PDA

View Full Version : NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

CrazyDave
04-25-2014, 09:39 PM
So after basically disconnecting from the Fan Forum for a month, I'm back... and with a new discussion topic.

It's an even-numbered year, which means potential rule changes for NCAA men's and women's ice hockey. I found a copy of a letter sent earlier this week from the NCAA to "NCAA Ice Hockey Conference Commissioners, Head Coaches and Coordinators of Officials" that provides a schedule.


Rules meeting and process. The rules committee meets June 2-4 in Indianapolis. This is a rules change year for the committee and proposals that are made will be distributed soon after the meeting. Coaches and conferences will have a comment period following the meeting. The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel will review the proposals and comments at its meeting on July 16. Once approved, the rules will become final and be in place for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons.

Any thoughts as to what we might see this year? Will "always-on icing" be proposed again? How about a delay of game penalty for putting the puck out of play from the defensive zone? Other ideas?

Eeyore
04-25-2014, 11:52 PM
They don't need any new rules. They just need to enforce the rules they have against checking.

Timothy A
04-26-2014, 07:21 AM
They don't need any new rules. They just need to enforce the rules they have against checking.

Agreed.

I also think they need to let the players play the puck when it comes off the netting that is above the glass behind the goals. That would cut down on whistles and improve the flow of the game.

123kidd
04-26-2014, 12:09 PM
Really - we're turning ice hockey into Arena Football now. How about no player can change when the puck is in your defensive zone. You're coming back late behind the play, puck crosses the blue line and you change, illegal substitution.

zoofer
04-26-2014, 07:04 PM
I hope that they allow more contact in the woman's game....if you've seen a CWHL game, they allow much more body contact, not checking, which the players seem to enjoy....saw Jillian Apps battle for the puck with a Finnish player, whom I'm sure she came up against in the Olympics....it was obvious that they didn't like each other, and the ref let them play out their aggression with no penalties....now having said that, I've seen hits along the boards cause season ending injuries not called, so it is a fine line but for the most part I'd let more physical play into the woman's game.....so maybe not a rule change but a change in attitude!

joecct
04-26-2014, 07:12 PM
Have non releasable penalties for the "aggressive" minor penalties.

pokechecker
04-27-2014, 04:40 PM
the officials have enough trouble calling the penalties they have now, let's not be adding more which will only give them more reasons to make more mistakes

the only rule change I'd like to see is more reviewable calls
yeah, it would slow down the game
but that's a lesser evil than a blown call

perfect example is the national championship game
late in the game a goal is waved off
replay clearly shows it wasn't even close (which is why the officials call was over ruled)

why would an official, who often claim to not want to make a call that determines the outcome (like an obvious penalty for example)
call off a goal late in the game when it wasn't even close?

Incompetence
let's keep the game simple for the officials

Skate79
04-27-2014, 09:04 PM
I'd like to see holding the stick and interference called more often. It is becoming an increasing tactic especially with teams that aren't skilled up front or on the back end to try and impede the progress of an opposing player by holding or grabbing the stick or getting in the way on face-offs or in front of the net. It needs to be cleaned up.

D2D
04-28-2014, 11:05 AM
Any thoughts as to what we might see this year? Will "always-on icing" be proposed again? How about a delay of game penalty for putting the puck out of play from the defensive zone? Other ideas?

I like the current icing rule and hope they don't change it. As for putting the puck out of play from the defensive zone, I like the rule where it's a delay of game if it's the goaltender, but for other players I would like to see it ruled like icing; that is, the offending team cannot make a change - all 6 players must remain on the ice - with the faceoff in their zone (deflections out of play excepted, of course).

As far as checking is concerned I agree with Eeyore in that the level of contact that we have now is about right. The refs just need to be more consistent throughout the game. "Even up" calls need to be avoided and they shouldn't put away their whistles just because time is running out.

I also agree with Skate79 about calling the stick infractions and interference more closely - especially when used to thwart scoring chances. I like the fact that the women's game is all about speed and skill.

One random question: what happened to the rule than permitted hand passes (no whistle) in the defensive zone? Apparently that rule was short-lived and I don't know why they reverted to calling hand passes anywhere on the ice even if they are inadvertent, i.e. it deflects off a players glove and goes to a teammate. At least it's not like soccer where the other team is awarded a penalty kick from point-blank range and they win the game 1-0! :rolleyes:

TonyTheTiger20
04-28-2014, 11:13 AM
It's time to legalize body checking. The level of skill in the sport has progressed to the point where it can be done without being detrimental to the excitement of the game.

It's also hurting the growth of the sport. Most people I know who are unfamiliar with it find out there's no body checking and immediately take the sport less seriously because of it.

D2D
04-28-2014, 11:29 AM
It's also hurting the growth of the sport. Most people I know who are unfamiliar with it find out there's no body checking and immediately take the sport less seriously because of it.

Have to disagree with you on this one, Grant. The growth of the sport comes from getting increasing numbers of young girls to take up the game. There is already a perception out there - one that is held especially among lots of moms of those young girls - that the sport is too dangerous. The people who are more interested in seeing the rough stuff than appreciating the speed and skill are not true potential fans. For them there's plenty of lower minor league hockey out there to go and see, or perhaps roller derby would be of interest. ;)

OldDave
04-28-2014, 12:05 PM
Have to disagree with you on this one, Grant. The growth of the sport comes from getting increasing numbers of young girls to take up the game. There is already a perception out there - one that is held especially among lots of moms of those young girls - that the sport is too dangerous. The people who are more interested in seeing the rough stuff than appreciating the speed and skill are not true potential fans. For them there's plenty of lower minor league hockey out there to go and see, or perhaps roller derby would be of interest. ;)

THIS! The men's game lost me when it turned into the hunger games... hit everything moving on the ice. No strategy, no subtly, no brains required. My wife loves the women's game especially because it has no checking (but lots of strategic contact). We would both be gone if they allowed women to check.

UCONN FAN
04-28-2014, 12:45 PM
It's time to legalize body checking. The level of skill in the sport has progressed to the point where it can be done without being detrimental to the excitement of the game.

It's also hurting the growth of the sport. Most people I know who are unfamiliar with it find out there's no body checking and immediately take the sport less seriously because of it.

First of all....No WAY never happening.
Secondly those same people will NEVER take women's hockey seriously because it is played by women.

brookyone
04-28-2014, 12:55 PM
Agree with all comments of those who disagree with TTT20.

Timothy A
04-28-2014, 02:13 PM
Most people I know who are unfamiliar with it find out there's no body checking and immediately take the sport less seriously because of it.

I also know people who don't take college hockey seriously because there is no fighting allowed. Where do we stop? Also, if you allow checking all the pansy Moms will pull their girls off the ice. I'd like to see less incidental contact allowed and even more flow to the games.

TonyTheTiger20
04-28-2014, 05:28 PM
I've got no problem with those opinions. All reasonable responses.

pokechecker
04-28-2014, 06:59 PM
I haven't seen surveys of US, but in Canada the surveys I've seen reveal the about 2/3 of the people don't like fighting and the rough play in hockey.
That means that for every mom & dad trying to teach their kid to play like Wayne Gretzky there is another parent trying to teach their kid to deliver a slash to the knees to stop him/her.
That also means that for every 2 coaches trying to teach your kid to be a skill player, there is one coach teaching how to deliver an elbow or glove to the face to stop them.
That also means that for every two officials who are going to call the checking, roughing, and other penalties there is one official who will be lax in calling them.
The idea that checking, fighting, or rough play is what is needed to make women's hockey more popular is absurd, oh sure, it will draw attention, but every person I know who enjoys women's hockey (most of whom pay little attention to the men's game) enjoy it because of the emphasis on skill.
Give it time, women's hockey is in it's infancy, it will become more popular as more people are exposed to it.
Some people see women's hockey as men's hockey without the checking.
I see it as hockey without the goons.

CrazyDave
04-28-2014, 11:00 PM
One random question: what happened to the rule than permitted hand passes (no whistle) in the defensive zone? Apparently that rule was short-lived and I don't know why they reverted to calling hand passes anywhere on the ice even if they are inadvertent, i.e. it deflects off a players glove and goes to a teammate.
I don't know when they started allowing hand passes in the defensive zone, but they made it illegal in all zones during the last rule change cycle two summers ago. If my memory serves, though, true deflections go uncalled.


The refs just need to be more consistent throughout the game. "Even up" calls need to be avoided and they shouldn't put away their whistles just because time is running out.
THIS! And I agree with the comments against TTT20's proposal.

jumbodaddy77
04-29-2014, 12:14 AM
I haven't seen surveys of US, but in Canada the surveys I've seen reveal the about 2/3 of the people don't like fighting and the rough play in hockey.
That means that for every mom & dad trying to teach their kid to play like Wayne Gretzky there is another parent trying to teach their kid to deliver a slash to the knees to stop him/her.
That also means that for every 2 coaches trying to teach your kid to be a skill player, there is one coach teaching how to deliver an elbow or glove to the face to stop them.
That also means that for every two officials who are going to call the checking, roughing, and other penalties there is one official who will be lax in calling them.
The idea that checking, fighting, or rough play is what is needed to make women's hockey more popular is absurd, oh sure, it will draw attention, but every person I know who enjoys women's hockey (most of whom pay little attention to the men's game) enjoy it because of the emphasis on skill.
Give it time, women's hockey is in it's infancy, it will become more popular as more people are exposed to it.
Some people see women's hockey as men's hockey without the checking.
I see it as hockey without the goons.


With respect to checking, I don't disagree with the majority. Nonetheless, I'm with TTT and would vote to let them check. I know it's a grey area, but checking is not the same as "fighting/rough play" (in Pokechecker's words). No one wants fighting in women's hockey (or men's college hockey for that matter), but there's already plenty of "rough play" in both. Second, it's less about the rules than the way the game is called. I've watched a fair bit of D1 women's hockey and it seems to me that checking is already allowed along the boards and in front of the net. (The way that boarding, charging, etc. are called may be different, but the rules aren't.) So, the main differences between men's/women's college hockey at the moment are open ice hits and hip checks and I'd be in favor of both.

More important is the question of why (if at all) sports need to be modified for girls/women? Are they so weak and fragile that they need different rules? Should girls not play baseball because they need a bigger ball to hit and underhanded throws (and thus softball)? Should girls lacrosse be non-checking with no helmets and different rules? It's baloney. Play the sport girl or boy. Girls don't need things modified anymore--they want to compete. Checking in boys hockey will continue to be introduced at later and later ages. The women should meet them in the middle and make the spot the same for both. I'd add open ice checking for Tier 1 girls 16U and up, but not for Tier 2 or any age group below 16U.

I'm sure I'm wrong. I just bristle at the different rules for different genders status-quo. This is especially true when the girl's/women's hockey I see is so highly competitive and physical already.

OldDave
04-29-2014, 12:21 PM
With respect to checking, I don't disagree with the majority. Nonetheless, I'm with TTT and would vote to let them check. I know it's a grey area, but checking is not the same as "fighting/rough play" (in Pokechecker's words). No one wants fighting in women's hockey (or men's college hockey for that matter), but there's already plenty of "rough play" in both. Second, it's less about the rules than the way the game is called. I've watched a fair bit of D1 women's hockey and it seems to me that checking is already allowed along the boards and in front of the net. (The way that boarding, charging, etc. are called may be different, but the rules aren't.) So, the main differences between men's/women's college hockey at the moment are open ice hits and hip checks and I'd be in favor of both.

More important is the question of why (if at all) sports need to be modified for girls/women? Are they so weak and fragile that they need different rules? Should girls not play baseball because they need a bigger ball to hit and underhanded throws (and thus softball)? Should girls lacrosse be non-checking with no helmets and different rules? It's baloney. Play the sport girl or boy. Girls don't need things modified anymore--they want to compete. Checking in boys hockey will continue to be introduced at later and later ages. The women should meet them in the middle and make the spot the same for both. I'd add open ice checking for Tier 1 girls 16U and up, but not for Tier 2 or any age group below 16U.

I'm sure I'm wrong. I just bristle at the different rules for different genders status-quo. This is especially true when the girl's/women's hockey I see is so highly competitive and physical already.

I think your argument that not allowing checking is sexist is specious. I’ve played softball (at least until the team manager told me next year I only had to bring the beer and a clipboard for scoring) and I didn’t feel unmanly doing so. There’s probably a dozen indoor ice sheets within a couple of miles of my home, and you can walk into most of them of an evening and watch a hockey game between men in which checking is not allowed. Most of them are former HS or college players and I wouldn’t call any of them girly men (to quote SNL). Heck, the NL is the only league anywhere in baseball that doesn’t allow the DH. And you even acknowledge in your post that rules are different for different age groups, regardless of sport.

In my mind, there’s three kinds of rules. The first set are rules that define the sport: objectives, equipment, layout of the playing field/surface, scoring, length of play, etc. The second type are rules that maintain a competitive balance: size of goalie pads, curve of the sticks, icing, off sides, that sort of thing. The third set of rules are those set up to protect the players and observers: helmets, face masks, nets above the glass, prohibitions on using the stick as a weapon, you know the list.

So what is checking in the scheme of things? Does it define the sport of hockey? Probably not, since on any given day some very large percentage of those playing that day (80%?) are prohibited from checking. Does it provide competitive balance? Again, probably not (same as previous). Does it protect players and observers? No, quite the contrary. Actually, it is an anachronism, much like having the pitcher hit in baseball, or wearing leather helmets in football, or… well, pick your sport, they all have them. I know that as an old timer I’m required to grumble about change. But I am a big fan of change that makes things better, and I think the women’s game is showing us how fun hockey can be. Checking would be a step backwards, albeit “more traditional”.