What's new
By:
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 Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

John J. MacInnes said:
"The committee noted that overall, officiating standards used in some faceoffs might need to be improved."

Wow. No s***, Sherlock.

If I have to watch one more linesman put the puck on a yo-yo string for four false faceoffs, kick a guy out, and then immediately drop the puck when the replacement player comes in...

I also thought it was interesting that after all these years of trying to convince us to call them assistant referees, the video flat out calls them linesmen again.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Also, some of those slashing examples now being called a minor is kind of :rolleyes:
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

UncleRay said:
Pretty sure he meant the players, not the officials. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, it's the officials. And if it were the players, it'd be the one on the bench jumping off. Only thing the person on the ice is concerned about at that point is getting to the bench. :rolleyes:
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
If they weren't broken, why the heck is it coming up in committee?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it didn't need addressed. The thing with drawing another line on the ice is it becomes a concentration point. Linesman knows the line change is coming so he starts staring at the line to make sure there's no violations there and misses the icing, offsides, hand pass, etc. They don't need to nitpick the rule to the inch. They just need to tighten things up.
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
No, it's the officials. And if it were the players, it'd be the one on the bench jumping off. Only thing the person on the ice is concerned about at that point is getting to the bench. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The look up (look out!) line is a warning track to let the players know they're in the danger zone for hits from behind.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Or you add the lines, keep calling it as best you can, and worry about whether the skater was a micron over the line on review.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

joecct said:
The look up (look out!) line is a warning track to let the players know they're in the danger zone for hits from behind.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what it is designed to do. Any good engineer with an ounce of creativity will look at something and see what it can do. If it's around 5 feet from the boards, it can serve a dual purpose. Any more or less, and it should be able to be "ballpark'd".
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

pdt1081 said:
I wouldn't say it didn't need addressed. The thing with drawing another line on the ice is it becomes a concentration point. Linesman knows the line change is coming so he starts staring at the line to make sure there's no violations there and misses the icing, offsides, hand pass, etc. They don't need to nitpick the rule to the inch. They just need to tighten things up.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it needed to be addressed because some smart*** coach asked the question, "How do you quantify that?" Therefore, we end up with rules like this. And then, as is evidenced by the last page or so on the thread, someone asked, "Well, how do you know it's five feet?"
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Don't need a 5 foot line on the ice. Seems like the clarification is to get rid of the 20 foot changes that have been happening. 5 feet is not much more than an arm's length.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

j24vt said:
Don't need a 5 foot line on the ice. Seems like the clarification is to get rid of the 20 foot changes that have been happening. 5 feet is not much more than an arm's length.
Click to expand...

It's longer than an arm's length. For some posters, it's fingertip to fingertip.

Complete agreement we don't need a line, especially if we don't need circles around the non-center neutral zone faceoff dots. Just calling a spade a spade.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Split-N said:
So this is something else that will be reviewable?
Click to expand...

Currently you can't review if something's a penalty; the only thing that can be reviewed is whether a penalty warrants a game misconduct. That being said, I have seen goals called back on account of too many men on the ice, and I do wonder if, through, replay, you can call that penalty, or if the penalty has to be let go and only the goal disallowed.
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
Currently you can't review if something's a penalty; the only thing that can be reviewed is whether a penalty warrants a game misconduct. That being said, I have seen goals called back on account of too many men on the ice, and I do wonder if, through, replay, you can call that penalty, or if the penalty has to be let go and only the goal disallowed.
Click to expand...

Kind of like disallowing a goal because of "goaltender interference," with no penalty called.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

j24vt said:
Don't need a 5 foot line on the ice. Seems like the clarification is to get rid of the 20 foot changes that have been happening. 5 feet is not much more than an arm's length.
Click to expand...
For me (I'm 5' 10") 5 feet is exactly fingertip-to-fingertip with my arms extended to each side. Not advocating this, but at 5 feet, players should pretty much be able to tag each other before making the switch, a la WWE.

FlagDUDE08 said:
Currently you can't review if something's a penalty; the only thing that can be reviewed is whether a penalty warrants a game misconduct. That being said, I have seen goals called back on account of too many men on the ice, and I do wonder if, through, replay, you can call that penalty, or if the penalty has to be let go and only the goal disallowed.
Click to expand...
I believe the video said that everything is reviewable when they review whether or not a goal is valid. So if it is discovered in a goal review that there were 6 men on the ice, it could be addressed.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

UncleRay said:
For me (I'm 5' 10") 5 feet is exactly fingertip-to-fingertip with my arms extended to each side. Not advocating this, but at 5 feet, players should pretty much be able to tag each other before making the switch, a la WWE.

I believe the video said that everything is reviewable when they review whether or not a goal is valid. So if it is discovered in a goal review that there were 6 men on the ice, it could be addressed.
Click to expand...

Yes, everything is reviewable in order to call goal/no-goal, but the question is, very specifically, "Are the officials permitted to either enforce or exonerate the existence of penalty time as a result of the review?" This is not to say they can't use review to determine whether it's a 2 or a 5, which is the ejection rule we've seen in the playoffs for a few years and is now coming to the regular season.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I've definitely seen a Lowell game where a goal was reviewed for too many men, but I couldn't tell you what the ruling on the goal was or whether there was a penalty issued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top