Rule Changes?

[purpleinnebraska]

Re: Rule Changes?

Because it is played under the same rules as regulation time would be my argument. But awarding points for some other kind of game with sticks and pucks is a "no" for me.

Back when college football starting doing their dumb overtime "mini-field" games, Mike Golic put it best (and I'm paraphrasing here) Why do we play real football for 60 minutes to determine a winner and if that doesn't work then you get this circus of getting the ball at the 20 yard line determines a winner. That's exactly what playing hockey with less than five skaters is... something other than the game of hockey.

If the world wasn't ok with low scoring or ties in sporting events, Soccer (sorry, football as everyone else calls it) would have been wiped off the planet decades ago.

Giving a team a point in the standings because they have one guy that can put a puck past the goalie in a trick shot competition is NOT hockey. I'm not saying you can't have shootouts, but stop awarding conference points based on them.

I'm neutral on shootouts and 3v3, I just don't see what sense it makes to say, Ties are OK, but not 60 minute ties!

 

[j24vt]

Re: Rule Changes?

One 20 minute sudden death OT and then call it a tie in the regular season. Post season keep going until there is a winner. I do not like the OT gimmicks.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Rule Changes?

I don't disagree that it's dumb to have 2 and 3 point games. But what I find outrageously dumb with the college rules versus the NHL is with why college plays a 5v5 5 minute overtime...and then calls a game a tie for points purposes. You already had 60 minutes of 5v5. So now we have a system where some games are 60 minutes, and some are 65. If a 3v3 or shootout win shouldn't count as much as a regulation win, why should a 64th minute win count the same as a regulation win?

I'm neutral on shootouts and 3v3, I just don't see what sense it makes to say, Ties are OK, but not 60 minute ties!

It seems this same discussion happens every two years when it is a rules change year. College hockey has always had overtime, going back over 100 years. By 1928-29 (the earliest NCAA Ice Hockey Rules book I have) overtime consisted of up to 2 10-minute regulation periods (like in football, aka soccer) when the full period was played regardless of whether a goal was scored. If the game was tied after the first overtime period a second overtime period was played before the game was declared a tie. Beginning in 1937-38 overtime was shortened to one regulation 10-minute period. Beginning with the 1949-50 season overtime was changed to sudden-death. The change to a 5-minute overtime period happened between 1987-88 and 1989-90 (in the 1986-87 rules book it was a 10 minute overtime and in the 1990-91 rules book it was a 5 minute overtime (and not a new change)).

Sean

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Rule Changes?

embellishment and diving are 2 different things to me. The words mean things. Embellishment.....You can't embellish something that doesn't exist. So, yes, you can have a hook, and also embellishment at the same time. But, diving, in my mind, is total fakery. No infraction, just acting to get a call. "Diving" if defined that way, must be called on its own.

Couldn't agree more.

Either it's one (an actual infraction) or the other (a dive, absent an actual infraction).

I've hated the embellishment call from Day One. It contradicts logic.

Waaaay stupid.

 

[jfromvt]

Re: Rule Changes?

I don't have a problem with calling both hooking and embellishment/diving at the same time if it's egregious. The embellishment would come after the initial infraction really. Any attempt at curtailing theatrics on the ice is fine by me. Unless you guys are suggesting simply calling embellishment then. I would also be ok with that.

I really don't view 4v4 OT as a gimmick or that it's not "real" hockey. Shootout, yes. But 4 v 4 is the logical next step if you want to reduce ties. Or a 10 minute 5 v 5 OT. But I would go with a 4v4 five minute OT and if nobody scores it's a tie. No shootout, everyone go home.

I hate the embellishment penalty if there was actually a penalty. Easy cop out for the ref on a marginal call. If a guy embellishes a non-penalty, fine, give him a penalty.

 

[MTUHuskies]

Re: Rule Changes?

Weighing in on a couple current topics:

1- If tied after 60 minutes, play one 5v5 10-minute sudden death OT. If tied after 70 minutes, it's a tie. Win=2 points, Tie=1 point, Loss=0 points.

2- A penalty is a penalty. The offending player shall be penalized for his actions regardless of what his opponent does. If the offended player embellishes to "sell it" to the ref, he shall be penalized 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct. (Both players are penalized resulting in 4v4). If a player dives to "sell" a phantom infraction that did not occur, he shall be penalized 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct. ("Diving" team kills a 5v4 penalty).

I don't see any reason to call them "diving" or "embellishment" they are both unsportsmanlike conduct and should be assessed whether or not the opposing players actions were a penalty or legal.

Edit: giving an "embellishment" penalty causing a 4v4 is no different than giving a slashing minor to a guy that got cross checked in front of the net and retaliated with a chop across the ankle. Both should be 4v4.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[gochiefs]

Re: Rule Changes?

I would propose that any review would on;y last 1 minute or so. Too many games are delayed over 5 minutes for numerous reviews.
The reviews in college hockey have been getting out of control. There needs to be some kind of limit on them.

Also please no shutouts!

 

[J.D.]

Re: Rule Changes?

The way it stands now, do all leagues allow the coach to challenge a play? But then refs can also review things on their own? Maybe eliminate those reviews and limit reviews to things that are challenged by the coach. You get one challenge. If you are successful with your challenge you keep it. If you are unsuccessful you lose the challenge and incur a 2 minute penalty for delay of game.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: Rule Changes?

So if we're on the subject of outdated rules, here's one I want desperately to eliminate.

Coincidental penalties.

This started to combat one team in one era in one league, and filtered its way down all the way through hockey. When the Edmonton Oilers used to have the best skill players in the world (Gretzky, Kurri, Coffey, etc.) they could rack up multiple goals on a 3x3 or a 4x4 situation. The NHL decided they needed to curtail that, and so they decided to not change the manpower on the ice to prevent it. That meant that we as fans were deprived of the skill players using more available ice, and the clutch-and-grab jackals rejoiced.

The '84 Oilers don't exist any more. Neither should this rule.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Rule Changes?

So you're in favor of going to 4v4 when there are coincidental penalties? Fine by me. More ice/offense is good for the game.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: Rule Changes?

So you're in favor of going to 4v4 when there are coincidental penalties? Fine by me. More ice/offense is good for the game.

Coincidental penalties benefit the less skilled team. All of the minor tweaks in recent years preventing line changes (icing, pucks out of play) are starting to give the advantage to the more skilled team. This is a natural and overdue change.

 

[Numbers]

Re: Rule Changes?

Coincidental penalties benefit the less skilled team. All of the minor tweaks in recent years preventing line changes (icing, pucks out of play) are starting to give the advantage to the more skilled team. This is a natural and overdue change.

How do coincidental penalties benefit the less skilled team, per se? I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems like going to 4v4 on coincidental minors creates more room for skilled players. Or, do you have data to show something else?

 

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: Rule Changes?

How do coincidental penalties benefit the less skilled team, per se? I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems like going to 4v4 on coincidental minors creates more room for skilled players. Or, do you have data to show something else?

Coincidental penalties currently keep it 5x5. So you're correct that 4x4 would leave more room and benefit the more skilled team, and that's my argument. If any penalty goes up on the board, the time appears and the team is reduced in player strength. The term "coincidental penalties" would just be eliminated.

 

[pdt1081]

How do coincidental penalties benefit the less skilled team, per se? I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems like going to 4v4 on coincidental minors creates more room for skilled players. Or, do you have data to show something else?

The term "coincidental" vs "matching."

They made a tweak to the system a few years ago so "matching" minors go on the board, and affect on ice manpower, when teams are playing 5 on 5. If there's any penalty time on the board, the penalties are "coincidental" and don't affect the on ice numbers. This would take a 5 on 4 situation down to a 4 on 3, a 4 on 4 down to a 3 on 3, etc.

 

[Ed Trefzger]

Re: Rule Changes?

"The NHL general managers voted Tuesday in favor of changing the application of the offside rule to allow for players to be considered onside as long as one of their skates is above the vertical plane of the blue line regardless if it is in contact with the ice." https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-general-managers-suggest-rule-change/c-315804534

Should college hockey stay in step with that? It likely would mean fewer goals overturned, fewer challenges, and faster replay.

 

[Split-N]

Re: Rule Changes?

"The NHL general managers voted Tuesday in favor of changing the application of the offside rule to allow for players to be considered onside as long as one of their skates is above the vertical plane of the blue line regardless if it is in contact with the ice." https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-general-managers-suggest-rule-change/c-315804534

Should college hockey stay in step with that? It likely would mean fewer goals overturned, fewer challenges, and faster replay.

Be careful what you wish for. The downside of implementing this in the NCAA is that multiple on-ice officials and multiple off-ice supervisors, all huddled around monitors, will take even longer than they do now to decide where, precisely, the "vertical plane" is and whether or not a skate tip is or is not in it. The obvious solution is to stop reviewing for offsides. Let the linesmen do their jobs or else don't use them.

 

[MTUHuskies]

Re: Rule Changes?

"The NHL general managers voted Tuesday in favor of changing the application of the offside rule to allow for players to be considered onside as long as one of their skates is above the vertical plane of the blue line regardless if it is in contact with the ice." https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-general-managers-suggest-rule-change/c-315804534

Should college hockey stay in step with that? It likely would mean fewer goals overturned, fewer challenges, and faster replay.

My first reaction is that I do not like the proposed rule. As it is now, a player is onside until he is no longer in touch with the neutral zone. That is a very straightforward definition.

The way they are dismissive about a toe slightly off the ice brothers me. If the foot is off the ice it is offside. Period. "Goals" are not being "taken away". The attacking player couldn't stay onside and it wasn't a goal in the first place.

Will they say it is still a goal if the puck is only slightly touching the goal line?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[manurespreader]

Re: Rule Changes?

My first reaction is that I do not like the proposed rule. As it is now, a player is onside until he is no longer in touch with the neutral zone. That is a very straightforward definition.

The way they are dismissive about a toe slightly off the ice brothers me. If the foot is off the ice it is offside. Period. "Goals" are not being "taken away". The attacking player couldn't stay onside and it wasn't a goal in the first place.

Will they say it is still a goal if the puck is only slightly touching the goal line?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

They already push the limits of offsides too far. I don't care if it takes a long time, offsides is offsides and should not result in a goal. I am against the plane as being hard to call as an on-ice official. If they can't definitively discern it, how the heck is it supposed to be a rule.

Also I'm unhappy with the way embellishment /diving is called.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Rule Changes?

I have always thought the rule about the skate needing to be on the ice was dumb. Couldn't care less if the skate is off the ice.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Rule Changes?

If they change what "offsides" is it will no longer be "offsides" if any part of the skate is above the blueline - in contact with the ice or not. This seems like an innocuous change to the rule.

Regardless if you agree with that or not it is a completely separate issue from using replay to review calls. They could make this change in the ruling if there were replay or not.