Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

    Just found this: A survey conducted about overtime. http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/fi...s_20180620.pdf

    Comment


    • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

      It's now most certainly official; here's the book: http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/IH20.pdf

      Comment


      • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

        Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
        It's now most certainly official; here's the book: http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/IH20.pdf
        Here is a link that was posted by our friend Todd Milewski over the weekend
        This has the video that goes into the major changes and provides lots of examples

        Comment


        • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

          I always appreciate these videos. Great not only for seeing how rules are being interpreted, but also where areas of focus will be for the upcoming season. It would be great for this and previous videos to be mandatory viewing for all college hockey fans

          The only place I am left a bit confused is the goaltender-offensive player interaction section.
          From the video examples it seems that any contact with the netminder is being interpreted as illegal, whether it impacts ability to play the puck or not (first example of disallowed goal in the video) or if a defensive player aided/encouraged the contact (second example of disallowed goal in the video). I'll be surprised if that is how the game is actually called.

          Comment


          • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

            If a game goes to a 2nd OT, does a team get an additional time out?
            CCT '77 & '78
            4 kids
            5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
            1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

            ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
            - Benjamin Franklin

            Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

            I want to live forever. So far, so good.

            Comment


            • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

              Originally posted by Stauber1 View Post
              I always appreciate these videos. Great not only for seeing how rules are being interpreted, but also where areas of focus will be for the upcoming season. It would be great for this and previous videos to be mandatory viewing for all college hockey fans

              The only place I am left a bit confused is the goaltender-offensive player interaction section.
              From the video examples it seems that any contact with the netminder is being interpreted as illegal, whether it impacts ability to play the puck or not (first example of disallowed goal in the video) or if a defensive player aided/encouraged the contact (second example of disallowed goal in the video). I'll be surprised if that is how the game is actually called.
              What it seems like they said was that they reviewed what the current rules are regarding it, how it's being called in our game to look for any points of clarification, and believed that things are OK as they are.

              It seemed a bit interesting that we'll have two years of nationally recommended points of emphasis, I assume in addition to the league points we hear about every year. One thing that's going to make crowds restless (although I understand why) is the faceoff protocol. I know we've all heard Don Cherry gripe about it, and although it's a different level of play, it's still something we'll see.

              As for Joe's question, rule 92.2 makes it quite clear:

              Each team shall be awarded one team timeout if the game is tied after 60 minutes of play. This is not an additional timeout in cases where a team has not utilized its timeout during regulation play.

              Comment


              • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

                Originally posted by joecct View Post
                If a game goes to a 2nd OT, does a team get an additional time out?
                It seems that any unused timeouts are not carried over from OT to OT, much like the rule from regulation to the first OT.

                I personally do not like the 5 foot player change interpretation - the old rule was "at the bench" - extending that to 5 feet away leaves too much to interpretation especially where there is a lot of congestion around the bench area. I would lobby for a 5 foot line in front of the benches to assist the linesmen. If you go to video review, how are they going to figure out if a player is 5 feet away or 6 feet away?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by john g View Post
                  It seems that any unused timeouts are not carried over from OT to OT, much like the rule from regulation to the first OT.

                  I personally do not like the 5 foot player change interpretation - the old rule was "at the bench" - extending that to 5 feet away leaves too much to interpretation especially where there is a lot of congestion around the bench area. I would lobby for a 5 foot line in front of the benches to assist the linesmen. If you go to video review, how are they going to figure out if a player is 5 feet away or 6 feet away?
                  I'm gonna guess that if it's close, they'll let it slide. Maybe give the bench a "hey, you're stretching that 5 foot a bit" warning once. It should tighten up the changes. We've all seen the guys that jump off the bench when the player they're replacing is still halfway across the ice. It's funny how most of the video examples they show are actually "too many men on the ice" penalties under the current rule. A better example would be the lazy D-man that's still in the circle, gliding towards the bench, when his replacement is already across the redline.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

                    Originally posted by john g View Post
                    I personally do not like the 5 foot player change interpretation - the old rule was "at the bench" - extending that to 5 feet away leaves too much to interpretation especially where there is a lot of congestion around the bench area. I would lobby for a 5 foot line in front of the benches to assist the linesmen. If you go to video review, how are they going to figure out if a player is 5 feet away or 6 feet away?
                    I have long wondered why there's no "change zone" marked on the ice.

                    I agree with the comment about the video examples of goaltender-offensive player interaction. I would have appreciated commentary for each example.
                    Go Falcons!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

                      Originally posted by spiehler View Post
                      I have long wondered why there's no "change zone" marked on the ice.
                      I think most rinks have some sort of marking on the ice that can be used.

                      The space on the ice in front of the benches often has some form of advertising under the ice. Granted, it probably isn't exactly 5 feet off of the boards, but it is likely something that can be used as a guide to gauge spacing in front of the bench.

                      I could see the officials saying this to the captains before a game:
                      "Alright fellas, the advertising for 'Big Marge's Discount Liquor' and 'Uncle Curly's BBQ' are about 7 feet from the boards. We need to see your guys well past that advertising before the replacement comes on the ice or we'll call too many men."

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

                        Originally posted by spiehler View Post
                        I have long wondered why there's no "change zone" marked on the ice.

                        I agree with the comment about the video examples of goaltender-offensive player interaction. I would have appreciated commentary for each example.
                        There might not be a "change zone", but there can be a "look up line", similar to the warning track on a baseball field. Theoretically that could be a reference.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                          There might not be a "change zone", but there can be a "look up line", similar to the warning track on a baseball field. Theoretically that could be a reference.
                          The only thing wrong with the "look up line" is that you have to look down to see it.
                          CCT '77 & '78
                          4 kids
                          5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                          1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                          ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                          I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

                            Originally posted by joecct View Post
                            The only thing wrong with the "look up line" is that you have to look down to see it.
                            Refs are probably far enough that they can see it peripherally... assuming...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by KaMiGo View Post
                              I think most rinks have some sort of marking on the ice that can be used.

                              The space on the ice in front of the benches often has some form of advertising under the ice. Granted, it probably isn't exactly 5 feet off of the boards, but it is likely something that can be used as a guide to gauge spacing in front of the bench.

                              I could see the officials saying this to the captains before a game:
                              "Alright fellas, the advertising for 'Big Marge's Discount Liquor' and 'Uncle Curly's BBQ' are about 7 feet from the boards. We need to see your guys well past that advertising before the replacement comes on the ice or we'll call too many men."
                              This. There is already too much crap on the ice to be adding more lines.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

                                Originally posted by KaMiGo View Post
                                Here is a link that was posted by our friend Todd Milewski over the weekend
                                This has the video that goes into the major changes and provides lots of examples

                                "The committee noted that overall, officiating standards used in some faceoffs might need to be improved."

                                Wow. No s***, Sherlock.

                                If I have to watch one more linesman put the puck on a yo-yo string for four false faceoffs, kick a guy out, and then immediately drop the puck when the replacement player comes in...

                                I also thought it was interesting that after all these years of trying to convince us to call them assistant referees, the video flat out calls them linesmen again.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X