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?

M

manurespreader

Still upright
I believe this is a rule change year and so I thought it might be nice to see what types of changes the fans would like to see.

Personally I'd like the pairwise to be tweaked so that the QWB only applies to OOC games, but if you have a rule you'd like to see implemented or changed, now's your chance.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

manurespreader said:
I believe this is a rule change year and so I thought it might be nice to see what types of changes the fans would like to see.

Personally I'd like the pairwise to be tweaked so that the QWB only applies to OOC games, but if you have a rule you'd like to see implemented or changed, now's your chance.
Click to expand...
You are referring to two different things. This is indeed a rules change year for playing rules. I believe that the pairwise rules can be changed every year.

Sean
 
Re: Rule Changes?

They need to institute the minor penalty for coaches challenges that aren’t confirmed. Certain Coaches are using these challenges as a free timeout at strategic moments in games. I wouldn’t mind seeing three on three OT as well, with no shoot out.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

LTsatch said:
They need to institute the minor penalty for coaches challenges that aren’t confirmed. Certain Coaches are using these challenges as a free timeout at strategic moments in games. I wouldn’t mind seeing three on three OT as well, with no shoot out.
Click to expand...
Yes a 2 minute minor for delay of game and lost of timeout...as for Overtime, a take from the BIG1o...but 2 out of the 3 they do...5x5/5minute OT...if still tied, 3x3/5 minute OT...if still tied...goes in the books as a tie...in the BIG1o...they do the the first 2...plus then a shoot out...3 rounds...if still tied continue till there's a goal scored. BUT I am with you NO SHOOT-OUT's.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

I would be in favor of a couple of changes. First a 2-minute delay of game penalty for hitting the puck out of play from your defensive zone like in the NHL. Next, as they do in International Rules for face-offs, a player isn’t thrown out of the faceoff for a violation but receives a warning and results in a delay penalty should it happen a second time.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

While we're on the topic of rule changes, I noticed in this year's Beanpot both games involving BU went to double overtime, but the 1st OT was 5 minutes and the 2nd OT 20 minutes. Even more weird, there was an intermission between the first and second OTs, with the zamboni coming out to resurface the ice, but no intermission between the 3rd period and OT1.

The NESN commentators mentioned this was "because of the Pairwise". I'm guessing these 2 games are ties for NCAA selection purposes, and in each case, the 2nd OT was simply to "extrapolate a winner"?
 
manurespreader said:
I believe this is a rule change year and so I thought it might be nice to see what types of changes the fans would like to see.

Personally I'd like the pairwise to be tweaked so that the QWB only applies to OOC games, but if you have a rule you'd like to see implemented or changed, now's your chance.
Click to expand...

The new OT rules for 19-20 permit this format. Apparently the NCAA wants to standardize the tie (and it sure looked like they played for the tie in the 5 min OT) and then you can go, for conference play or in season tournaments, 3x3 then SO, or, just for in season tournaments, zam and then do unlimited 20s.

Post season is always zam and unlimited 20s.

What I wish
win 5x5-> 3 points winner, 0 points loser
win 4x4,3x3 or SO -> 2 points winner, 1 point loser.

Other than that, one change would be aggressive fouls (i.e. the non restraining or technical fouls) must be served in their entirety.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

Pucknut said:
First a 2-minute delay of game penalty for hitting the puck out of play from your defensive zone like in the NHL.
Click to expand...
No. This is one of the dumbest rules in hockey. This is one where the NCAA has it right. You treat it like icing, faceoff in the defensive zone, and you can't change players.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

LTsatch said:
They need to institute the minor penalty for coaches challenges that aren’t confirmed. Certain Coaches are using these challenges as a free timeout at strategic moments in games. I wouldn’t mind seeing three on three OT as well, with no shoot out.
Click to expand...

There is not a separate coach's challenge. A coach must use their timeout to initiate a review so it is not a free timeout. If their timeout was used, they can't challenge.

I'm not sure it would make sense to penalize them even more when they already have to use a timeout (regular season only).
 
Re: Rule Changes?

I would like to see them go to the NHL-style overtime where each team gets a point after 60 minutes.

The 5v5 sudden death OT is old and outdated and ties do nothing to keep casual fans involved. Give each team the point they earned and let some exciting 3v3 hockey decide the winner...no shootout is necessary if they want to skip that.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

CKrouth said:
I would like to see them go to the NHL-style overtime where each team gets a point after 60 minutes.

The 5v5 sudden death OT is old and outdated and ties do nothing to keep casual fans involved. Give each team the point they earned and let some exciting 3v3 hockey decide the winner...no shootout is necessary if they want to skip that.
Click to expand...

I do think the NCAA has even dumber rules than the NHL on this. "OK, we're going to play some overtime, but just a little bit, and if that doesn't resolve it, then we'll call it a tie."
Either play it all the way out with no point for the team that loses, call it after 60 minutes and split the points, or do some sort of a hybrid where you produce a winner through other means (3 on 3 or shootout) and both teams get points. But the current setup is inconsistent in design.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

For the love of god anything but the NHL's 2-1-1 system. At least keep 3 points on the table like the western conferences already do if we're going to introduce OT points.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

CKrouth said:
There is not a separate coach's challenge. A coach must use their timeout to initiate a review so it is not a free timeout. If their timeout was used, they can't challenge.

I'm not sure it would make sense to penalize them even more when they already have to use a timeout (regular season only).
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. So if the Coach is correct, he retains the timeout for the future and the team still gets a rest without using a timeout.

93.7 Team Timeout Request/Coach's Challenge - A team may use its timeout
for the purpose of reviewing situations that are in the video replay criteria
or a potentially non-detected goal. If the challenge is successful, the team
retains its timeout; if the challenge is unsuccessful, the timeout is charged.
This timeout policy applies to any video replay procedure used. The on-ice
official makes the final decision.
In order for a time out to be granted a coach must:
• Identify from the onset of the request that the time out is for purpose
of video review. A coach may not request a video review if the timeout
is taken for another purpose. A coach may not stall in any manner prior
to requesting the review.
• Identify the specific video replay criteria requested to be reviewed.
When any aspect of the video replay criteria is challenged, it allows the
referee to utilize all aspects of the review criteria to be judged (e.g., high stick
challenged, but video shows the puck was kicked into the goal).
When a video review, due to technical issues with the video replay system,
is unable to provide an adequate review, a team timeout will not be charged.
 
Re: Rule Changes?

What about the checking from behind majors vs minors? And what about these bogus embellishment calls I keep seeing? It seems as if the refs don't make a call, they just go to replay. And contact to the head, if I'm 6'6 and I check someone who is 5'8 it's almost guaranteed isn't it?
 
ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
For the life of me, I cannot understand this mentality.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I am fine with ties. I don't need to be there an extra half hour so we can fiddle around with two different five minute OTs and a shootout just so we can have a "winner". It's a long season, ties are fine. The only tweak I would support is a 4 on 4 OT. If nobody scores a tie is fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top