Rule changes...

[hckytough25]

I dont know about anyone else, but i strongly disagree with the following proposed ideas for changes to the rules of college hockey;

1) No personnel changes allowed by the team that ices the puck.
2) Icing no longer allowed when a team is shorthanded, but players are allowed to change.
3) Moving all neutral zone faceoffs to center ice (to penalize offsides more fairly and to have faceoff positions better defined).
4) Stricter enforcement of delay of game penalties when goalkeepers and players fall on the puck to force a whistle.

I dont know what they are attemting to accomplish, but this seems entirely unnecessary! I have played a few games with the no icing rule during PK's and it is ridiculus. A PP is supposed to be an advantage, Not a guarantee to score.

[brookyone]

I dont know about anyone else, but i strongly disagree with the following proposed ideas for changes to the rules of college hockey;

1) No personnel changes allowed by the team that ices the puck.
2) Icing no longer allowed when a team is shorthanded, but players are allowed to change.
3) Moving all neutral zone faceoffs to center ice (to penalize offsides more fairly and to have faceoff positions better defined).
4) Stricter enforcement of delay of game penalties when goalkeepers and players fall on the puck to force a whistle.

I dont know what they are attemting to accomplish, but this seems entirely unnecessary! I have played a few games with the no icing rule during PK's and it is ridiculus. A PP is supposed to be an advantage, Not a guarantee to score.
I agree...the proposals stink, with the possible exception of #4. There are times when I thought a delay call may have been warranted and wasn't called...but those instances are what I'd catagorize as infrequent...and I don't really see a need for drastic change in enforcement policy. No's 1, 2 & 3 seem, as you say, unnecessary...maybe even downright idiotic to me.

[Hux]

I am actually in favor of the first and second. Having played with it this year in Massachusetts you could see the benefits of being forced to make smart plays with the puck when shorthanded. It also gives greater incentive to stay out of the box.

The third doesn't make much sense when you allow tag-up offsides. Get rid of tag up and force the players to learn to protect the puck and maintain possesion, and keep the faceoffs where they are currently.

As for the fourth, the goalie needs to have the ability to tie the puck up as a tactical decision. If you want to come down hard on players falling on it, fine, but let the goalie play it as she sees fit.

[toots]

As for the fourth, the goalie needs to have the ability to tie the puck up as a tactical decision. If you want to come down hard on players falling on it, fine, but let the goalie play it as she sees fit.

100% agree with you, Hux. A goalie who is paying attention knows when her teammates need a change. Drives me nuts when a referee yells at the goalie to "play it."

[Fightingsiouxfan]

What do you mean no icing rule on the PK? What happens if the puck gets fired down the ice? Do you get another penalty? Do you get a penalty if you are at even strength and the puck gets iced? What if the team on the power play ices the puck?
Who dreamed this up?:(

[Wild E. Cat]

What do you mean no icing rule on the PK? What happens if the puck gets fired down the ice? Do you get another penalty? Do you get a penalty if you are at even strength and the puck gets iced? What if the team on the power play ices the puck?
Who dreamed this up?:(
Under the proposed rule, a team that is shorthanded would be called for icing and the faceoff would be back in their defensive zone. The geniuses of the Rules Committee don't seem to understand that this will cause many additional stoppages because in high pressure situations the penalized team will take the faceoff through icing to attempt to regain possession.

I agree that all of these are ridiculous and gratuitous except for #1. No personnel changes after an icing is a great rule that has worked extremely well in the NHL and AHL over the last two years. While I'm in agreement that college hockey probably should not adopt touch-up icing, I still think that there needs to be an attempt to cut down on icings and this rule could help that. As I said in the men's forum, if there are fans out there that are passionate about this then please e-mail the NCAA Rules Committee to express your disapproval.

[Wild E. Cat]

100% agree with you, Hux. A goalie who is paying attention knows when her teammates need a change. Drives me nuts when a referee yells at the goalie to "play it."
I couldn't agree less. The rule states that, even in the goaltender's privileged area, a goaltender may only freeze the puck if he/she is being checked (to prevent a goal). Too often an offensive player will shoot the puck from shallow in the offensive zone with defending players near the goaltender who could easily play the puck and the goaltender will freeze it. This slows down the game and is a problem.

The goaltender should not be freezing the puck solely to allow his/her teammates to make a line change! This has never been the intention. This rule simply has not been enforced consistently at any level of hockey.

[ARM]

There was already a thread discussing this topic, so this would be a good candidate for a thread merge:

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?t=70367

[notfromaroundhere]

1) No personnel changes allowed by the team that ices the puck.
2) Icing no longer allowed when a team is shorthanded, but players are allowed to change.
3) Moving all neutral zone faceoffs to center ice (to penalize offsides more fairly and to have faceoff positions better defined).
4) Stricter enforcement of delay of game penalties when goalkeepers and players fall on the puck to force a whistle.



I personally like #1. If you can't move the puck because the other team has worn you down, suck it up and play! Don't stop the clock!

As to #2, I don't like it because, if they are sucking wind, icing still buys them 30 seconds to regroup (or more if the goalie is slow with the water bottle). If you want to make them apply skill, don't allow change of personnel once the hand goes up for icing (additional delay of game penalty) and keep the game going. Once the defending team (on the PK) has crossed center ice, they can dump and change.

As to #3, center ice is OK, but this rule will need adjustment. Let's say the puck goes off a defender into the bench close to his defensive zone (but still in the neutral zone). Moving it to center ice will reward the defender for blocking the puck out of play. It should be the spot of last contact OR center ice, whichever is worse for the team causing the stoppage.

As to #4, there probably needs to be a clearer definition of when a goalie is being checked issued (with proper training) before you leave it up to the refs. They've done a pretty decent job of educating officials about use of the hands and stick with the obstruction/holding/interference changes. I haven't seen a better education job yet for when a goalie must play a puck.

Lots of interesting opinions on these, though!

[ARM]

I personally like #1. If you can't move the puck because the other team has worn you down, suck it up and play! Don't stop the clock!

As to #2, I don't like it because, if they are sucking wind, icing still buys them 30 seconds to regroup (or more if the goalie is slow with the water bottle). If you want to make them apply skill, don't allow change of personnel once the hand goes up for icing (additional delay of game penalty) and keep the game going. Once the defending team (on the PK) has crossed center ice, they can dump and change.

As to #3, center ice is OK, but this rule will need adjustment. Let's say the puck goes off a defender into the bench close to his defensive zone (but still in the neutral zone). Moving it to center ice will reward the defender for blocking the puck out of play. It should be the spot of last contact OR center ice, whichever is worse for the team causing the stoppage.

As to #4, there probably needs to be a clearer definition of when a goalie is being checked issued (with proper training) before you leave it up to the refs. They've done a pretty decent job of educating officials about use of the hands and stick with the obstruction/holding/interference changes. I haven't seen a better education job yet for when a goalie must play a puck.

Lots of interesting opinions on these, though!I disagree with your position on all of these -- I don't see the game as "broken" in these areas, or improved by these proposed changes.

[vellnueve]

I don't like the changes either. Being a man down is enough. It's not necessary to even further handicap the defending team.

[TonyTheTiger20]

yeah vell, i dont mind the other ones, but i dont like the no-icing-on-a-PK thing at all.

[ushockey]

These proposed rule changes will reward skill in hockey and penalize the lack of skill as well as the panic that results from this lack of skill. Go to any youth hockey game and listen to parents scream at their kids to "ice" the puck whenever it is in their end. This is counterproductive to their development since they aren't learning to handle pressure by skating and passing the puck out of their zone. In addition they usually are not able to ice the puck so instead they give up control by hitting it up the boards to the other teams defense man. I think most knowledgeable coaches would rather their kids lose the puck attempting to pass and skate it out rather than turn it over to the other team with a weak attempt at icing. At least then they are learning the important skills of the game in a pressure situation and not just taking the easy way out by icing it.

Rule #1. Anyone who watched the pros play last year should have noticed that there were a lot less whistles from icing because they couldn't use it to change lines. This made a great game even more fun to watch. I think this was the second best rule "change" made in pros.
Rule #2. I think the most fun thing to watch in hockey is a shorthanded goal. This rule would certainly increase shorthanded opportunities by teaching players to look for more opportunities once they have control of the puck than just take the conservative approach and ice it. I must also note that the pros learned to "softly" ice the puck to get a change.
Rule #3. I agree with the motivation to penalize offsides more but I'm not sure this is accomplished by this rule since the offending players could now break off the drop instead of waiting to see where the puck ended up.
Rule #4. This would also encourage goalies to handle the puck instead of just covering it. Which is more exciting seeing the opposing goalie handle the puck or cover it?

[ARM]

Rule #2. I think the most fun thing to watch in hockey is a shorthanded goal. This rule would certainly increase shorthanded opportunities by teaching players to look for more opportunities once they have control of the puck than just take the conservative approach and ice it. I must also note that the pros learned to "softly" ice the puck to get a change.Much of your support of these rule changes seems driven by your thinking that it will make the game more exciting to watch. The best thing to watch in any sport is good competition, IMO. I'm not really concerned about impacts on youth hockey; this is a college hockey board, and that is the area on which I'd like to focus. I'll take one rule and explain why my opinion differs from yours.

The rule may increase SHG, but what it will really do is increase PPG. Icing the puck when down a skater isn't from a lack of skill, it is because it is the smart hockey play. Some teams in the women's college game convert on the PP over 30% of the time. With this rule change, that % will go up (and it will definitely increase more than the number of PK that will result in a SHG.) I believe that the penalty assessed is already severe enough in the game. This rule change places more of a need on the officiating crew to get the penalty calls right in the course of a game, or the officials will be doing more to determine the outcome than previously. From what I've seen, the quality of the officiating is not such that I want them to decide a game any more than they already do.

[Hux]

Much of your support of these rule changes seems driven by your thinking that it will make the game more exciting to watch. The best thing to watch in any sport is good competition, IMO. I'm not really concerned about impacts on youth hockey; this is a college hockey board, and that is the area on which I'd like to focus. I'll take one rule and explain why my opinion differs from yours.

The rule may increase SHG, but what it will really do is increase PPG. Icing the puck when down a skater isn't from a lack of skill, it is because it is the smart hockey play. Some teams in the women's college game convert on the PP over 30% of the time. With this rule change, that % will go up (and it will definitely increase more than the number of PK that will result in a SHG.) I believe that the penalty assessed is already severe enough in the game. This rule change places more of a need on the officiating crew to get the penalty calls right in the course of a game, or the officials will be doing more to determine the outcome than previously. From what I've seen, the quality of the officiating is not such that I want them to decide a game any more than they already do.



Youth hockey has everything to do with college hockey. What happens in youth hockey, as far as development, ends up at some point on the ice in an institute of higher learning. And generally the only way you get youth hockey people to buy into rules is to have them at the top, and work down.

While it may have something of a negative impact on the college game in the present, it will ultimately create more talented players. (assuming of course that you have coaches that can teach the players in the first place).

And remember, we are talking icing here. You can still clear the puck out of the zone, you just can't send it whizzing to the other end of the ice. Players will need to be a bit more deft in how they handle the puck.

[D2D]

Youth hockey has everything to do with college hockey. What happens in youth hockey, as far as development, ends up at some point on the ice in an institute of higher learning. And generally the only way you get youth hockey people to buy into rules is to have them at the top, and work down.

While it may have something of a negative impact on the college game in the present, it will ultimately create more talented players. (assuming of course that you have coaches that can teach the players in the first place).

And remember, we are talking icing here. You can still clear the puck out of the zone, you just can't send it whizzing to the other end of the ice. Players will need to be a bit more deft in how they handle the puck.

I remember reading once that this was the rule in pro hockey way back when. As I recall they put in the rule that you could ice the puck when a man short only because the Montreal Canadians were so good compared to the other teams at the time that they almost always scored when on the power play. The league added the rule in order to give the other teams some relief!

[scores]

They will place a greater emphasis on skill skating and puck handling :

I actually like the new rules because I believe the engine for a good hockey player is to be a good skater and I am not see'ing that at the younger age:

Lots of hacking holding and hooking is a result of poor skating!!!

I call as I see it (sorry): I know some people are happy with what's going on but this will change recruiting... Slow muckers/poor skaters on there way out skilled skaters and puck handlers on there way in!

This will help the US develope better players in the long run.

[Skate79]

The delay of game penalty is always one of those judgement calls and where I can see the impact of this rule change is near the end of close or tie game where a player or goalie falls on the puck just to give their team a breather from running around. If the refs stick to the letter of the rule, this should make for some interesting end of game scenarios.

Regarding the PK. I'm all for reducing the number of icings because women's hockey in particular seems to have more than their fair share (especially when you have a one-sided tilt). The no player change while shorthanded if you do ice it will test team depth especially towards the end of games.

[ARM]

Youth hockey has everything to do with college hockey. What happens in youth hockey, as far as development, ends up at some point on the ice in an institute of higher learning. And generally the only way you get youth hockey people to buy into rules is to have them at the top, and work down.

While it may have something of a negative impact on the college game in the present, it will ultimately create more talented players. (assuming of course that you have coaches that can teach the players in the first place).While I'm sure that all of the chickens were eggs once, I'm not willing to see a good game (the college game) messed up because youth players are not good at icing the puck and wind up feeding the points most of the time. A lot of U of MN D have had trouble clearing the puck over the years, but that doesn't change that fact that it is the play that has to be made, rather than trying to stickhandle through the slot, get stripped, and give up a 2-on-1 or worse. There are already too many young players who put their head down and go; I think this change would just make it worse.

And remember, we are talking icing here. You can still clear the puck out of the zone, you just can't send it whizzing to the other end of the ice. Players will need to be a bit more deft in how they handle the puck.IMO, "deftly" is just another word for "feed the other team's point". If I'm coaching a college team, I still ice the puck when pressured, because a faceoff is better than a turnover in a danger area. I see this leading to more whistles, w/o improving the game.

The good news is that I now have an excuse to not return your reps, because I'm so distraught over these posts, rather than going with my usual backlog alibi.;)

[Hux]

While I'm sure that all of the chickens were eggs once, I'm not willing to see a good game (the college game) messed up because youth players are not good at icing the puck and wind up feeding the points most of the time. A lot of U of MN D have had trouble clearing the puck over the years, but that doesn't change that fact that it is the play that has to be made, rather than trying to stickhandle through the slot, get stripped, and give up a 2-on-1 or worse. There are already too many young players who put their head down and go; I think this change would just make it worse.

IMO, "deftly" is just another word for "feed the other team's point". If I'm coaching a college team, I still ice the puck when pressured, because a faceoff is better than a turnover in a danger area. I see this leading to more whistles, w/o improving the game.

The good news is that I now have an excuse to not return your reps, because I'm so distraught over these posts, rather than going with my usual backlog alibi.;)


I knew there would be repercussions!

Frankly, any coach who is more concerned about "getting the puck out" than in teaching their players to make a clean play, or at least attempt it, isn't worth having as a coach, regardless of the level. With risk comes rewards. If you teach a player to make the safe play, they will lack the creativity to make something happen while in possession of the puck. I would rather see the puck turned over 100 times, and have it end up in the net, than see a kid just whack at the puck trying to get it down ice.

Gain possession, maintain possession, move the puck up ice in YOUR team's possession. Even short handed this is possible if the players are trained how to handle the puck and get it to the neutral zone, either with a chip off the glass/boards, or with a soft clear between/around the D. At least one forward should then be able to race for the puck in a one on one, or possibly a breakaway. If a change is needed a good lob across the zone should get a deflection off the boards and have it die deep in the other end.

Point is, the way things are now, there is no need to do anything more than just dump it down. And with the way goalies handle the puck now, you are taking a hell of a chance with the dump as they act as a third D. Now you think you have time to get a change, and Ms. Big Pads has come out, stopped the puck and fired it right back to her D who needn't come out of the neutral zone. Meanwhile, thinking you had time, you've changed and lo and behold your backside is wide open and that D has now hit a curling forward and she is in alone. Now your goalie is poopin' twinkies and really ticked that some no account D opted for the lame quick dump, rather than having the presense of mind to create some offense.

Take that you top row, "Get it out, don't the Rodents lose" coach! :p