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.
Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
- Thread starter norm1909
- Start date
Former NUSuntan
New member
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
Not sure i like the "anchored goal pegs" change. Sure as I'm sitting here, some hapless player is going to be impaled on that peg when the net gets dislodged, as it surely will. I believe it was Gordie Howe that got an unplanned hemroidectomy that way back when he was playing, which led to changes in goal pegs. I'm sure there are better solutions to keeping the net in place.
Not sure i like the "anchored goal pegs" change. Sure as I'm sitting here, some hapless player is going to be impaled on that peg when the net gets dislodged, as it surely will. I believe it was Gordie Howe that got an unplanned hemroidectomy that way back when he was playing, which led to changes in goal pegs. I'm sure there are better solutions to keeping the net in place.
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
I believe it was Gordie Howe's son, Mark Howe, that happened to which changed the goal pegs.
I believe it was Gordie Howe's son, Mark Howe, that happened to which changed the goal pegs.
Didn't change the pegs, it removed the pointed joint in the middle of the net.
Pegs have been in evolution since the "March pegs" back in the 80's.
norm1909
Larry Normandin
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
If you would like to to provide feedback or add a discussion item to the committee’s list, this is the link.
If you would like to to provide feedback or add a discussion item to the committee’s list, this is the link.
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
What I'd like to see it ditch the delayed penalty goal + original minor penalty in favor on non releasable minor penalties for all but restraining and delay of game penalties. In other words, you sit for the full 2 minutes for a slash, but would be released for a hook.
What I'd like to see it ditch the delayed penalty goal + original minor penalty in favor on non releasable minor penalties for all but restraining and delay of game penalties. In other words, you sit for the full 2 minutes for a slash, but would be released for a hook.
MountieBoyOz
Eater of Worlds
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
Kind of like in lax, right? (I understand there's no hooking in lacrosse.)
Kind of like in lax, right? (I understand there's no hooking in lacrosse.)
CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
Nate LePage, Siena '13
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
The NCAA Oversight Committee approved the minor rule changes, plus a couple that weren't on the previously published list.
The list of approved rule changes for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons (with new additions in bold):
My thoughts:
-The new major penalty for significant impact on interference penalties that occur away from the head/neck (because that's already a major unto itself) is obviously rooted in player safety, which is a good thing, but it could get ugly. We already see major delays after kind of hits because referees want to call it a 5, but can't say it hit the head. In some cases, the referees already do call it for 5:00, much to the dismay of coaches and fans. But now we're green-lighting what is, ultimately, a subjective call. What constitutes "significant contact" exactly? I have a feeling the red line that players should not cross will be a moving target, changing from game-to-game and even within games.
-The experimental (i.e. exhibition-only) rule, which is only applying to women's hockey, to allow the puck to be played with a high stick is, in my humble opinion, absolute lunacy. In a game where head injuries occur far too often already, and in the middle of the debate on Half- or 3/4-shields vs Full Cages, do we really want these women skating around with their sticks in the air slashing away at a puck? It makes no sense! This rule would go well in one of Norm's April Fools Day posts!
-"Scoring Opportunity" and "Attempting to Score". Is this going to be like in lacrosse, where the referee has to determine if it was a shot or a hard pass that caused a ball to go out of play, and the offense keeps possession if it was a shot? I think I could live with this one. For years now the committee has been trying to subtly promote more offense, so you can't say that this is a surprise. The same can be said for the Faceoff Procedure change. I personally like a more defensive game, so I hate that they keep penalizing the defensive players with rule changes like this, but I do see the purpose for it. I say we undo all of these pro-offense changes and just reduce the size of the goalie's pads and/or increase the size of the net a little bit. But that's just me.
-The rest of the changes: I am worried about the pegs, but I would have to see what they are talking about before judging. Everything on the list I didn't specifically mention here makes sense to me, and is ultimately a very minor change in procedure.
What do you all think?
The NCAA Oversight Committee approved the minor rule changes, plus a couple that weren't on the previously published list.
The list of approved rule changes for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons (with new additions in bold):
My thoughts:
-The new major penalty for significant impact on interference penalties that occur away from the head/neck (because that's already a major unto itself) is obviously rooted in player safety, which is a good thing, but it could get ugly. We already see major delays after kind of hits because referees want to call it a 5, but can't say it hit the head. In some cases, the referees already do call it for 5:00, much to the dismay of coaches and fans. But now we're green-lighting what is, ultimately, a subjective call. What constitutes "significant contact" exactly? I have a feeling the red line that players should not cross will be a moving target, changing from game-to-game and even within games.
-The experimental (i.e. exhibition-only) rule, which is only applying to women's hockey, to allow the puck to be played with a high stick is, in my humble opinion, absolute lunacy. In a game where head injuries occur far too often already, and in the middle of the debate on Half- or 3/4-shields vs Full Cages, do we really want these women skating around with their sticks in the air slashing away at a puck? It makes no sense! This rule would go well in one of Norm's April Fools Day posts!
-"Scoring Opportunity" and "Attempting to Score". Is this going to be like in lacrosse, where the referee has to determine if it was a shot or a hard pass that caused a ball to go out of play, and the offense keeps possession if it was a shot? I think I could live with this one. For years now the committee has been trying to subtly promote more offense, so you can't say that this is a surprise. The same can be said for the Faceoff Procedure change. I personally like a more defensive game, so I hate that they keep penalizing the defensive players with rule changes like this, but I do see the purpose for it. I say we undo all of these pro-offense changes and just reduce the size of the goalie's pads and/or increase the size of the net a little bit. But that's just me.
-The rest of the changes: I am worried about the pegs, but I would have to see what they are talking about before judging. Everything on the list I didn't specifically mention here makes sense to me, and is ultimately a very minor change in procedure.
What do you all think?
norm1909
Larry Normandin
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
That women's high sticking is beyond my imagination - even as an April Fool's joke!!
That women's high sticking is beyond my imagination - even as an April Fool's joke!!
Are some of their shoulders below the height of the crossbar?
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
The womens' high-stick rule is unconscionably stupid.
As for a major for inteference, that's a bit much as well. If there's enough contact to warrant a major, call it 5 for roughing or CTH and be done with it.
The goal pegs: we're going to get somebody hurt here.
The look up line: idiotic. These guys are big enough to know where they're at on the ice. What's next, the STOP sign on the back of the jersey?
The womens' high-stick rule is unconscionably stupid.
As for a major for inteference, that's a bit much as well. If there's enough contact to warrant a major, call it 5 for roughing or CTH and be done with it.
The goal pegs: we're going to get somebody hurt here.
The look up line: idiotic. These guys are big enough to know where they're at on the ice. What's next, the STOP sign on the back of the jersey?
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
Maybe. Some of the girls you look at and think, "if you get hit, you're going to break in half. How can you play hockey at this level when you're so little?"
Maybe. Some of the girls you look at and think, "if you get hit, you're going to break in half. How can you play hockey at this level when you're so little?"
Norwich has pegs. Salem State does not. The net did not dislodge as much at Norwich as it does at Salem. Makes it easier on the refs to call goal/no goal if the net is where it belongs.
Ice is about 1.5" thick. Say the peg goes 2.5" into the floor. That leaves 6" into the post.
If they use breakaway pegs that come off when sufficient force is applied, I don't see a problem.
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
The "pegs" here are actually flexible tubes. They do a great job holding the net in place (a bump, or kick of the goalie's leg/foot does not dislodge it), but allow it to move with contact (the tubes just bend and the net slides off).
You can see them here
The "pegs" here are actually flexible tubes. They do a great job holding the net in place (a bump, or kick of the goalie's leg/foot does not dislodge it), but allow it to move with contact (the tubes just bend and the net slides off).
You can see them here
Last edited:
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
Yep - the muni rink pins are out.
norm1909
Larry Normandin
Re: Rules Committee offers changes, including faceoff recommendations
Found it here (2000 Innovation Award - Fred Marsh for Marsh Flexible Goal Peg System).
Found it here (2000 Innovation Award - Fred Marsh for Marsh Flexible Goal Peg System).