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

Re: Rule Changes

GreatLakerMohawk said:
Goalies putting the puck over the glass has always been a delay of game penalty.
Click to expand...

Actually, in the NCAA, the goalie (or any other player) only receives a delay of game penalty for shooting the puck over the glass if deemed to be "deliberate" -- see rule 6-10a.
 
Re: Rule Changes

My question is this. What is going to happen if the shorthanded team DOES ice the puck? Cause it is sure to happen. What rules are in place to handle that one? Probably a penalty shot ... (just kidding).
 
Re: Rule Changes

Suze said:
My question is this. What is going to happen if the shorthanded team DOES ice the puck? Cause it is sure to happen. What rules are in place to handle that one? Probably a penalty shot ... (just kidding).
Click to expand...

Gonna take a wild guess and say a whistle stops play, the puck comes back to the shorthanded team's zone, and there's a faceoff with the shorthanded team not allowed to change...like when there's an icing any other time.
 
Re: Rule Changes

There's another aspect to the PK icing rule that I'm surprised has not been mentioned yet (but if it is I apologize):

At the end of a game when a team pulls its goalie AND is on the PP, it's a 6 on 4 but the shorthanded team has a major advantage as they can now shoot away at the empty net. With this rule that won't happen (as much) and it will give the team on the PP a much bigger advantage in this situation. I'm always more nervous during a 6x4 where the SH team can ice it than I am during a regular 6x5 situation.

But, overall, it's pretty silly.
 
Re: Rule Changes

Gryba Dekes said:
There's another aspect to the PK icing rule that I'm surprised has not been mentioned yet (but if it is I apologize):

At the end of a game when a team pulls its goalie AND is on the PP, it's a 6 on 4 but the shorthanded team has a major advantage as they can now shoot away at the empty net. With this rule that won't happen (as much) and it will give the team on the PP a much bigger advantage in this situation. I'm always more nervous during a 6x4 where the SH team can ice it than I am during a regular 6x5 situation.

But, overall, it's pretty silly.
Click to expand...

Good point, that definitely will lead to more late game heart attacks.
 
Re: Rule Changes

Gryba Dekes said:
There's another aspect to the PK icing rule that I'm surprised has not been mentioned yet (but if it is I apologize):

At the end of a game when a team pulls its goalie AND is on the PP, it's a 6 on 4 but the shorthanded team has a major advantage as they can now shoot away at the empty net. With this rule that won't happen (as much) and it will give the team on the PP a much bigger advantage in this situation. I'm always more nervous during a 6x4 where the SH team can ice it than I am during a regular 6x5 situation.

But, overall, it's pretty silly.
Click to expand...

It's not just the end of the game. With this rule, if you've got a 5 on 3, I think there's a lot more incentive to pull the goalie & make it 6 on 3, even early in the game.
 
Re: Rule Changes

See, that article just ****es me off even more. This isn't supposed to be the minor leagues for the NHL. THis is supposed to be the NCAA, a completely separate entity. Just because the USA PD camps use it doesn't mean it is intelligent to put it in competition. I can't think of ANY major body that actually uses this rule (I guess outside of the PD camps...)

Edit: Well, not the article itself, but rather the justification behind these buffoons attempting to implement the rule in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rule Changes

This latest article is seriously coaching by committee. They want to force creativity in defence? Jesus Christ, what the ****? Maybe someone will paint a picture of a goal, and the other team will be confused and shoot at that? Or perhaps the defencemen will disguise themselves in the underbrush? How Shakespearean! A+ for creativity! Then they will discuss how it FELT and then hug!

Why is there an obsession with engineering more scoring opportunities? What about offensive creativity, hm? I don't want to see a power play at 40%. I don't want to see three hour games! I drive to Duluth and back sometimes!

Lastly, this lovely Mr. Karr thinks players will be less likely to take a penalty because a PP is more costly. This just incentivizes diving. St. Cloud would have 30 PPs a game.
 
Re: Rule Changes

Runninwiththedogs said:
Lastly, this lovely Mr. Karr thinks players will be less likely to take a penalty because a PP is more costly. This just incentivizes diving. St. Cloud would have 30 PPs a game.
Click to expand...

Karr is fooling himself. With the focus on new rules regarding blows to the head and wanting them all to be major penalties, there's no doubt in my mind that penalties would jump up because refs will be instructed by their conferences to make sure no foul goes uncalled in that regard.

Karr is a friggin' clown and should cram it with walnuts.
 
Re: Rule Changes

Suze said:
Here is the latest article on the no-icing rule. Sounds like it may not pass after all:

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/06/14_newicing.php
Click to expand...

:D :D :D :D Thank God! I didn’t like the no-icing rule, in the locker room today there was a large discussion of the rule among players from ACHA DII and DI, NCAA Div I and Jr. A players and everyone called BS on the rule. I'm glad the coaches stood up, no-icing on the PK drastically changes the game.

As for the other part of the article I like the CCHA shootouts, and fans def did. I think shootouts are fine, and should be college hockey wide. I like that every game has a winner and loser rather than tie. Besides having them in the NHL (unlike some ppl I don’t think every NHL rule should be in college hockey, but some consistency is good)

Wild E. Cat said:
Excellent news indeed, but the icing rule is not the only one that needs to be overturned.
Click to expand...

What are the other one(s)?
 
Re: Rule Changes

Runninwiththedogs said:
Why is there an obsession with engineering more scoring opportunities? What about offensive creativity, hm? I don't want to see a power play at 40%. I don't want to see three hour games! I drive to Duluth and back sometimes!
Click to expand...

Some people are inclined to believe the amount of scoring is why that sport with the orange round thing is popular. If they were that desperate, they would make the goals the size of barrels and remove the goaltenders.

Runninwiththedogs said:
Lastly, this lovely Mr. Karr thinks players will be less likely to take a penalty because a PP is more costly. This just incentivizes diving. St. Cloud would have 30 PPs a game.
Click to expand...

I know I already called this out with the CTH majors, and compared to the CFB majors. Did the CFB auto-major rule also get repealed after 2 years by the same means? I know I see plenty of 2 minute CFB calls, at least in the ECAC.
 
Re: Rule Changes

FlagDUDE08 said:
I know I already called this out with the CTH majors, and compared to the CFB majors. Did the CFB auto-major rule also get repealed after 2 years by the same means? I know I see plenty of 2 minute CFB calls, at least in the ECAC.
Click to expand...
No, it's still in effect. Remember that the mandatory major and game misconduct for checking from behind is only if it's into the boards or goal cage. If it's in open ice then the officials can still call only a minor. But, of course, the officials always have an out by calling a minor for boarding rather than a major for checking from behind.
 
Re: Rule Changes

These are certainly some "winner" changes:

First, the penalty after the delayed penalty. In most cases, the purpose of a penalty call is to nullify the advantage a team incurs due to an illegal act. If the offended team scores anyway, then why the need for the penalty.

The shootout rule is a direct attack on the smaller schools in D-1 hockey. It is widely known that the majority of the "blue chip" players will go to the top 5 or 6 programs. They are also the guys that have the most raw talent and would excel in a shootout. Smaller schools can field a competitive team in hockey by teaching good team defense, finishing checks, and good puck control. They can sometimes effectively neutralize the skill players. I know the NC$$ would rather have the Gophers or Wolverines in the Frozen Four than Bemidji or RIT but let's not legislate them out of competition.

The no icing rule is an interesting one. I've actually always wondered why you penalize a team but then give them an advantage but that's the way it's done at every level of hockey and it seems to work pretty darn well.

Looking back at the last 5 years of college hockey, we've had some of the most exciting and competitive seasons and tournaments in the history of college hockey. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
 
Re: Rule Changes

FireKnight said:
The shootout rule is a direct attack on the smaller schools in D-1 hockey. It is widely known that the majority of the "blue chip" players will go to the top 5 or 6 programs. They are also the guys that have the most raw talent and would excel in a shootout. Smaller schools can field a competitive team in hockey by teaching good team defense, finishing checks, and good puck control. They can sometimes effectively neutralize the skill players. I know the NC$$ would rather have the Gophers or Wolverines in the Frozen Four than Bemidji or RIT but let's not legislate them out of competition.
Click to expand...
They're not making shootouts mandatory. Two years ago they added shootouts as an option to decide conference games. Only the CCHA and Hockey East women's leagues implemented it. It looks like the CCHA is going to abandon shootouts next season anyway so they're probably gone for good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top