Rule Changes

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes

COuld someone explain the "recommendations" aspect of the Rules Committee?

So are these things now "law" or is there a process that happens next?

Twelve basketball school representatives who don't know the difference between a blue line and a clothes line rubber stamp the rules unless it risks player safety. Which makes me fear that they'll leave no touch icing and approve the rest, thereby making the game even worse than a fail. I do hope they do their research to find out what not only the fans, but the coaches want to see.

 

[BC/HE]

Re: Rule Changes

Your understanding of the new hybrid icing is wrong. The puck still needs to pass the opposing goal line to possibly be called. What changes is that this is no longer automatic. If an "attacking" player reaches the faceoff dots before a "defending" player, then the icing will be waved off, because icing should not be called when someone from the attacking team is five strides past everyone else.

So, the puck still has to go the full length, but it can be cancelled by fast skaters. However, as RWTD said, I expect the number of teams that still send out top players for the PK to drop significantly.

I completely understand that the puck has to cross the goal line but what is up for interpretation still is the face off dots being the reference point. Is it the reference point for when a skater passes it or for when the puck passes it for the officials to make the determination? Say for example a power play unit skater is not being contested for the puck does he still have to get all the way to the face off dot or do they determine as the puck crosses the dot that he will easily get there first and then blow the whistle as it crosses the line? As far as I can tell nowhere does it say which way is correct. That would be up for interpretation still. Seems that it would be unnecessary for someone to have to sprint to the face off dot just in case. Until I see the wording that the reference point is for a skater passing it this rule must be up for interpretation. That being the case it may have to be sent back for interpretation and thus voided in this round of rule changes.

 

[KnowItAll]

Re: Rule Changes

One thing to remember in this no icing on the Penalty kill is that they are changing the definition of icing. So you can still ice it with the possibility of having the icing waved off if when the puck passes the face off circle the officials decide an attacker will get there first. This will keep the powerplay team from playing too close offensively as they must be ready to race for an icing. What it will stop a lot of are the wild slaps from deep in your own end just to get it out of the zone. The defense will have to play it with more strategy and when they are leaving the zone instead of just icing they will have to hit the redline before dumping it. I am starting to find this proposed rule not as bad as I originally thought.

it is not as bad as the knee jerks think it is.

i have officiated many games with this rule in effect, and as you put it, the short handed team has to play with strategy.

also, it makes a penalty a penalty and does not give an advantage to a penalized team.

i am pretty amazed at all of the opinions spouted by people with no basis for comment.

 

[burgie12]

Re: Rule Changes

I completely understand that the puck has to cross the goal line but what is up for interpretation still is the face off dots being the reference point. Is it the reference point for when a skater passes it or for when the puck passes it for the officials to make the determination? Say for example a power play unit skater is not being contested for the puck does he still have to get all the way to the face off dot or do they determine as the puck crosses the dot that he will easily get there first and then blow the whistle as it crosses the line? As far as I can tell nowhere does it say which way is correct. That would be up for interpretation still. Seems that it would be unnecessary for someone to have to sprint to the face off dot just in case. Until I see the wording that the reference point is for a skater passing it this rule must be up for interpretation. That being the case it may have to be sent back for interpretation and thus voided in this round of rule changes.

My understanding from the USHL rule (which is what this is based upon) is that the skater had to pass the faceoff dot. I agree that it may seem foolish for the two examples that we have presented (where there is a skater who is clearly going to reach the puck first), but I think that it presents an excellent reference point for the close races. And, making the skater pass the dots (instead of the puck passing it) seems logical to me.

 

[CornwallAce]

Re: Rule Changes

That's a rule I expected to see, not the icing rule!! It's soooooo freaking stupid!!

If not bring a baseball glove to games, because pucks are going to be flying off the ice during the pk.

Baseball glove might not help that much. (Better than nothing though) I think I'll pour a bottle of fabreeze into my goalie glove and bring it to the games now. Is a blocker going too far?

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Rule Changes

Baseball glove might not help that much. (Better than nothing though) I think I'll pour a bottle of fabreeze into my goalie glove and bring it to the games now. Is a blocker going too far?

No, no it isn't.

 

[candycanes99]

Re: Rule Changes

it is not as bad as the knee jerks think it is.

i have officiated many games with this rule in effect, and as you put it, the short handed team has to play with strategy.

also, it makes a penalty a penalty and does not give an advantage to a penalized team.

i am pretty amazed at all of the opinions spouted by people with no basis for comment.

Your username is just too perfect.

I'm glad as an official you think the rule won't be bad, but it seems like most of the coaches (who have no basis for comment, right?) seem to dislike the idea of these changes. There's no advantage to the penalized team, they still get scored on 20% of the time while generally rarely being able to do so themselves. There already is a strategy to PK, it's get the puck and clear it. Even if you think it logically makes sense in the grand scheme of penalties, it does radically change the way the game will be played.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

Re: Rule Changes

it is not as bad as the knee jerks think it is.

i have officiated many games with this rule in effect, and as you put it, the short handed team has to play with strategy.

also, it makes a penalty a penalty and does not give an advantage to a penalized team.

i am pretty amazed at all of the opinions spouted by people with no basis for comment.

I didn't know mini-mites had penalties or power plays!

 

[LtPowers]

Re: Rule Changes

also, it makes a penalty a penalty and does not give an advantage to a penalized team.

Because that SHG to PPG ratio is over 1 now, right?


Powers &8^]

 

[Goon]

Re: Rule Changes

only because you won't be able to change the skaters.

It's a horrible and stupid rule and the committee decided to recommend this law without even consulting the Division one hockey coaches which ruled almost anonymously that they didn't want this stupid rule. John Hill just proved what many of us thought already that the guys is a moron of the nth degree.

 

[Driftryder]

Re: Rule Changes

also, it makes a penalty a penalty and does not give an advantage to a penalized team.

i am pretty amazed at all of the opinions spouted by people with no basis for comment.

Here I didn't think being shorthanded was such an advantage, I guess I have been watching Hockey incorrectly for all these years.



And this is the place to spout baseless opinions in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Rule Changes

Here I didn't think being shorthanded was such an advantage, I guess I have been watching Hockey incorrectly for all these years.



And this is the place to spout baseless opinions in case you haven't noticed.

I think what they were going for, is that the shorthanded team used to be able to ice the puck, while the team on the powerplay could not. That gives the shorthanded team an ability that the other team does not have, and it could be perceived as an advantage.

However, despite having this "advantage", shorthanded teams were outscored in the WCHA last year 394-61.

 

[owslachief]

Re: Rule Changes

Thank you very much for posting that. The quotes from the coaches are great, but this pretty much sums it up:

"Going against the wishes of the vast majority of Division I men’s coaches — and all 12 Western Collegiate Hockey Association coaches — the NCAA Rules Committee recommended major rules changes for this upcoming season."

Just an absolute disgrace that coaches weren't given the respect they deserve during this process. No other way to say it.

There is actually - Pure Arrogance

 

[BC/HE]

Re: Rule Changes

I think what they were going for, is that the shorthanded team used to be able to ice the puck, while the team on the powerplay could not. That gives the shorthanded team an ability that the other team does not have, and it could be perceived as an advantage.

However, despite having this "advantage", shorthanded teams were outscored in the WCHA last year 394-61.

What they could do then is eliminate icing by either side during penalties to even up the perceived advantage given to the shorthanded team. As to what good it would be for the power play unit I don't know for it could result in back and forth icing.

 

[Happy]

Re: Rule Changes

It's a horrible and stupid rule and the committee decided to recommend this law without even consulting the Division one hockey coaches which ruled almost anonymously that they didn't want this stupid rule. John Hill just proved what many of us thought already that the guys is a moron of the nth degree.

at least he isn't stupid enough to move to some hellish flat place that even trees forsake.

 

[candycanes99]

Re: Rule Changes

Well, at least there's still no trapezoid.

 

[sbkbghockey]

Re: Rule Changes

Well, at least there's still no trapezoid.

I was expecting the trapezoid (another dumb rule),
the delay of game for a puck being shot over the glass,
shootout,
and some type of head contact rule (got that one)

but I didn't see this stupid icing rule coming!

 

[burgie12]

Re: Rule Changes

the delay of game for a puck being shot over the glass,

It already exists: 2008-10 Rulebook (PDF)

A player or goalkeeper shall not delay the game by deliberately shooting, batting or throwing the puck outside the playing area during play or after a stoppage of play.

The ref has to determine that the player had intent to put the puck out of play. It is not an automatic penalty, like in the NHL, but it still exists.

 

[sbkbghockey]

Re: Rule Changes

It already exists: 2008-10 Rulebook (PDF)



The ref has to determine that the player had intent to put the puck out of play. It is not an automatic penalty, like in the NHL, but it still exists.

Wow, learn something new everyday! I'm not sure its ever been used, I've never seen it, I meant and I'd like to see the NHL automatic penalty at the NCAA level.

 

[candycanes99]

Re: Rule Changes

I was expecting the trapezoid (another dumb rule),
the delay of game for a puck being shot over the glass,
shootout,
and some type of head contact rule (got that one)

but I didn't see this stupid icing rule coming!

They had tested the no icing during PK a few years ago during exhibitions I think since it had been proposed before, but I didn't think the trial run was successful.

Even if these changes were to happen, I can't believe they're changing so many things at once. The new icing system should not be instituted the same year as the no PK icing rule, it's going to be too much to get accustomed to at once, and teams are going to struggle early on with the adjustments I think.

Wow, learn something new everyday! I'm not sure its ever been used, I've never seen it, I meant and I'd like to see the NHL automatic penalty at the NCAA level.

It has been called, but subjective calls like this are hardly ever made in key situations. It has to be really obvious to put a team down two men if they're already on the PK. Or if in OT...

http://www.uscho.com/recaps/20082009/m/01/03/nu-umn.php

Patrick White scored the game winner for Minnesota at 1:38 of the extra session, just seven seconds after Northeastern goaltender Brad Thiessen was whistled for delay of game after shooting the puck over the side boards.