Rule change speculation thread

[CrazyDave]

It's been just under two years since the last set of changes made by the NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee. During that last meeting in 2010, hybrid icing was added as was the enforcement of a delayed penalty even when the opposing team scores. Also debated was always-on icing, but at the last moment that was switched to an "experimental rule" to be only used during exhibition games.

Breaking news (and I was lucky to find this) is that the full shield/cage requirement might be removed in favor of a switch to a 3/4 visor, as reported today in an article by Adam Wodon at College Hockey News.

Another issue, as reported in the Bangor Daily News in March, is the possibility of 4-on-4 overtime.

While the Ice Hockey Rules Committee did not make any rule changes last year (due to the two-year rules cycle), they did discuss a number of issues. Here's a link to their report from last year's meeting. Scroll down to the "Other highlights" section, which says...

Several items of consideration for the next rules cycle were discussed and will be shared directly with the membership.

So what does everyone think is going to happen when the committee meets next month (June) in Indianapolis?

(Note: I've looked but can't find exact meeting dates. Any information in that respect would be appreciated.)

 

[brookyone]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Another issue, as reported in the Bangor Daily News in March, is the possibility of 4-on-4 overtime.

I guess I wouldn't be in favor of a four-on-four OT period(s) in games where a shootout is not subsequent to a scoreless OT. For WCHA conference games (as an example) when a shootout results from a scoreless OT I'd probably actually prefer the four-on-four OT with the expectation more games would be settled in that OT vs. the shootout alternative. I'd prefer conference games were settled in OT rather than the shootout. No idea about the statistical likelihood for an increase in OT settlements played four-on-four vs. five-on-five but I'd guess there would be some increase. Then you could also have some...uh, make that some more officiating issues during four-on-four.

 

[Call It]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

For the Women: let them hit. It is hockey! This bad hockey called dangles where you turn your back to the goal and the D man has no way to defend is just stupid. Come to the middle of the ice and BAZINGA!!!!! This will help keep the game in the olympics, Hux doesn't think so but ...

 

[puckskillz]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I do not have the data to know whether a 3/4 shield is better than the full cage in regards to concussion type injuries but I do perceive that the womens game has seen a rapid increase in aggressive stick play. Before the full cage (helmets only), there was "true" respect for the facial area in regards to the stick. It took about two weeks after the change and then everyone felt like invincible gladiators and the sticks and elbows were in the face. I don't know if that can be reversed easily with a generation of players who have been OK with occasional high sticks and helmet/cage contact. I would be concerned for the first group that transitions as there may be more injuries than the inadvertent puck in the chin or lacerations. There is no NHL for the ladies and 20 stitches across the chin is not a great souvenir.
As far as the 4 on 4, I believe it is entertaining for both the players and fans. The shootout minimizes the games outcome to a single skater and goalie. Hockey is a team sport and should be determined by team play. If 4 on 4 will decide the outcome of more tied games then it would be worthy of a trial.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

For the Women: let them hit. It is hockey! This bad hockey called dangles where you turn your back to the goal and the D man has no way to defend is just stupid. Come to the middle of the ice and BAZINGA!!!!! This will help keep the game in the olympics, Hux doesn't think so but ...

Neither do I.

 

[Hammer]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I do not have the data to know whether a 3/4 shield is better than the full cage in regards to concussion type injuries but I do perceive that the womens game has seen a rapid increase in aggressive stick play. Before the full cage (helmets only), there was "true" respect for the facial area in regards to the stick. It took about two weeks after the change and then everyone felt like invincible gladiators and the sticks and elbows were in the face. I don't know if that can be reversed easily with a generation of players who have been OK with occasional high sticks and helmet/cage contact. I would be concerned for the first group that transitions as there may be more injuries than the inadvertent puck in the chin or lacerations. There is no NHL for the ladies and 20 stitches across the chin is not a great souvenir.
As far as the 4 on 4, I believe it is entertaining for both the players and fans. The shootout minimizes the games outcome to a single skater and goalie. Hockey is a team sport and should be determined by team play. If 4 on 4 will decide the outcome of more tied games then it would be worthy of a trial.

I agree with this, especially the last 4 sentences. If they want to settle a game on the ice, make overtime 10 minutes. 4x4 and 5x5 are both acceptable for me. 4x4 for 10 minutes has to produce many more winners than we're used to seeing today.

For the Women: let them hit. It is hockey! This bad hockey called dangles where you turn your back to the goal and the D man has no way to defend is just stupid. Come to the middle of the ice and BAZINGA!!!!! This will help keep the game in the olympics, Hux doesn't think so but ...

Hammer doesn't think so, either.

 

[taz91]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

For the Women: let them hit. It is hockey! This bad hockey called dangles where you turn your back to the goal and the D man has no way to defend is just stupid. Come to the middle of the ice and BAZINGA!!!!! This will help keep the game in the olympics, Hux doesn't think so but ...

Not a chance, hitting doesn't make the game.

 

[giwan]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Neither do I.

I agree with letting the ladies hit, my daughter believes so fully. Though I do think this would make the games even more lopsided in the Olympics.

 

[giwan]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I do not have the data to know whether a 3/4 shield is better than the full cage in regards to concussion type injuries but I do perceive that the womens game has seen a rapid increase in aggressive stick play. Before the full cage (helmets only), there was "true" respect for the facial area in regards to the stick. It took about two weeks after the change and then everyone felt like invincible gladiators and the sticks and elbows were in the face. I don't know if that can be reversed easily with a generation of players who have been OK with occasional high sticks and helmet/cage contact. I would be concerned for the first group that transitions as there may be more injuries than the inadvertent puck in the chin or lacerations. There is no NHL for the ladies and 20 stitches across the chin is not a great souvenir. As far as the 4 on 4, I believe it is entertaining for both the players and fans. The shootout minimizes the games outcome to a single skater and goalie. Hockey is a team sport and should be determined by team play. If 4 on 4 will decide the outcome of more tied games then it would be worthy of a trial.

Half, full, 3/4, 1/4 shield will have no effect on concussions. Lacerations, teeth, eyes all potential increase in injury rate. Not sure I fully buy into the gladiator mentality that more protection makes things more aggressive. Possibly certain types of added protection may.

I don't care for shootouts, they are exciting agreed but what is wrong with a tie? It is what it is. Shootouts I believe give the edge to the team that can afford and get that "best" player and minimizes a team effort and a team strategy. 4x4 or 5x5 is fine but do make OT longer so there can be time for the OT to take effect.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

If they change the game to allow hitting I think you quite likely end up with a slower and really just a poor, not very entertaining imitation of the men which would probably have me back at Mariucci watching the better version if the game is the same. I've said it too many times before, It's the difference in the games that I enjoy watching the women.

 

[taz91]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Half, full, 3/4, 1/4 shield will have no effect on concussions. Lacerations, teeth, eyes all potential increase in injury rate. Not sure I fully buy into the gladiator mentality that more protection makes things more aggressive. Possibly certain types of added protection may.

I remember hearing when I was in college (mid to late 90s) that Red Berensen had done a little test with his Michigan program. One week he had that players practice like normal with full face coverage. The next week they went either with half shields or no shield. The week with full coverage the sticks and elbows got up more and the players took more liberty with their hits. The week without shields there was a lot cleaner play. I don't foresee this change happening in the women's game but do expect it to happen on the men's side.

 

[WCHFan]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Keep the full shields and no checking would be my choice. The game is fast now and checking would slow the game down. More penalties would be called which I feel kills the game. I would like to see the womens game eliminate one referee.

 

[Call It]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

If you watch the NHL or NCAA, there isn't hitting like there used to be. The game is faster and the coaches would like you to stay in the play/ system. Thus I think it would be similar in a high end women's game.

Perhaps hitting like the men do is not in the cards but something more than body contact should be allowed. Often times a little, talented forward will come down 1 v 1 on a bigger D and when the D makes a slight "body contact" the Forward falls, the Ref almost always calls it a check.

The funny thing about this debate is that the older men don't want it and the female players do, weird.

 

[ARM]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I don't care for 4-on-4 OT. One reason is that penalties called in OT then result in 4-on-3 PP opportunities, and it becomes an even bigger disadvantage to be down a skater. Knowing this, it likely makes most officials even more hesitant to call a deserving penalty in OT. I'd prefer no shootout as well, but the silver lining in that case is that at least it is still a tie in the national picture. I don't like that an underdog can play a great game, be even after three periods of hockey, lose in OT, and get nothing for it. The teams with higher-end skill players have an advantage with less players on the ice. Five-on-five is a better game, so let's just play that. I agree with increasing the regular-season OT to ten minutes as a better modification.

No checking. I have a number of reasons, but first and foremost, there are already too many careers ended by concussions. It is logical that more contact will result in more concussions and other injuries, not less.

As for a 3/4 face shield, I could see it if it were the choice of each player. I wouldn't support any rule where the players are not allowed to wear a full-cage, such as in girls' HS lacrosse, where the boys wear headgear and the girls aren't allowed to do so. IMO, the argument that players would be safer with less protection is flawed. There is already a five-minute penalty for contact to the head. If that doesn't dissuade players from reckless acts, I don't see how this would. It is like saying, "Let's remove seat belts and airbags from automobiles, because people would drive more safely if they knew that passengers in autos were more vulnerable." The female hockey player may not like that a full plastic shield fogs up more than a 3/4 shield would, but the risk that her lower face could be rearranged by a stick or puck that found its way inside her mask should be her decision, not that of any governing body.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

The funny thing about this debate is that the older men don't want it and the female players do, weird.

I don't believe this is anywhere near universally true as implied.

 

[Call It]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

No checking. I have a number of reasons, but first and foremost, there are already too many careers ended by concussions. It is logical that more contact will result in more concussions and other injuries, not less.



That is a valid point.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I don't care for 4-on-4 OT. One reason is that penalties called in OT then result in 4-on-3 PP opportunities, and it becomes an even bigger disadvantage to be down a skater. Knowing this, it likely makes most officials even more hesitant to call a deserving penalty in OT.

This is what I was getting at with my officiating comment...what I would anticipate is an increased tendency to ignore infractions during four-on-four...with more potential for injury...possibly.

Is the motive for contemplating the 4 on 4 OT to possibly avoid a few shootouts? Add excitement? Both? A longer OT 5 on 5 is a better route IMO. Not sure the NCAA, conferences or officials etc. would be excited about the added length of an OT contest.

 

[CrazyDave]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Reading some of the links a little closer, I believe the 3/4 shield -- if it were implemented -- would only be for the men, and the women would maintain the full shield or cage.

Right now the shootouts are at the discretion of the conferences, and -- as ARM pointed out -- have no bearing in the national rankings/standings. And I'm completely fine with that.

For the 4-on-4 overtime, I don't have a particular preference on it. I can see ARM's point where officials might be less likely to call a penalty, because it would lead to a 4-on-3 opportunity.

Regarding two other potential rule changes discussed last year...

1) Making hand passes legal or illegal in all zones -- I really like the rule the way it is, where it's legal in the defensive zone but illegal in the neutral or offensive zones. I can't see making it legal everywhere -- that seems totally contrary to the sport. If they're going to change it, make it illegal in all zones; but don't change it for the sake of changing it.

2) Goal judges optional -- The place where I see this change making the most impact would be in Division III, and that's the place where the use of video review is less likely, so I disagree with this potential change. Keep the goal judges mandatory.

 

[WCHFan]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

If you watch the NHL or NCAA, there isn't hitting like there used to be. The game is faster and the coaches would like you to stay in the play/ system. Thus I think it would be similar in a high end women's game.

Perhaps hitting like the men do is not in the cards but something more than body contact should be allowed. Often times a little, talented forward will come down 1 v 1 on a bigger D and when the D makes a slight "body contact" the Forward falls, the Ref almost always calls it a check.

The funny thing about this debate is that the older men don't want it and the female players do, weird.

I'll have to disagree with you that the female players want this. I bet the majority of female players would not want this.

I will agree with you that a D player would want to check but I strongly feel the forwards wouldn't want it. The women's game has gotten so fast without it and hitting would for sure slow the game down a ton. Girls/women didn't grow up with this and I think there would be many injuries including concussions. 3/4 shields would have to be a players decision as I assure you after one accidental stick to the face that caused a scar to a female player would be the end of it and expensive.

Allow the D to stand a player up and bumping and grinding in the corners, and in front of the net and take away the mysterious interference calls and weak 1 second hooking calla. Of course always call the checking, tripping, slashing obvious penalties. Let the women play and don't feel the need to call 3-4 penalties every period.

By far the best games I saw this year were the 4 or less penalties called for a whole game.

 

[ARM]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

1) Making hand passes legal or illegal in all zones -- I really like the rule the way it is, where it's legal in the defensive zone but illegal in the neutral or offensive zones. I can't see making it legal everywhere -- that seems totally contrary to the sport. If they're going to change it, make it illegal in all zones; but don't change it for the sake of changing it.

The reason that hand passes were legal in the defensive zone in the first place was to cut down on the number of whistles/stoppages. If they aren't sure now whether to make it legal or illegal all over the ice, it doesn't sound like those in charge have a very good handle on what they are hoping to accomplish. In that case, I agree with you -- leave it alone.

2) Goal judges optional -- The place where I see this change making the most impact would be in Division III, and that's the place where the use of video review is less likely, so I disagree with this potential change. Keep the goal judges mandatory.

The problem with video review is that there is only one angle available: the overhead view. If the goalie or some other player is obscuring the view of the puck in the overhead, then the goal judge does provide another angle. If the objective is to save money, then eliminate one of the on-ice officials. At least the goal judges aren't constantly getting in the way of the play, and I do like that the goal light comes on to signal a goal.