PDA

View Full Version : Rule Changes



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

J.D.
06-11-2010, 01:03 PM
Per the Home page:

Contact to the head will result in a major penalty and either a game misconduct or game disqualification under proposals by the NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee unveiled Friday.

I find this absolutely ridiculous given the number of contact to the head penalties that are called (and often not warranted). Why compound that by making it a major penalty? I really, really hope this doesn't happen.

J.D.
06-11-2010, 01:06 PM
Also, icing will be called even when a team is shorthanded, a rule change that has been used in USA Hockey Development Camps.

• Goaltenders will change ends between the third period and overtime.

• The obtainable pass rule was removed.

• Teams will get a power play even if they score during a delayed penalty.

Hammer
06-11-2010, 01:10 PM
I don't like any of those, except for maybe the goaltenders switching ends. Get ready for a lot of 7-5 games.

RockTheWhit
06-11-2010, 01:15 PM
I understand that all levels of hockey are trying to curb the contact to the head plays with intent to injure. However, what about a simple body check where the receiving player lowers his body and contact is made to the head, or when accidental contact is made? That's gonna be a game misconduct now?
Also, the other rule changes appear to be targeted at increasing scoring and my question is why? If these silly changes aren't going to be made at the NHL level, they will have a negative effect on the college game as a whole. If all of a sudden college has different rules from the NHL, players will be more likely to go to the CHL for their development.

glazewsr
06-11-2010, 01:16 PM
Well, I'll jump the other way and admit I like all of them. Though I think there may need to be a "break in" period for the contac to the head rule - maybe start it out with a mandatory double minor for one season then go to the five and dime.

Nick Papagiorgio
06-11-2010, 01:17 PM
I find this absolutely ridiculous given the number of contact to the head penalties are called.


I agree. But now with a more severe penalty, I hope it will be a more rarely called penalty saved for only vicious hits. I'm not a rules expert, BUT, I would think vicious hits to the head even without the new rule would fall under the intent to injure rules I would assume (and that is a MC, right? IDK...).

Lukewarm on the new hybrid icing rule. Don't really see a need to change it. Doesn't feel like there are a lot of instances where an offensive player would get there first either. Now this might allow a set play of a long, hard clear around the rim while a forward at the same time has a huge head of steam on the opposite wing and either the goalie has to stop it behind the net to stop that forward from getting there or the forward gets it on the other corner or low half-wall. Because the defense has to hold that blue line and neutral zone in case a pass goes through the middle.

Icing while shorthanded is just ********. Whoever thought of that should kill themselves.

Delayed penalty rule... still not sure how I feel about that one. Need to think about it a big more.

Look, if we're looking to increase scoring, let's just play 4 on 4 all night long, let's make the net the size of a soccer net, and ban goalies from using their hands or ban goalies altogether. I mean, all of these things look like they want to increase scoring. Is there really a problem with the offensive numbers now after the good/reasonable changes that have been made?

FadeToBlack&Gold
06-11-2010, 01:21 PM
Also, icing will be called even when a team is shorthanded, a rule change that has been used in USA Hockey Development Camps.

I'll all for icing being called in any other situation, and preventing the offending team from getting a change, but why differ from the standard here? There are plenty of teams converting at over 15%, and a few at 20% or more.

I'm opposed to turning games into special teams exhibitions.

Scarlet
06-11-2010, 01:22 PM
Icing while shorthanded is just ********. Whoever thought of that should kill themselves.

Can I watch while they do it?? Because that rule is ridiculous.


Delayed penalty rule... still not sure how I feel about that one. Need to think about it a big more.


They actually did this earlier in Hockey East's lifetime. Only for a season or two. This one doesn't bother me as much.

J.D.
06-11-2010, 01:23 PM
I'm opposed to turning games into special teams exhibitions.

Which the college game is at a lot of times anyway...

I hope the experienced coaches throughout the country have significant say in what happens here.

Patman
06-11-2010, 01:25 PM
Look, if we're looking to increase scoring, let's just play 4 on 4 all night long, let's make the net the size of a soccer net, and ban goalies from using their hands or ban goalies altogether. I mean, all of these things look like they want to increase scoring. Is there really a problem with the offensive numbers now after the good/reasonable changes that have been made?

while in general i think this will disfavor my schools of choice I think this is probably better for the college game... this will favor the teams with the better talent and will reduce some of the parity in the game... I've come to the point that while I am loathe to see the same schools play and win at the same time you can't have it be totally haphazard either.

They may be trying to increase scoring... but what this will do is enhance the chance of winning for skilled teams.

edit: i wouldn't say that 4 v 4 wouldn't do the same... but I also think 4v4 changes the way the whole game is played

CLS
06-11-2010, 01:29 PM
I don’t like the hybrid icing rule because it creates another (very difficult in some cases) judgment call and opens the door to more controversy.

As for the icing during penalties, that could be a disaster, especially in the second period, when paired with the no substitutions on an icing rule (which I like). I could very easily see four players stuck out there for the entire two minutes.

Also, I remember when that was the international rule. It seemed to me that it just disturbed the flow of the game, because teams continued to ice the puck, so there would be a lot of stoppages.

Hammer
06-11-2010, 01:33 PM
I'm opposed to turning games into special teams exhibitions.

If that rule goes through you'll see someone with a 40% power play.

MUhawks628
06-11-2010, 01:38 PM
Shegos calls at least 3 contact to the head penalties a game...this is going to be a disaster.

Not even worth commenting on shorthanded icing, ridiculous.

Nick Papagiorgio
06-11-2010, 01:39 PM
while in general i think this will disfavor my schools of choice I think this is probably better for the college game... this will favor the teams with the better talent and will reduce some of the parity in the game... I've come to the point that while I am loathe to see the same schools play and win at the same time you can't have it be totally haphazard either.

They may be trying to increase scoring... but what this will do is enhance the chance of winning for skilled teams.

edit: i wouldn't say that 4 v 4 wouldn't do the same... but I also think 4v4 changes the way the whole game is played

I don't have a problem with the more skilled teams having a greater chance of winning. But they already have the inherent advantage.

BTW, I was being facetious about half of that stuff.

Really seems to me that there isn't a lack of offense anymore with the rules changes a few years ago. Is it really broken that it needs fixing?


Also, I remember when that was the international rule. It seemed to me that it just disturbed the flow of the game, because teams continued to ice the puck, so there would be a lot of stoppages.

It's silly. Now you're "penalizing" a shorthanded team for doing their job and getting the puck and getting it out of the zone and all the way down the ice (new rules would really change their job of getting it out of the zone without going over the line... price is right!). On the flip side, there is almost no "penalty" to the team on the PP if they turn it over or screw up in the offensive zone. Just the 1-3 seconds that come off the clock for the puck to travel all the way down (new icing rules of course change this perhaps).

This whole set of rule changes is depressingly stupid. This is like when they took Bushwood CC and changed it into an amusement park in Caddyshack 2.

TigerFan86-87
06-11-2010, 01:42 PM
I'm opposed to turning games into special teams exhibitions.

As stated previously, they already are.
But I think the hope behind a rule like this is to reduce special teams time by having the power plays end more quickly (more goals). It does nothing towards increasing (or decreasing) the number of penalties called.

Priceless
06-11-2010, 01:44 PM
Look, if we're looking to increase scoring, let's just play 4 on 4 all night long, let's make the net the size of a soccer net, and ban goalies from using their hands or ban goalies altogether.

A modest proposal: Make the nets bigger.

Nick Papagiorgio
06-11-2010, 01:48 PM
As stated previously, they already are.
But I think the hope behind a rule like this is to reduce special teams time by having the power plays end more quickly (more goals). It does nothing towards increasing (or decreasing) the number of penalties called.

Maybe I'm wrong here but... I don't think it's not going to make PPs end more quickly.

The offending player isn't going into the box until the next stoppage in play. So I don't think PPs will end more quickly.

No?

edit - changed that last part.

Kepler
06-11-2010, 01:49 PM
A modest proposal: Make the nets bigger.

There's already netting across the fan sections behind each end. Just use that.

First team to 100 wins.

CHFAN222
06-11-2010, 01:51 PM
The icing thing is absurd. Worst idea ever. Whoever voted for it is ****ing ********.

TigerFan86-87
06-11-2010, 01:56 PM
Maybe I'm wrong here but... I don't think it's not going to make PPs end more quickly.

The offending player isn't going into the box until the next stoppage in play. So I don't think PPs will end more quickly.

No?

edit - changed that last part.

I was under the impression that the comment I was responding to was in reference to the icing during the power play rule, not the delayed penalty thing.