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?

FlagDUDE08 said:
However good to see that, non-conference wise unless it is a tournament, teams aren't forced into the skills competition because the binary mind can't comprehend a tie.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's a good addition. Never understood the shootout in noncon play.

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

cetihcra said:
I agree, that's a good addition. Never understood the shootout in noncon play.

r
Click to expand...

Only reason it happened is because the conference rules for the home team mandated it for regular season play. Now the only thing to worry about, in non-con play, is official timeout protocol.
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
Only reason it happened is because the conference rules for the home team mandated it for regular season play. Now the only thing to worry about, in non-con play, is official timeout protocol.
Click to expand...

Home team. they have game sponsors to keep happy
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

One thought came up while discussing the changes in another thread: Are single trophy games considered to be part of the tournament format that allows shootouts? In years past, the Mayor's Cup between RPI and Union has mentioned (although it has yet to come to pass) that, after 65 minutes, a shootout is used to determine who gets the trophy. Would this also apply to other trophy games, such as other Mayor's or Governor's cups?
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

FlagDUDE08 said:
It's now most certainly official; here's the book: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH20.pdf
Click to expand...

Here is a link that was posted by our friend Todd Milewski over the weekend
This has the video that goes into the major changes and provides lots of examples
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Everyone's talking about rules and penalties here today, so why not watch the 2018-19 NCAA hockey rules video while you have some time before the season?<a href="https://t.co/Jw01n5Oi6N">https://t.co/Jw01n5Oi6N</a><br><br>Seems like we should expect a bunch of slashing and too-many-players calls.</p>— Todd Milewski (@ToddMilewski) <a href="https://twitter.com/ToddMilewski/status/1041451398280437760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I always appreciate these videos. Great not only for seeing how rules are being interpreted, but also where areas of focus will be for the upcoming season. It would be great for this and previous videos to be mandatory viewing for all college hockey fans :p

The only place I am left a bit confused is the goaltender-offensive player interaction section.
From the video examples it seems that any contact with the netminder is being interpreted as illegal, whether it impacts ability to play the puck or not (first example of disallowed goal in the video) or if a defensive player aided/encouraged the contact (second example of disallowed goal in the video). I'll be surprised if that is how the game is actually called.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

If a game goes to a 2nd OT, does a team get an additional time out?
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Stauber1 said:
I always appreciate these videos. Great not only for seeing how rules are being interpreted, but also where areas of focus will be for the upcoming season. It would be great for this and previous videos to be mandatory viewing for all college hockey fans :p

The only place I am left a bit confused is the goaltender-offensive player interaction section.
From the video examples it seems that any contact with the netminder is being interpreted as illegal, whether it impacts ability to play the puck or not (first example of disallowed goal in the video) or if a defensive player aided/encouraged the contact (second example of disallowed goal in the video). I'll be surprised if that is how the game is actually called.
Click to expand...

What it seems like they said was that they reviewed what the current rules are regarding it, how it's being called in our game to look for any points of clarification, and believed that things are OK as they are.

It seemed a bit interesting that we'll have two years of nationally recommended points of emphasis, I assume in addition to the league points we hear about every year. One thing that's going to make crowds restless (although I understand why) is the faceoff protocol. I know we've all heard Don Cherry gripe about it, and although it's a different level of play, it's still something we'll see.

As for Joe's question, rule 92.2 makes it quite clear:

Each team shall be awarded one team timeout if the game is tied after 60 minutes of play. This is not an additional timeout in cases where a team has not utilized its timeout during regulation play.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

joecct said:
If a game goes to a 2nd OT, does a team get an additional time out?
Click to expand...

It seems that any unused timeouts are not carried over from OT to OT, much like the rule from regulation to the first OT.

I personally do not like the 5 foot player change interpretation - the old rule was "at the bench" - extending that to 5 feet away leaves too much to interpretation especially where there is a lot of congestion around the bench area. I would lobby for a 5 foot line in front of the benches to assist the linesmen. If you go to video review, how are they going to figure out if a player is 5 feet away or 6 feet away?
 
john g said:
It seems that any unused timeouts are not carried over from OT to OT, much like the rule from regulation to the first OT.

I personally do not like the 5 foot player change interpretation - the old rule was "at the bench" - extending that to 5 feet away leaves too much to interpretation especially where there is a lot of congestion around the bench area. I would lobby for a 5 foot line in front of the benches to assist the linesmen. If you go to video review, how are they going to figure out if a player is 5 feet away or 6 feet away?
Click to expand...

I'm gonna guess that if it's close, they'll let it slide. Maybe give the bench a "hey, you're stretching that 5 foot a bit" warning once. It should tighten up the changes. We've all seen the guys that jump off the bench when the player they're replacing is still halfway across the ice. It's funny how most of the video examples they show are actually "too many men on the ice" penalties under the current rule. A better example would be the lazy D-man that's still in the circle, gliding towards the bench, when his replacement is already across the redline.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

john g said:
I personally do not like the 5 foot player change interpretation - the old rule was "at the bench" - extending that to 5 feet away leaves too much to interpretation especially where there is a lot of congestion around the bench area. I would lobby for a 5 foot line in front of the benches to assist the linesmen. If you go to video review, how are they going to figure out if a player is 5 feet away or 6 feet away?
Click to expand...
I have long wondered why there's no "change zone" marked on the ice.

I agree with the comment about the video examples of goaltender-offensive player interaction. I would have appreciated commentary for each example.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

spiehler said:
I have long wondered why there's no "change zone" marked on the ice.
Click to expand...

I think most rinks have some sort of marking on the ice that can be used.

The space on the ice in front of the benches often has some form of advertising under the ice. Granted, it probably isn't exactly 5 feet off of the boards, but it is likely something that can be used as a guide to gauge spacing in front of the bench.

I could see the officials saying this to the captains before a game:
"Alright fellas, the advertising for 'Big Marge's Discount Liquor' and 'Uncle Curly's BBQ' are about 7 feet from the boards. We need to see your guys well past that advertising before the replacement comes on the ice or we'll call too many men."
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

spiehler said:
I have long wondered why there's no "change zone" marked on the ice.

I agree with the comment about the video examples of goaltender-offensive player interaction. I would have appreciated commentary for each example.
Click to expand...

There might not be a "change zone", but there can be a "look up line", similar to the warning track on a baseball field. Theoretically that could be a reference.
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
There might not be a "change zone", but there can be a "look up line", similar to the warning track on a baseball field. Theoretically that could be a reference.
Click to expand...

The only thing wrong with the "look up line" is that you have to look down to see it.
 
KaMiGo said:
I think most rinks have some sort of marking on the ice that can be used.

The space on the ice in front of the benches often has some form of advertising under the ice. Granted, it probably isn't exactly 5 feet off of the boards, but it is likely something that can be used as a guide to gauge spacing in front of the bench.

I could see the officials saying this to the captains before a game:
"Alright fellas, the advertising for 'Big Marge's Discount Liquor' and 'Uncle Curly's BBQ' are about 7 feet from the boards. We need to see your guys well past that advertising before the replacement comes on the ice or we'll call too many men."
Click to expand...
This. There is already too much crap on the ice to be adding more lines.
 
Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

KaMiGo said:
Here is a link that was posted by our friend Todd Milewski over the weekend
This has the video that goes into the major changes and provides lots of examples
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Everyone's talking about rules and penalties here today, so why not watch the 2018-19 NCAA hockey rules video while you have some time before the season?<a href="https://t.co/Jw01n5Oi6N">https://t.co/Jw01n5Oi6N</a><br><br>Seems like we should expect a bunch of slashing and too-many-players calls.</p>— Todd Milewski (@ToddMilewski) <a href="https://twitter.com/ToddMilewski/status/1041451398280437760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

"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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top