PDA

View Full Version : Proposed NCAA rule changes for 2010-2011



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

one_to7
12-16-2009, 09:31 PM
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/association-wide/hockey+rules+group+suggests+points+of+emphasis+fut ure+rules+070209+news

http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20090207_NCAARulesCommittee


I know plenty of people have been talking about the points of emphasis, especially facemasking. But I hadn't heard much about the possible rule changes.


I like a few of them, like keeping faceoffs in the zone after hittig a post, hybrid icing, and making teams clear their zone before a delayed penalty is enforced.

The las change though would be horrible. Not letting players slide or dive to block a shot? Are you kidding me? Who would propose that?

Anyway, what're your thoughts?

PrezdeJohnson09
12-16-2009, 09:45 PM
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/association-wide/hockey+rules+group+suggests+points+of+emphasis+fut ure+rules+070209+news

I know plenty of people have been talking about the points of emphasis, especially facemasking. But I hadn't heard much about the possible rule changes.


I like a few of them, like keeping faceoffs in the zone after hittig a post, hybrid icing, and making teams clear their zone before a delayed penalty is enforced.

The las change though would be horrible. Not letting players slide or dive to block a shot? Are you kidding me? Who would propose that?

Anyway, what're your thoughts?

My thoughts are I'm lazy and I want a clickable link dammit!:cool:

one_to7
12-16-2009, 10:11 PM
So instead of just posting it yourself, you take thetime to complain about it, without commenting on anything related to the topic.

Thanks!

d3follower
12-16-2009, 10:14 PM
clickable link for lazy Prez (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/association-wide/hockey+rules+group+suggests+points+of+emphasis+fut ure+rules+070209+news)

norm1909
12-16-2009, 10:14 PM
Current NCAA Mens and Womens Ice Hockey Rules Committee - here (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=IHRULES).

d3follower
12-16-2009, 10:17 PM
What about eliminating ties?? That's kind of a biggy and it looks like a pretty definite commitment to do so, subject to the caveat that a method for breaking ties has not been settled on and they are collecting options to consider . . .

PrezdeJohnson09
12-16-2009, 10:19 PM
•Icing the puck during shorthanded situations. The committee is considering implementing a rule change that would not allow shorthanded teams to ice the puck.
•Delayed penalty administration. In this proposal, when a penalty is called on a team in its defensive zone, the offending team must clear the puck out of its defensive zone before play is stopped.
•Leaving the feet to play the puck. This proposal deals with defensive players diving or sliding to block shots or passes. A minor penalty would be imposed for a violation.

I think these last three are AWFUL.

I hope they aren't serious with these. The first one I listed and the last one especially.

The second one I'm not as dead set against as the other two but still, I think they would be awful if they implemented these rules into play.

PrezdeJohnson09
12-16-2009, 10:20 PM
I wish they adopted a format where they made it mandatory to have experimental shootouts after any tie in D-III.

It's fun for the fans and players and would have no bearing on the game. Then come back in two or three years and see what everyone thinks is best for the game.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
12-16-2009, 10:23 PM
I wish they adopted a format where they made it mandatory to have experimental shootouts after any tie in D-III.

It's fun for the fans and players and would have no bearing on the game. Then come back in two or three years and see what everyone thinks is best for the game.

Just make sure they don't ask the CCHA for advise on how to run a shootout :cool:

On another note, I actually cannot say I agree with this:

Icing the puck during shorthanded situations. The committee is considering implementing a rule change that would not allow shorthanded teams to ice the puck.

3rdLiner
12-17-2009, 12:57 AM
All of these rules I think would be good, the game is faster and more skilled than ever before as a result penalties need to be more severe.

In the old days you were in the box for 2 min no matter how many goals the other team scored, I would like to see them go back to that as well. Hockey is a great game, but it has changed so much especially with goalies we need to see the rules catch up to the game.

I would also like to see Hybrid icing which is like touch icing just not as dangerous.

Any puck shot over the glass is a penalty. The game is supposed to be played on the ice not on the glass, which is a way for unskilled players to stay in the game.

We need to eliminate the hand pass in all zones it helps Defensive teams only, and they talk about scoring more goals, hand passes do not reward the kids with stick skills.

I love kids who dive to block shots, it hurts and it is en exciting part of the game, however if they go down and a player tries to go around them but gets tripped on the body of the player on the ice then that should be a penalty, they should not penalize a player who chooses to lay down in front of shot, but anyone who is on the ice and knocks another person down should be penalized.

Good luck to the NCAA I hope they can get this right.

neutral site
12-17-2009, 01:25 AM
* The hybrid icing rule would be a great addition and allow the fastest player to get the advantage. It may also decrease the amount of times a defenseman will try to slow down a player coming through the neutral zone and just get to the puck.

* Clearing the zone to stop play would be a disaster...please, NO!

* Players wear a little bit of equipment these days, and if they chose to go down to block a shot, so be it. Not a fan of this one.

* No icing during Penalty Kill...Now we're gonna double punish a team. If it ain't broke, leave it alone!

Could shape up to be interesting.

NUProf
12-17-2009, 06:08 AM
* Reducing or eliminating ties. The committee believes a change is in the best interests of the game and voted to implement changes at its June 2010 meeting to either reduce or eliminate tie games. The committee will collect and consider all written proposals from the membership.


This is not a bad idea - I would think ties would be reduced if they just extended OT to 10 minutes. The NHL scheme of going 4 x 4 for OT has merit as well. Maybe a 10 minute 4 x 4 OT would work.

Shootouts are okay, but I wouldn't want to see a tie breaking system where the winner gets two points and loser gets a point, unless you change it to the point where the team that wins a game in OT or regulation gets 3 points. Every game should contribute the same number of points to the standings.




* Puck shot directly out of play.When the puck is shot directly out of play from the defensive zone, the committee is considering conducting the faceoff in the non-offending team’s attacking zone without a change of players allowed. The committee does not currently believe a penalty is warranted for such action; at the moment, a team that does this would be allowed to change players.


This is a good idea. The intent of doing this is the same as icing the puck - the penalty should be the same as for icing.



* Shot that hits the post and goes out of play – faceoff location. Currently, because the attacking team last touched the puck, a shot that hits the post and goes out of play comes outside of the zone. The committee is considering keeping this faceoff in the attacking zone.


I'm not sure I've seen this happen very often. The change is reasonable



* Timeout during situations where players are not allowed to change. Currently, if a team calls a timeout during a situation where, by rule, it is not allowed to change its players, the rule remains in place. Some coaches have asked why they are not allowed to change players since only one timeout is allowed per game. The NCAA rule is currently consistent with NHL rules.


I guess I don't really care whatever



* Icing the puck during shorthanded situations. The committee is considering implementing a rule change that would not allow shorthanded teams to ice the puck.


Yuck - they experimented with this rule in tournaments a few years ago and used it in the Times-Argus. I hated this. I thought it totally changed the strategy for the PK and PP. I don't think we need to change the entire flow of the game this way.



* Delayed penalty administration. In this proposal, when a penalty is called on a team in its defensive zone, the offending team must clear the puck out of its defensive zone before play is stopped.


Probably the same thing could be accomplished if the refs would actually require that the defense control the puck (I know that's the rule), but so often I've seen the whistle blown when the puck just deflects off a defensive stick. They could do a tournament test of the proposed rule, but I'm not in favor of it.



* Leaving the feet to play the puck. This proposal deals with defensive players diving or sliding to block shots or passes. A minor penalty would be imposed for a violation.


Stupid idea. What's next - going back to the 60s era rule that didn't allow body checking in the offensive zone? I don't know what this rule would be trying to do.

AGPennypacker
12-17-2009, 09:50 AM
•Icing the puck during shorthanded situations. The committee is considering implementing a rule change that would not allow shorthanded teams to ice the puck.
•Delayed penalty administration. In this proposal, when a penalty is called on a team in its defensive zone, the offending team must clear the puck out of its defensive zone before play is stopped.
•Leaving the feet to play the puck. This proposal deals with defensive players diving or sliding to block shots or passes. A minor penalty would be imposed for a violation.

I think these last three are AWFUL.

I hope they aren't serious with these. The first one I listed and the last one especially.

The second one I'm not as dead set against as the other two but still, I think they would be awful if they implemented these rules into play.

Was going to post my own response but this one pretty much says the same things I wanted to say. These proposals are hinting at adopting the NHL's philosophy: try to increase scoring at almost any expense.

I'm all for seeing skilled offensive plays/players. The rules to eliminate the clutching and grabbing make sense. But to punish someone for sliding to block a shot? Seriously? Ridiculous.

Icing during shorthanded situations? Why not just give out penalty shots until someone scores? We get the point, NCAA, you're just trying to increase offense at the expense of every other aspect of the game (defense, flow, etc).

I'm calling it first: They will eventually be a discussion where only X number of players are allowed in the defensive zone (say 4, for instance). Sounds stupid, but I never thought I'd hear a proposal for dropping to the ice to block a shot.

PrezdeJohnson09
12-17-2009, 12:35 PM
I'm calling it first: They will eventually be a discussion where only X number of players are allowed in the defensive zone (say 4, for instance). Sounds stupid, but I never thought I'd hear a proposal for dropping to the ice to block a shot.

Sounds like Lacrosse;)

AGPennypacker
12-17-2009, 02:46 PM
Sounds like Lacrosse;)

How about basketball? How about only 2 players can defend the puck at one time (not that you see more than 2 doing it very often in today's game)?

(I don't know much about basketball but I think there is a rule for the # of players allowed to defend the player with the ball. Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Either way, it's just plain silly!

PrezdeJohnson09
12-17-2009, 03:05 PM
How about basketball? How about only 2 players can defend the puck at one time (not that you see more than 2 doing it very often in today's game)?

(I don't know much about basketball but I think there is a rule for the # of players allowed to defend the player with the ball. Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Either way, it's just plain silly!

I dont think that's a rule in college or professional basketball. Atleast I've never seen it called.

I know that is a rule in the youth leagues and maybe even modified or "freshmen" high school basketball. It was a rule at least in my youth basketball league I played in.

I was saying it was more like lacrosse because they are only allowed six players in the offensive box at one time. You have three defenders and a goalie just chilling on the other side of the field for long periods of time waiting for the ball to come back across midfield.

This is not a diss at Lacrosse by any means because I actually love watching the sport. I think it's probably my second favorite sport to watch next to hockey. Once you understand the game it really is exciting to watch with the mixture of speed, finesse, hand-eye coordination, and scoring that takes place.

I've been to numerous Syracuse and Oswego games over the years and they really do put on a show for people who havent watched the sport before.

I call it a mix between hockey (because of hand eye coordination), soccer (the amount of non-stop running), and football (with the way they are allowed to absolutely deck each other).

Plus/Minus
12-17-2009, 06:35 PM
* Delayed penalty administration. In this proposal, when a penalty is called on a team in its defensive zone, the offending team must clear the puck out of its defensive zone before play is stopped.


I think that this could be a positive change. I don't care about the increased scoring chances, per se. I just think that putting some extra pressure on teams who take penalties while defending would be good for the game in the long run.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
12-17-2009, 08:59 PM
* Delayed penalty administration. In this proposal, when a penalty is called on a team in its defensive zone, the offending team must clear the puck out of its defensive zone before play is stopped.


I think that this could be a positive change. I don't care about the increased scoring chances, per se. I just think that putting some extra pressure on teams who take penalties while defending would be good for the game in the long run.

Personally, I like this idea. Some teams get to a point where they'd rather take a penalty than allow a goal. We usually call that "getting chippy". I like this rule change, because it would help to eliminate some of that.

Ozz
12-18-2009, 12:31 AM
This is not a diss at Lacrosse by any means because I actually love watching the sport. I think it's probably my second favorite sport to watch next to hockey. Once you understand the game it really is exciting to watch with the mixture of speed, finesse, hand-eye coordination, and scoring that takes place.

Lacrosse would be ten times better with a shot cock! I hate watching the ball being thrown around the goal for two minutes with no/little intent to go on the offensive!

Lacrosse on ice, with hitting allowed might be cool!

norm1909
12-18-2009, 06:07 AM
Lacrosse would be ten times better with a shot cock! I hate watching the ball being thrown around the goal for two minutes with no/little intent to go on the offensive!

Lacrosse on ice, with hitting allowed might be cool!

I hope you meant shot clock, otherwise, I think it it a little fowl - or some might think offensive.;)

While at Cobleskill (http://www.insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?PageRID=127190), I did have a lacrosse player in one of my classes, known as the shot jock.