taz91
Registered User
Re: Rule change speculation thread
I believe the men's college teams in Canada wear half shields.
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.
Rule change speculation thread
- Thread starter CrazyDave
- Start date
Based on the Canadian college teams I've seen play in various exhibition games, this is a true statement!
Re: Rule change speculation thread
Not that I can see with a quick Google search. I looked at both Olympic hockey and professional hockey. Maybe they figure women aren't as likely to feel invincible with the full cage?
Powers &8^]
Not that I can see with a quick Google search. I looked at both Olympic hockey and professional hockey. Maybe they figure women aren't as likely to feel invincible with the full cage?
Powers &8^]
Re: Rule change speculation thread
Regarding overtime, I agree with those who want to keep 5 on 5 play and I think 5 minutes is enough.
Awarding both teams a point for a regular season regulation tie and giving another point to the OT winner might result in fewer OT ties and more exciting finishes without altering the game too much. This, I'd like to see.
Regarding overtime, I agree with those who want to keep 5 on 5 play and I think 5 minutes is enough.
Awarding both teams a point for a regular season regulation tie and giving another point to the OT winner might result in fewer OT ties and more exciting finishes without altering the game too much. This, I'd like to see.
Last edited:
Re: Rule change speculation thread
No way. Bonus points just make the math harder for no real competitive benefit.
Powers &8^]
No way. Bonus points just make the math harder for no real competitive benefit.
Powers &8^]
Re: Rule change speculation thread
EDIT: And that doesn't require a rule change from what is already on the books.
I'm really of a mixed mind on this. The WCHA gives both teams a point for a tie after overtime and then a bonus point for a shootout winner, but during the overtime it's a winner-take-all for the standings points; basically the OT is just an extension of regulation in that respect. However the league also made a regulation or overtime win worth 3 points in the conference standings, so that a it's worth more value than playing for a shootout. I wouldn't mind if other leagues took the same approach.
EDIT: And that doesn't require a rule change from what is already on the books.
Last edited:
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: Rule change speculation thread
If they extend regular season OT to something longer than five minutes, I think 10 minutes is long enough. The problem with a 20 minute regular-season OT is that then they'd have to resurface at the end of the third period, and it would become more common to sit around for a 15-minute intermission, and then have somebody score the winner a minute or two into the OT. It's one thing to do so in the postseason when there is more on the line, but IMO it is an unnecessary delay during the season.
If they extend regular season OT to something longer than five minutes, I think 10 minutes is long enough. The problem with a 20 minute regular-season OT is that then they'd have to resurface at the end of the third period, and it would become more common to sit around for a 15-minute intermission, and then have somebody score the winner a minute or two into the OT. It's one thing to do so in the postseason when there is more on the line, but IMO it is an unnecessary delay during the season.
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: Rule change speculation thread
I may have said it before here. I don't like rewarding teams that lose. And if we're having a shootout, aren't we determining who wins and who loses? It's quite possible that a team could score 0 goals on the weekend, score 0 in the shootout, give up a goal each night, and walk away with 2 points. Not a fan.
If we're bent of having a winner, I'm a fan of 4x4 for 10 minutes. You're going to have a winner much more often than not, and you're keeping the integrity of the game intact, far more than you are with a skills competition, which is exactly what a shootout is.
I may have said it before here. I don't like rewarding teams that lose. And if we're having a shootout, aren't we determining who wins and who loses? It's quite possible that a team could score 0 goals on the weekend, score 0 in the shootout, give up a goal each night, and walk away with 2 points. Not a fan.
If we're bent of having a winner, I'm a fan of 4x4 for 10 minutes. You're going to have a winner much more often than not, and you're keeping the integrity of the game intact, far more than you are with a skills competition, which is exactly what a shootout is.
Hockeydad4two
Registered User
Re: Rule change speculation thread
My daughter played in an indoor soccor tournament where they used an OT format where every minute 1 player from each team was pulled off until someone won. When it got down to 2v2, it was as much an endurance test. It didn't take long to settle the game however.
My daughter played in an indoor soccor tournament where they used an OT format where every minute 1 player from each team was pulled off until someone won. When it got down to 2v2, it was as much an endurance test. It didn't take long to settle the game however.
giwan
Really??!!
Re: Rule change speculation thread
There are hockey tournaments that do that as well. It is fun and unique but not how I think a collegiate game should be handled. Nothing wrong with a tie, it does not make the game more exciting or less exciting, though it may offer a more satisfying end. I believe 5 minutes is to short for OT, make it 10 especially if they plan on flooding or better yet do not flood and just keep the game moving. Of course this all assumes sudden death unlike some aspects of higher level soccer.
There are hockey tournaments that do that as well. It is fun and unique but not how I think a collegiate game should be handled. Nothing wrong with a tie, it does not make the game more exciting or less exciting, though it may offer a more satisfying end. I believe 5 minutes is to short for OT, make it 10 especially if they plan on flooding or better yet do not flood and just keep the game moving. Of course this all assumes sudden death unlike some aspects of higher level soccer.
Hockeydad4two
Registered User
Re: Rule change speculation thread
My preference would be for regular season a 10 minute OT period sudden death, no flood with a 2 minute break between, no time outs, defend same side as 3rd period. Winner gets 2 points, loser gets none, teams each get one for a tie.
For playoffs, continue playing 20 minute sudden death periods and flood between as normal, switching sides after first OT and every period thereafter.
My preference would be for regular season a 10 minute OT period sudden death, no flood with a 2 minute break between, no time outs, defend same side as 3rd period. Winner gets 2 points, loser gets none, teams each get one for a tie.
For playoffs, continue playing 20 minute sudden death periods and flood between as normal, switching sides after first OT and every period thereafter.
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: Rule change speculation thread
This man has it right, although I have no preference on switching ends for OT. If you want to go 4x4 for OT, I have no objections.
This man has it right, although I have no preference on switching ends for OT. If you want to go 4x4 for OT, I have no objections.
Re: Rule change speculation thread
I didn't see a new thread in either the men's or women's forum about what was actually decided, but there is an article on the USCHO front page at http://www.uscho.com/2012/06/10/ove...-by-rules-committee-visors-to-get-more-study/.
Here's a brief synopsis of several of the rule changes...
These still need final approval from the NCAA’s Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which meets in July.
I didn't see a new thread in either the men's or women's forum about what was actually decided, but there is an article on the USCHO front page at http://www.uscho.com/2012/06/10/ove...-by-rules-committee-visors-to-get-more-study/.
Here's a brief synopsis of several of the rule changes...
- Adding the option for conferences to use a four-on-four format for five-minute overtimes during the regular season
- Making hand passes illegal in the defensive zone
- Changing the requirement that the goal must be down on its pegs when the puck crosses the goal line for a goal to count
- Allowing goals that enter the net off skates except when they are directed using a distinct kicking motion (previously any intentional redirection was illegal)
- Making goal judges recommended instead of required
- Allowing for postgame video review of game disqualification penalties
These still need final approval from the NCAA’s Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which meets in July.
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: Rule change speculation thread
Is there a downside to having goal judges? Or is there a problem / difficulty with providing personnel to function as the goal judge? What's the motivation behind doing away with the requirement if it's not likely to improve the game or competition? Downsizing?
Re: Rule change speculation thread
Well, lots of different issues mentioned but I will throw in my 2 cents worth.
1) Goal judges - keep them. Goal judges are focused on one thing while refs have to look at many things at once. Cost cannot be that huge. TV is only showing a vertical view
2) On ice officials - for women's hockey 4 seems too much. I have seen a lot of refs accidental interference with passes and play during games.
3) Checking - I would prefer to see the same rules and same level of enforcement maintained. I have season tickets to both men's and women's games at my former school and like both. What I really like about the women's game is the fact that less hitting means more opportunities for players to stickhandle and pass and the game seems faster.
4) cage vs visor - I cannot really see any advantage to the visor for the player and the cage gives more protection to the players. The players are college students with lives before them, why risk injury when you don't have to. I doubt it will turn into a kinder gentler game if visors are introduced.
5) goal pins - A goal should be seated on the pins for a goal to score.
Well, lots of different issues mentioned but I will throw in my 2 cents worth.
1) Goal judges - keep them. Goal judges are focused on one thing while refs have to look at many things at once. Cost cannot be that huge. TV is only showing a vertical view
2) On ice officials - for women's hockey 4 seems too much. I have seen a lot of refs accidental interference with passes and play during games.
3) Checking - I would prefer to see the same rules and same level of enforcement maintained. I have season tickets to both men's and women's games at my former school and like both. What I really like about the women's game is the fact that less hitting means more opportunities for players to stickhandle and pass and the game seems faster.
4) cage vs visor - I cannot really see any advantage to the visor for the player and the cage gives more protection to the players. The players are college students with lives before them, why risk injury when you don't have to. I doubt it will turn into a kinder gentler game if visors are introduced.
5) goal pins - A goal should be seated on the pins for a goal to score.
birdlovely
New member
Re: Rule change speculation thread
Wouldn't stopping the game with hip check penalties slow it down more?
I think they need to be more lenient towards hip checks and boarding, while keeping the open ice heads down hits out. That will really speed up the game!
Wouldn't stopping the game with hip check penalties slow it down more?
I think they need to be more lenient towards hip checks and boarding, while keeping the open ice heads down hits out. That will really speed up the game!
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: Rule change speculation thread
i suspect increased leniency where boarding is concerned would also increase dangerous situations and injury of a more serious variety. With leniency players are going to push the limits more often, and further...that's my theory anyway.
Re: Rule change speculation thread
I think this rule is referring to Div I where replay exists to review goals anyway. If replay is required (is it required in Div I women's game?), there really is no need for a goal judge. I'm not sure they're required at the Div III level now. It seems that some of the smaller schools now don't have them, but I could be wrong about that....I, of course, hope they don't do away with them!!!
I think this rule is referring to Div I where replay exists to review goals anyway. If replay is required (is it required in Div I women's game?), there really is no need for a goal judge. I'm not sure they're required at the Div III level now. It seems that some of the smaller schools now don't have them, but I could be wrong about that....I, of course, hope they don't do away with them!!!
I can't remember the last time I saw a goal (either counted or waived off) decided by a goal judge...where the ref(s) have relied on the goal judge to make (or reverse) the call. From what I've observed they are typically consulted only for reinforcement of what the ref(s) believe they saw. Years ago (especially before video replay obviously) they played a more important role.