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.
Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
- Thread starter CrazyDave
- Start date
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Dave Starman does his typical fine editorial on the proposed rules changes.
You do need an "Extra" subscription to read it.
http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,18669/CommentaryARuleChangeWeDontNeed.html
Dave Starman does his typical fine editorial on the proposed rules changes.
You do need an "Extra" subscription to read it.
http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,18669/CommentaryARuleChangeWeDontNeed.html
JosephPSchmoe
I'll say it if you won't
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
I realize I'm quoting from the same site that I'm posting on, but in case some of you don't browse the entire site, here's the news:
NCAA Pulls Shorthanded Icing Proposal
July 8 — The controversial proposal to call icing while a team is shorthanded has been pulled off the table, the NCAA announced Thursday.
But it’s not going away entirely, and it could resurface again.
The NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee’s proposal met with largely negative reaction from coaches, so it will be used in exhibition games only during the two-year cycle of the next rule book, which starts with the coming season.
The committee will then have experience to work with in determining whether the rule will be implemented starting with the 2012-13 season.
“The committee appreciates the membership feedback and values the opinions of coaches and administrators,” Forrest Karr, outgoing chair of the committee and athletic director at Alaska, said in a statement. “Responses indicate that while several coaches like the concept, there are concerns about the potential for unintended consequences.”
The other proposals forwarded to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel for final approval were unchanged. The panel is scheduled to meet via conference call on July 29.
In proposing always-on icing, the rules committee cited the desire to reward speed and skill and to help create scoring chances.
Karr also noted that it had been brought up that allowing icing while shorthanded is, in a way, rewarding a penalized team by giving it the benefit of a ruling it doesn’t get at full strength.
I realize I'm quoting from the same site that I'm posting on, but in case some of you don't browse the entire site, here's the news:
NCAA Pulls Shorthanded Icing Proposal
July 8 — The controversial proposal to call icing while a team is shorthanded has been pulled off the table, the NCAA announced Thursday.
But it’s not going away entirely, and it could resurface again.
The NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee’s proposal met with largely negative reaction from coaches, so it will be used in exhibition games only during the two-year cycle of the next rule book, which starts with the coming season.
The committee will then have experience to work with in determining whether the rule will be implemented starting with the 2012-13 season.
“The committee appreciates the membership feedback and values the opinions of coaches and administrators,” Forrest Karr, outgoing chair of the committee and athletic director at Alaska, said in a statement. “Responses indicate that while several coaches like the concept, there are concerns about the potential for unintended consequences.”
The other proposals forwarded to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel for final approval were unchanged. The panel is scheduled to meet via conference call on July 29.
In proposing always-on icing, the rules committee cited the desire to reward speed and skill and to help create scoring chances.
Karr also noted that it had been brought up that allowing icing while shorthanded is, in a way, rewarding a penalized team by giving it the benefit of a ruling it doesn’t get at full strength.
5 4 Fighting
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Perhaps the NCAA would be better served in rewarding both the players and fans alike, by diligently working with their reffing staff in an attempt to offer some speed and skill...just sayin.
Perhaps the NCAA would be better served in rewarding both the players and fans alike, by diligently working with their reffing staff in an attempt to offer some speed and skill...just sayin.
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Just for some finalization... the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP) did ratify the proposals that were sent the them. Note that this doesn't mention the "always-on icing" as an experimental rule, but it doesn't say that it was eliminated either.
BTW, did I mention that USCHO said nothing about this (the ratification), even on the men's side?
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect//ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/association-wide/head+contact+in+hockey+gets+stricter+sanction_07_30_10_ncaa_news
Just for some finalization... the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP) did ratify the proposals that were sent the them. Note that this doesn't mention the "always-on icing" as an experimental rule, but it doesn't say that it was eliminated either.
BTW, did I mention that USCHO said nothing about this (the ratification), even on the men's side?
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect//ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/association-wide/head+contact+in+hockey+gets+stricter+sanction_07_30_10_ncaa_news
CanHockGuy
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
The delayed penalty rule is nuts. Two power plays for one infraction? The extra power play time with the goalie out is enough. Having to get it out might work....... Maybe the refs will call less penalties this way? Wouldn't want to be a ref, they might have to wear cages.
The delayed penalty rule is nuts. Two power plays for one infraction? The extra power play time with the goalie out is enough. Having to get it out might work....... Maybe the refs will call less penalties this way? Wouldn't want to be a ref, they might have to wear cages.
FranchisePlayer
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
I actually like the delayed penalty rule. That's one of the things that I like better about lacrosse than hockey - when the flag goes down, you can fire away at the net, and even if you score, the guy still goes into the box.
Why don't you like it, CanHockey? It's actually not all that often that the team scores during the delayed infraction ... although I'd love to know what the percentage is.
Did I miss it - was there any mention of the proposal to remove face masks for the men? To me, THAT idea is nuts...
The delayed penalty rule is nuts. Two power plays for one infraction? The extra power play time with the goalie out is enough. Having to get it out might work....... Maybe the refs will call less penalties this way? Wouldn't want to be a ref, they might have to wear cages.
I actually like the delayed penalty rule. That's one of the things that I like better about lacrosse than hockey - when the flag goes down, you can fire away at the net, and even if you score, the guy still goes into the box.
Why don't you like it, CanHockey? It's actually not all that often that the team scores during the delayed infraction ... although I'd love to know what the percentage is.
Did I miss it - was there any mention of the proposal to remove face masks for the men? To me, THAT idea is nuts...
5 4 Fighting
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Yup and if you put a red flame behind the puck when it's going fast and a blue flame when it's going slow ...people will be able to follow the game better...
Stop screwing around with the game. That's not how it's played.
Yup and if you put a red flame behind the puck when it's going fast and a blue flame when it's going slow ...people will be able to follow the game better...
Stop screwing around with the game. That's not how it's played.
FranchisePlayer
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Ok, well you're talking about two separate things - Fox trying to make the game more appealing to people that don't watch it and an attempt to change the game by people that are actually involved in it ... for the better, I'd say. Perhaps this will provide more offense and will encourage knuckleheads to think before they do something stupid since they could cost their teams TWO goals.
And, um, I'm betting that you know that the rules USED to be that you could score as many times as possible on the power play, right? Do you remember why the NHL changed that rule?
Yup and if you put a red flame behind the puck when it's going fast and a blue flame when it's going slow ...people will be able to follow the game better...
Stop screwing around with the game. That's not how it's played.
Ok, well you're talking about two separate things - Fox trying to make the game more appealing to people that don't watch it and an attempt to change the game by people that are actually involved in it ... for the better, I'd say. Perhaps this will provide more offense and will encourage knuckleheads to think before they do something stupid since they could cost their teams TWO goals.
And, um, I'm betting that you know that the rules USED to be that you could score as many times as possible on the power play, right? Do you remember why the NHL changed that rule?
5 4 Fighting
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Hey wait a minute...I was a knucklehead!
The rules should only be able to be altered by the governing body of the NHL...not the NCAA or anybody else for that matter. Do you see anybody changing the rules in golf without the PGA being involved?
The NHL tinkered with not blowing the whistle until they have cleared the zone, not just gaining possession of the puck. I don't mind that but I doubt it will happen any time soon.
With respect to your trivia question ..I do know, but why don't you enlighten us.
Hey wait a minute...I was a knucklehead!
The rules should only be able to be altered by the governing body of the NHL...not the NCAA or anybody else for that matter. Do you see anybody changing the rules in golf without the PGA being involved?
The NHL tinkered with not blowing the whistle until they have cleared the zone, not just gaining possession of the puck. I don't mind that but I doubt it will happen any time soon.
With respect to your trivia question ..I do know, but why don't you enlighten us.
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Linked from the main USCHO page... http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,18660/KellyonVisorsMovingintheRightDirection.html
That one didn't go to the Oversight Panel... it was withdrawn by the Ice Hockey Rules Committee back in June.
Linked from the main USCHO page... http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,18660/KellyonVisorsMovingintheRightDirection.html
FranchisePlayer
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Nah, I'll let you do the honors, considering your nationality... (hint)
Hey wait a minute...I was a knucklehead!
The rules should only be able to be altered by the governing body of the NHL...not the NCAA or anybody else for that matter. Do you see anybody changing the rules in golf without the PGA being involved?
The NHL tinkered with not blowing the whistle until they have cleared the zone, not just gaining possession of the puck. I don't mind that but I doubt it will happen any time soon.
With respect to your trivia question ..I do know, but why don't you enlighten us.
Nah, I'll let you do the honors, considering your nationality... (hint)
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
I think it had something to do with a team called the Montreal Canadians...
I think it had something to do with a team called the Montreal Canadians...
5 4 Fighting
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Pulease...lets not confuse Canadiens with Canadians.
Pulease...lets not confuse Canadiens with Canadians.
SeymoreHockey
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Is it just me or is hockey the only sport that tinkers and evaluates and reviews, and fusses ALL the #$%^ing time!! Leave it alone! The game's FINE!!
Is it just me or is hockey the only sport that tinkers and evaluates and reviews, and fusses ALL the #$%^ing time!! Leave it alone! The game's FINE!!
FranchisePlayer
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
I think it's just you... Take the NFL, for example. It seems like every year they are making changes to the rules. In recent years, defensive players have been upset about so many rule changes designed to open up the game for receivers and to protect the quarterback.
It's actually very smart for the powers-that-be in hockey to look into rule changes that will open up the game and encourage more scoring. Whether we like it or not, as much as WE love our sport, it's still just a regional sport in the United States. The NHL is the only one of the four major sports that does not have a NETWORK television contract.
I believe that any rule changes that are designed to allow the skilled players to shine are good changes. It's a much more fun game to watch now that the clutch-and-grab is being taken out of the game.
Disclaimer - I was a clutch-and-grabber myself... although not a "knucklehead" like 5 4 Fighting
Is it just me or is hockey the only sport that tinkers and evaluates and reviews, and fusses ALL the #$%^ing time!! Leave it alone! The game's FINE!!
I think it's just you... Take the NFL, for example. It seems like every year they are making changes to the rules. In recent years, defensive players have been upset about so many rule changes designed to open up the game for receivers and to protect the quarterback.
It's actually very smart for the powers-that-be in hockey to look into rule changes that will open up the game and encourage more scoring. Whether we like it or not, as much as WE love our sport, it's still just a regional sport in the United States. The NHL is the only one of the four major sports that does not have a NETWORK television contract.
I believe that any rule changes that are designed to allow the skilled players to shine are good changes. It's a much more fun game to watch now that the clutch-and-grab is being taken out of the game.
Disclaimer - I was a clutch-and-grabber myself... although not a "knucklehead" like 5 4 Fighting
5 4 Fighting
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Actually that's "Canknucklehead" to you Pal...
I think it's just you... Take the NFL, for example. It seems like every year they are making changes to the rules. In recent years, defensive players have been upset about so many rule changes designed to open up the game for receivers and to protect the quarterback.
It's actually very smart for the powers-that-be in hockey to look into rule changes that will open up the game and encourage more scoring. Whether we like it or not, as much as WE love our sport, it's still just a regional sport in the United States. The NHL is the only one of the four major sports that does not have a NETWORK television contract.
I believe that any rule changes that are designed to allow the skilled players to shine are good changes. It's a much more fun game to watch now that the clutch-and-grab is being taken out of the game.
Disclaimer - I was a clutch-and-grabber myself... although not a "knucklehead" like 5 4 Fighting
Actually that's "Canknucklehead" to you Pal...
SeymoreHockey
New member
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Hmmm...just watched a replay of the gold medal game on TSN last night...trust me, there's nothing wrong with the game. Leave it alone for a while. The clutch and grab is gone...call the game by the rules and we'll all be fine. Just don't obsess with it.
As for football....who cares...it's football...!!!
Hmmm...just watched a replay of the gold medal game on TSN last night...trust me, there's nothing wrong with the game. Leave it alone for a while. The clutch and grab is gone...call the game by the rules and we'll all be fine. Just don't obsess with it.
As for football....who cares...it's football...!!!
Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010
Going to promote this once again now that I've seen the hybrid icing and also the experimental icing rule (not allowed while short-handed) in play.
The hybrid icing felt weird, and it also felt like there still might be some collisions similar to if it were full touch-up icing. There were a couple of times in the Minnesota-Manitoba exhibition game where the puck crossed the end line but it took a few seconds for a player from either team (in particular, the defense) to get back to the point the linesman blew the play dead. Yet there were other times where players for both teams were racing for the puck and were pretty well engaged with each other, not slamming on the brakes until after the whistle blew, which wasn't until they had reached the faceoff dots and their momentum put them pretty close to the end boards. I also saw a linesman's judgment call I didn't agree with, but said linesman must have thought it was a tied race to the puck, which goes in favor of the defense. This will be an odd one to sort out as the season goes along.
While the experimental icing rule was in play in the Minnesota-Manitoba game, the game was so one-sided that I only recall it being called twice, and once was likely because the player that iced the puck hadn't been told/reminded that it wasn't allowed. But after that, Minnesota was typically able to skate the puck out as far as the red line so they could dump it the rest of the way. And Minnesota had control of the puck most of the time they were a player up, giving Manitoba very few chances to clear. However, I'm not sure that would be the case if the two teams were more competitively matched. I'd need to see more games with this rule in place to be able to properly judge it.
Going to promote this once again now that I've seen the hybrid icing and also the experimental icing rule (not allowed while short-handed) in play.
The hybrid icing felt weird, and it also felt like there still might be some collisions similar to if it were full touch-up icing. There were a couple of times in the Minnesota-Manitoba exhibition game where the puck crossed the end line but it took a few seconds for a player from either team (in particular, the defense) to get back to the point the linesman blew the play dead. Yet there were other times where players for both teams were racing for the puck and were pretty well engaged with each other, not slamming on the brakes until after the whistle blew, which wasn't until they had reached the faceoff dots and their momentum put them pretty close to the end boards. I also saw a linesman's judgment call I didn't agree with, but said linesman must have thought it was a tied race to the puck, which goes in favor of the defense. This will be an odd one to sort out as the season goes along.
While the experimental icing rule was in play in the Minnesota-Manitoba game, the game was so one-sided that I only recall it being called twice, and once was likely because the player that iced the puck hadn't been told/reminded that it wasn't allowed. But after that, Minnesota was typically able to skate the puck out as far as the red line so they could dump it the rest of the way. And Minnesota had control of the puck most of the time they were a player up, giving Manitoba very few chances to clear. However, I'm not sure that would be the case if the two teams were more competitively matched. I'd need to see more games with this rule in place to be able to properly judge it.
Last edited: