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?

UMICH said:
That's exactly what the NHL does and I think there's a better way. Call me bias but I actually like what the B1G does in hockey. 3 points to a winner in regulation, 3 points to a winner in OT, OT ends in a tie then each team gets a point and the winner of the shootout gets the 3rd and final point. OK, I'm not totally thrilled with SO's but the casual fan wants closure so we have to. The SO's of course are not counted in NCAA standings, they only matter for league standings.
Click to expand...

IMO every game should be worth the same amount of total points, be it 2, 3, or more. The way the NHL does it, most games are worth two points in total, but some are worth three.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

There should not be special consideration because you survived to a point where the rules are changing, and your standing should not be dependent on a completely different game or even a skills contest.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Ralph Baer said:
IMO every game should be worth the same amount of total points, be it 2, 3, or more. The way the NHL does it, most games are worth two points in total, but some are worth three.
Click to expand...

I can trace the minute I began to lose interest in the NHL to the exact time they adopted the loser point. It makes the standings and the game artificial. Hockey should be like baseball and basketball, just figure the standings on wins and losses. If deciding a winner is so important and the fans love the shootout so much, just give the winner the points and the loser goes home with nothing. If anyone thinks the team that loses in a shootout still needs something to show for their efforts, then they have to admit the shootout is an abomination. What's next? If you manage to outshoot a team in all three periods and you only lose the game by one goal in regulation you get half a point? I mean you almost won and you did do some things better. The real reason for the loser point is it artificially keeps more teams within skating distance of the last playoff spot, because the entire regular season is just a 5 month narrative on the coming playoffs. 82 games are just to seed the Stanley Cup playoffs. Of course the NHL then screws that up, and has the two best teams meet in a second round playoff series. College hockey would do well to copy very little of what the NHL does.
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
I can trace the minute I began to lose interest in the NHL to the exact time they adopted the loser point. It makes the standings and the game artificial. Hockey should be like baseball and basketball, just figure the standings on wins and losses. If deciding a winner is so important and the fans love the shootout so much, just give the winner the points and the loser goes home with nothing. If anyone thinks the team that loses in a shootout still needs something to show for their efforts, then they have to admit the shootout is an abomination. What's next? If you manage to outshoot a team in all three periods and you only lose the game by one goal in regulation you get half a point? I mean you almost won and you did do some things better. The real reason for the loser point is it artificially keeps more teams within skating distance of the last playoff spot, because the entire regular season is just a 5 month narrative on the coming playoffs. 82 games are just to seed the Stanley Cup playoffs. Of course the NHL then screws that up, and has the two best teams meet in a second round playoff series. College hockey would do well to copy very little of what the NHL does.
Click to expand...

You forgot period points
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

The NHL disallowed calling timeout after an icing a few years back, may as well add that one in. No reason not to
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

4 on 4. Showcase skill rather than "heavy" game. It's easier for big players to go for dangerous hits (or even just tie ups) if they have support clogging the rest of the ice. Without the extra free safety even defenders will have to rely on skill.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

NCAA watcher said:
4 on 4. Showcase skill rather than "heavy" game. It's easier for big players to go for dangerous hits (or even just tie ups) if they have support clogging the rest of the ice. Without the extra free safety even defenders will have to rely on skill.
Click to expand...

The problem with doing that for regular play is that you completely change the game. Yes, an argument could be made that 4v4 happens in the course of regular play, but only when players do the wrong thing. One of the reasons why, when you're 5v4 and have matching minors, you stay at 5v4 instead of going 4v3. And then you have the oddities of subtracting players at a whistle for when a team has 5 (or even 4). Much better to just keep the game as is.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

davyd83 said:
Those pregame, between periods and postgame spots are full as well. What you’re asking is for me to give up the revenue that, over the course of the season, pays for my plane ticket, hotels and meals for that trip to Fairbanks.
Click to expand...

I get all that, I just like a game that has flow and minimal stoppages, like you would see at your local rink of even in a D1 women's game, though those are starting to be tainted by the media timeout as well.

Here's a mind blower....no backward pass allowed unless in your attacking zone.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

joecct said:
I don't like the loser point. Points have to add up. A game is worth 2 points that ends in 60 minutes has less value if it ends before 65 minutes.

I prefer 3-2-1.
Click to expand...

Loser points are stupid. I think it's an interesting idea to de-value a win in OT. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

FlagDUDE08 said:
The problem with doing that for regular play is that you completely change the game. Yes, an argument could be made that 4v4 happens in the course of regular play, but only when players do the wrong thing. One of the reasons why, when you're 5v4 and have matching minors, you stay at 5v4 instead of going 4v3. And then you have the oddities of subtracting players at a whistle for when a team has 5 (or even 4). Much better to just keep the game as is.
Click to expand...

Oh I understand that this is a dramatic change in the game, but one for the better of the fans and also the player health. The grinding game takes such a physical toll on the players, painkillers and other sort of systemic issues. From hits due to being cornered with less ice space, to blocking shots to clog lanes rather than free skating, the players pay a price.

But for the fans, the excitement of skating and puck skills is the largest benefit. Check the games from the 60s and 70s and you'll see more open ice because the players did not skate hard during the entire time (hence the three lines and two sets of D), and also because they were smaller physically and devoted less to back checking. Add in the goalie equipment size, and it was a totally different game. Changing 4x 4 to account for those 90s changes is just a reaction to the other changes that have occurred.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I'd like to see the OT change go to 5x5 or 4x4 OT with each team getting 1pt after a regulation tie. If still tied then go to a shootout with the shootout winner getting the 3rd pt.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I would be interested in seeing what would happen if you gave 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. Of course this would only work for conference games.

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

Timothy A said:
Here's a mind blower....no backward pass allowed unless in your attacking zone.
Click to expand...
The NCAA already has a rule similar to this, but it is never called:
76.2 Advancing Puck - Except to carry the puck behind its goal once, a team in possession of the puck in its own defending zone must advance the puck toward the opposing goal, unless it is prevented from so doing by players of the opposing team.
PENALTY—For initial violation, play shall be stopped and a faceoff conducted at either end-zone faceoff spot adjacent to the goal of the team causing the stoppage, and the referee shall warn the captain of the offending team of the reason for the faceoff. For a second violation by any player of the same team in the same period, a minor shall be assessed to the offending player.

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

Sean Pickett said:
The NCAA already has a rule similar to this, but it is never called:
76.2 Advancing Puck - Except to carry the puck behind its goal once, a team in possession of the puck in its own defending zone must advance the puck toward the opposing goal, unless it is prevented from so doing by players of the opposing team.
PENALTY—For initial violation, play shall be stopped and a faceoff conducted at either end-zone faceoff spot adjacent to the goal of the team causing the stoppage, and the referee shall warn the captain of the offending team of the reason for the faceoff. For a second violation by any player of the same team in the same period, a minor shall be assessed to the offending player.

Sean
Click to expand...

There are a few odd rules in the book that don't necessarily get called, including some timing related rules based on what point in the game you're in (see the rule on dislodging the net). I can understand this rule because it goes along the lines of delaying of game, but if there's a forechecker, you can't really call this because forward movement is being prevented. Seems more like a response to that one Devils game where they set up the 1-3-1 defense and the puck just stayed behind the net.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top