What's new
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

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.

Pumpkin pushing is popular because anyone can play it. It's practically free and really easy to organize. It's also easy to understand. I find that the high scoring is totally dull. I mean, there's very little drama. Their overtimes are stupid, too. No tension there.
 
Re: Rule Changes

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.
Well, theoretically, you can tinker with the rules to achieve any (average) PP conversion rate that you want. If you want it at 40%, then don't allow the PK to ice the puck or change after icings, don't release the player when the PP scores, and make the PP 3 minutes long instead of 2. Those are all "levers" that the rules committee can pull to make the conversion % go up or down. The right combination of those is a value/aesthetics judgement.
 
Re: Rule Changes

Two years ago they added shootouts as an option to decide conference games. Only the CCHA and Hockey East women's leagues implemented it.

WCHA women's league uses shootouts too.

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.

I will preface this by saying that I am against shootouts. However, I don't buy at all the idea that the "best" teams get an advantage in a shootout. In college football, often the smaller schools go for 2 in OT because they figure that in the long run, its better to shorten the game and have it come more down to luck than plays after plays. That's how Boise State beat Oklahoma. And while I'm not saying its the same thing, you certainly can find people who'd apply that same logic. And the conference I follow doesn't use shootouts, so I don't really know, but I'm sure there are examples of top end teams that don't do all that well in shootouts and bottom teams that had success.

A large percentage of times that a team that's not nearly as talented steals a win or tie in a hockey game is because they've got a hot goalie, and certainly having a hot goalie is a HUGE plus in a shootout. I don't like shootouts, but this certainly isn't a situation in which I feel that the small schools are being oppressed.
 
Re: Rule Changes

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

The quotes from Forrest Karr in that piece are infuriating. He and the rules committee strong-armed this icing on the PK thing through without consulting all of the coaches. Seems pretty clear he wants the NCAA to be the testing ground for this stuff rather than do more with it in development camps or just let USA Hockey do their goddaam job and continue to figure things out for themselves.

That gang of retards can go f-ck themselves.
 
Re: Rule Changes

This is to you Karr.

Issue a public release defending your statements and defending the committee's decision. Justify what you did and not go for cover in that so and so was "persuasive" or this was "inconclusive" so on.

You, somebody else on your committee... do it. You obviously made that decision... own up to it.
 
Re: Rule Changes

This is to you Karr.

Issue a public release defending your statements and defending the committee's decision. Justify what you did and not go for cover in that so and so was "persuasive" or this was "inconclusive" so on.

You, somebody else on your committee... do it. You obviously made that decision... own up to it.

Won't happen. I emailed him about this, citing two studies (done by the NHL and highschool hockey), linking fatigue to increased injuries. Sticking players out there on the PK and not letting them ice the puck to get off the ice leads to fatigue.

He would not answer any of my questions. Just said to call him and he would discuss the committee's decision. I don't think he wanted a hard copy of his comments anywhere. If anyone else wants to call him, his phone number is easy to find.
 
Re: Rule Changes

Even better, Karr's own coach was against the icing on the PK rule change. :mad: There was a conference call between the coaches. ZERO CCHA coaches wanted this change, and "very few" from across all 58 schools.


Luckily, I've heard that the NCAA Rules Oversight Committee has a meeting in July to discuss, and then approve/disapprove of these changes.
 
Re: Rule Changes

Luckily, I've heard that the NCAA Rules Oversight Committee has a meeting in July to discuss, and then approve/disapprove of these changes.
Unfortunately the people who sit on this NCAA Rules Oversight Committee probably think icing is when the Zamboni resurfaces the ice. The best chance of having this overturned is for the Rules Committee to retract it.
 
Re: Rule Changes

I just have 4 comments:

#1. The contact to the head rule change-just leave it alone and try (alot) harder to make the right call in identifying the intentional hits and the ignorantly executed hits (just because it was an accident doesn't mean it couldn't have been avoided)

#2. The giving the PP after scoring on delayed rule change-again, just leave it alone because it IS a double advantage. If you get scored on while you can't play the puck, then justice has been served.

#3. Hear me out here: The icing on the PK rule change-I have to say that it is logical so as to not award a penalized team with the ability to do something they otherwise couldn't do, HOWEVER, it would increase the chance of players getting tired and consequently injured AND it would interrupt the flow of the game as the team on the PK is still going to ice the puck to at least get a breather and even if they don't, the injuries factor is enough to make this rule a bad one. So, while it actually is logical, it's still a poor change.

#4. We don't have to really worry about anything anyway, because I don't believe that the refs' rule book comes in Braille, and even if it did, they're too dumb to remember that there are changes that they have to read up on.;)
 
Re: Rule Changes

The NCAA is backing off on the shorthanded icing rule. They have called for comments from coaches, and are going to reconsider the rule.

Article:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaa...ks+comment+on+icing+change_06_23_10_ncaa_news

This looks a lot like the sort of press release one would issue to save some face while preparing to completely back down.

While the issue is being vetted, Karr sees four scenarios developing after the comment period ends.

* The rules committee could decide not to advance the proposal to enforce icing when teams are short-handed.
* The committee could advance the proposal with the modification that a short-handed team icing the puck is allowed to substitute players.
* The committee could forward the proposal as voted upon originally.
* The committee could advance the proposal as an experimental rule for the 2010-12 rules book. If it becomes an experimental rule, it could be applied to exhibition games only.
 
Re: Rule Changes

I personally like the shoot out it makes games more interesting

The PK icing should stay and visors should be optional
 
Re: Rule Changes

How does having a mini skills competition after the game is over make the first 65 minutes more interesting?


Powers &8^]

It doesn't. But for some reason, there are a lot of people out there who've been hoodwinked into believing that it does. I think it has little impact on the first 65 minutes at all. If anything, it could be taking away from the quality of regulation play. Pro teams are more willing than ever to clamp down throughout the third period of a tie game to guarantee the "loser point" and take their chances in the OT/shootout.
 
Re: Rule Changes

It doesn't. But for some reason, there are a lot of people out there who've been hoodwinked into believing that it does. I think it has little impact on the first 65 minutes at all. If anything, it could be taking away from the quality of regulation play. Pro teams are more willing than ever to clamp down throughout the third period of a tie game to guarantee the "loser point" and take their chances in the OT/shootout.

I think it's becauase of the fact that these hoodwinked people do not know the nice definition of a tie, and believe there must be a winner and a loser. Adding the "loser point", in my opinion, is dumb. If you're going to declare a winner and a loser, don't make special consideration for when it's achieved... say 1 point for the winner, 0 for the loser. If you really want a point for a regulation tie, end the game at regulation, play no overtime, go home with a tie.
 
Re: Rule Changes

NHL Governors approve major penalty for hits to headBy Shawn P. Roarke - NHL.com Managing Editor LOS ANGELES – A passionate debate about hits to the head that has lasted the better part of a year was officially settled Thursday night when the NHL Board of Governors approved a new penalty for next season.

The penalty for a lateral, blindside hit to the head, which will be called "illegal check to the head," is a five-minute major penalty, as well as an automatic game misconduct. The League also will consider supplemental discipline.

It was unanimously approved by the Board of Governors during Thursday's meeting, the first for the body since last December. The rule was proposed during the spring edition of the General Managers' Meeting in Florida after several controversial hits during the season.

"I think we are really pleased with where it is," Columbus GM Scott Howson told NHL.com. "But I also think it is something really fluid and we will have to continue to work at it if we see the need."

Cam Neely, the freshly minted president of the Boston Bruins, also stressed that vigilance would remain necessary, but was happy to see a mechanism in place to protect the League's players.

"I think it was important for the League to try to address this as quick as possible," Neely told NHL.com. "The GMs got on board, the Competition Committee got on board. Obviously, for the health of the players, it is good to get a rule like this in place and try to get it out of the game and get to a situation where you are going to have fewer concussions because of it."

While the head-hit penalty topped Thursday's agenda, the Board of Governors tackled several other issues during a five-hour session on the eve of the 2010 Entry Draft at the Staples Center.

The Governors were briefed on the economics of the game and presented with next year's budget, according to Commissioner Gary Bettman. There also was a presentation on the new salary-cap numbers, which were officially announced Thursday.

The Team Payroll Range established for the 2010-11 season, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides for a lower limit of $43.4 million, an adjusted midpoint of $51.4 million and an upper limit of $59.4 million.



"Obviously, for the health of the players, it is good to get a rule like this in place and try to get it out of the game and get to a situation where you are going to have fewer concussions because of it."
-- Cam Neely


Commissioner Gary Bettman said there was also a discussion of 3-D broadcasts and how they can affect televised game presentation. A presentation was made to the Governors that included portions of the 2010 Winter Classic between Boston and Philadelphia that were filmed in 3-D.

"It needs some work and we have to figure out how the economics work, but we do think it has exciting possibilities for game on television," Bettman said.

The Board also approved transfer agreements with the hockey federations from Germany, Slovakia and Denmark.

Finally, the Board also agreed to join the Rock and Wrap it Up movement, a non-profit program that becomes part of the League's greening initiative. The program will recover leftover food from arena concessions and use it to feed the hungry.

"The combo of recycling and reusing is good from a greening standpoint, but it is also right thing to do in terms of feeding hungry people," Bettman said.
 
Re: Rule Changes

I think it's becauase of the fact that these hoodwinked people do not know the nice definition of a tie, and believe there must be a winner and a loser. Adding the "loser point", in my opinion, is dumb. If you're going to declare a winner and a loser, don't make special consideration for when it's achieved... say 1 point for the winner, 0 for the loser. If you really want a point for a regulation tie, end the game at regulation, play no overtime, go home with a tie.

The "loser point" is supposed to make it advantageous for teams to play for the win. If you go into overtime with both teams knowing that they can get a point if they don't allow a goal, but they lose that point if they do, they'll start focusing on defense first and nothing gets accomplished on either side - they don't want to give up the counter-attack that leads to losing a point. If you're going to get that single point either way, and the team that scores gets an additional point, it opens up play because both teams will go after that additional point.

Ties should be allowed to exist, I agree, but we ought to do what we can do to keep ties from being the practical foregone conclusion of an overtime period. And no shootouts, please. As you said, a tie can be satisfying or disappointing, which is what makes them unique and quite frankly, acceptable.

Here's the common sense rule - reward wins in regulation by awarding 3 points for a win after 60 minutes, 2 for a win in overtime, and 1 for losing in overtime. That encourages teams to play for the W in regulation, but further encourages them to continue playing for the W in overtime.
 
Re: Rule Changes

Here's the common sense rule - reward wins in regulation by awarding 3 points for a win after 60 minutes, 2 for a win in overtime, and 1 for losing in overtime. That encourages teams to play for the W in regulation, but further encourages them to continue playing for the W in overtime.

What do you do for OT ties then? 1.5 points each? :p
 
Re: Rule Changes

What do you do for OT ties then? 1.5 points each? :p

I think if you were to fully encourage playing for the win at all times, aside from eliminating ties altogether, give 1 point each for a tie, similar to the World Cup pool play in soccer. Don't want to play for the win in regulation? Give up a point. Don't want to play for the win in overtime? Give up another point.
 
Back
Top