point.

 

[bayliner2555]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

True, but as the offensive team, I'd preferring having the puck stay in the defensive zone with the extra attacker versus taking my chances with a face off, particularly if I were down and time was running out - I'd likely pull my goalie for the extra attacker, except now, I wouldn't have to worry about loosing another point.

I was playing the role of the devil's advocate and trying to find a flaw in the proposed revision of the rule.

 

[WIT SID]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

Current NCAA Mens and Womens Ice Hockey Rules Committee - here.

That's actually an old committee roster:

http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=IHRULES

 

[norm1909]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

That's actually an old committee roster:

http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=IHRULES

Thanks, I corrected my post, though the new link lists Finlandia University is an independent - I missed when they left the MCHA

 

[WIT SID]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

Thanks, I corrected my post, though the new link lists Finlandia University is an independent - I missed when they left the MCHA

I believe it's based on the school's all-sports conference. As an example, I'm on it and it lists my affiliation as The Commonwealth Coast Conference, even though we play in the ECAC Northeast for ice hockey.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

I believe it's based on the school's all-sports conference. As an example, I'm on it and it lists my affiliation as The Commonwealth Coast Conference, even though we play in the ECAC Northeast for ice hockey.

I'm sure that's it, but the "Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules Committee", should list the "Conference" they play "hockey" in, alas, the NCAA - it was it is (or isn't)

 

[joecct]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

That's actually an old committee roster:

http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=IHRULES

And to echo what Bill has said, look @ the D-III women -- both St. Lawrence and Union are listed as D-III (Liberty League) even though both programs play in the Division 1 ECAC.

So it is not where you play, but where you are classified in the grand NCAA scheme of things.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

•Icing the puck during shorthanded situations. The committee is considering implementing a rule change that would not allow shorthanded teams to ice the puck.

This was the rule in the WHA. I loved it. (Though I know people who play the sport hated it.)

I have never understood from the time I started watching hockey to today why a team who committed a penalty is given an advantage (icing) that they don't have when skating even.

If you break the rules, you should be punished, not being given something in return for your punishment.

As for banning going down to block a shot, the only thing I can think is the reason behind it is to prevent injuries. And the NCAA across all sports is making a concerted effort to cut down on injuries.

 

[NUProf]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

This was the rule in the WHA. I loved it. (Though I know people who play the sport hated it.)

Back when International hockey was "amateur" in the 60s and 70s this was also the rule in amateur international hockey. I remember it being in effect in the Squaw Valley Olympics. (They also split the third period in amateur play in those days)

I think it gives too much advantage to team on the PP. With the no change rule now in effect, this rule really would really give a huge advantage to the offense, because the defense can't just throw the puck down the ice to get a change the way they can now. When this was in force under the old icing rule, at least they could take an icing to relieve the pressure and get new penalty killers on the ice.

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

This was the rule in the WHA. I loved it. (Though I know people who play the sport hated it.)

I have never understood from the time I started watching hockey to today why a team who committed a penalty is given an advantage (icing) that they don't have when skating even.

If you break the rules, you should be punished, not being given something in return for your punishment.

As for banning going down to block a shot, the only thing I can think is the reason behind it is to prevent injuries. And the NCAA across all sports is making a concerted effort to cut down on injuries.

Losing a man is punishment enough?

 

[LoudHorns31]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

why not just make things easier for the fans and go with NHL style rules? its hard to follow different "games" each night when your watching the same sport each night but the rules are consistantly different.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

why not just make things easier for the fans and go with NHL style rules? its hard to follow different "games" each night when your watching the same sport each night but the rules are consistantly different.

IMO, it is for the most part, the NCAA making noise, trying to create a perception of competence and importance and "prove" their value to their stakeholders (Institutions, Players, Fans, etc).

While I believe that individually, many of the committee members are quite competent and accomplished, once emerged into the NCAA bureaucracy, they become "Romans" and do as the Romans do. Those rare individuals that try to standup for what is right, eventually learn the ways of Rome or are taken to the coliseum. IMO, there is no other comprehensible reason why an organization with the potential of the NCAA would appear to be such a group of buffoons. And my sincerest apologizes –and gratitude to those few, non-egotistical individuals who try to do what is right and try to make a difference. Rome wasn’t built in a day, with luck and enough sacrificial cows, perhaps some positive advancement will sneak through.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011

Losing a man is punishment enough?

Perhaps. (And that would be my response to NUProf's post as well.)

Perhaps in doling out punishment for a penalty, it is felt that it goes too far, so you have to give something back to the punished team to set the punishment level appropriately. And, it could be argued that if you need a harsher punishment, that's what the 5-minute major is for and not allowing the player to return no matter how many goals are scored.

However, it has always seemed odd to me there is no other sport which allows a team which is being punished to do something that would otherwise be illegal.