Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

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

  • #16
    Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

    By the way, if you have some time on your hands and are looking for something to do, consider sending the Athletic Director of Alaska-Fairbanks, Forrest Karr, an e-mail. I'm sure he'd love to hear from you! Mr. Karr, of course, is the outgoing Chair of the NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee and was a goaltender at Notre Dame.

    forrest.karr@alaska.edu

    Here is the text of the friendly advice I sent to him. Remember, strength in numbers ... let's take it to the streets!

    Mr. Karr,
    Please do the right thing and retract the rules proposals that you and the rest of the NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee made last week. The Committee’s callous disregard for the wishes of the entire college hockey community, and specifically a vast majority of the coaching body, is extremely distressing. Your haste to pass radical rules changes without the benefit of experimentation and detailed analysis has threatened to marginalize the college game and, in a worst-case scenario, make a mockery of it.


    Update:

    Mr. Karr immediately responded to my e-mail and even offered to discuss my concerns personally. I took him up on his offer by further elaborating my concerns about the proposed changes. He deserves a lot of credit for that and, based on the article linked below, it looks like the Committee is taking these concerns very seriously.

    http://www.collegehockeynews.com/new...4_newicing.php
    Last edited by Wild E. Cat; 06-14-2010, 11:33 PM.
    UNH WILDCATS
    NORTHEASTERN HUSKIES

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

      The no icing on PK would completely change the game and set back college hockey as a place to prepare for the pros (on the men's side). It would also be stupid.

      I like the hybrid icing.

      As for delayed penalties - honestly, at this point I think they should just make you serve the full 2:00 regardless of if the other team scores or not. That makes more sense than still having a power play even if you score on the delayed penalty, and it's not really an offensive concept to me.

      I do think a better rule change would be not blowing a delayed penalty dead until the penalized team clears the zone, or touches up in the neutral/attacking zone.
      BC Interruption: SB Nation's Boston College Eagles Community
      -
      Boston College Class of 2010

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

        The problem here is getting too much advantage on one infraction. Just a thought, if they're going to have teams serve the penalty regardless, why not make them score their first goal without pulling the goalie? Too much advantage getting two manpower advantages.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

          On the icing calls:

          Most ref's in DIII are slower skaters than the players, so now the linesmen will be calling icing from the blueline instead of being down at the dots to see who gets there first. This just opens the door for more coaches to "discuss" calls/non-calls with the referee's.

          I really hope this idea gets turned, or voted down. As well as the no icing on the PK idea. It's hard enough to get players off the ice on the PK with icing the puck. How many 2nd period PP goals are going to be scored this year when you have the long change and can't ice the puck on the PK...

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

            it seems to me that the proposed changes increase the disadvantage to a team that has been assessed a penalty. in theory i would not have a big problem with that. in practice, however, women's college teams are already dealing with crappy officiating as it is. to increase the disadvantage of taking a penalty only serves to magnify the impact when a referee makes a bad call.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

              Originally posted by 5 4 Fighting View Post
              Great article!!!!!!!!!!!
              Fire Chiarelli!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

                Dave Starman does his typical fine editorial on the proposed rules changes.
                You do need an "Extra" subscription to read it.

                http://www.uscho.com/news/college-ho...eDontNeed.html
                Minnesota Hockey

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

                  I realize I'm quoting from the same site that I'm posting on, but in case some of you don't browse the entire site, here's the news:


                  NCAA Pulls Shorthanded Icing Proposal

                  July 8 — The controversial proposal to call icing while a team is shorthanded has been pulled off the table, the NCAA announced Thursday.

                  But it’s not going away entirely, and it could resurface again.

                  The NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee’s proposal met with largely negative reaction from coaches, so it will be used in exhibition games only during the two-year cycle of the next rule book, which starts with the coming season.

                  The committee will then have experience to work with in determining whether the rule will be implemented starting with the 2012-13 season.

                  “The committee appreciates the membership feedback and values the opinions of coaches and administrators,” Forrest Karr, outgoing chair of the committee and athletic director at Alaska, said in a statement. “Responses indicate that while several coaches like the concept, there are concerns about the potential for unintended consequences.”

                  The other proposals forwarded to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel for final approval were unchanged. The panel is scheduled to meet via conference call on July 29.

                  In proposing always-on icing, the rules committee cited the desire to reward speed and skill and to help create scoring chances.

                  Karr also noted that it had been brought up that allowing icing while shorthanded is, in a way, rewarding a penalized team by giving it the benefit of a ruling it doesn’t get at full strength.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

                    Originally posted by JosephPSchmoe View Post
                    I realize I'm quoting from the same site that I'm posting on, but in case some of you don't browse the entire site, here's the news:


                    NCAA Pulls Shorthanded Icing Proposal

                    July 8 — The controversial proposal to call icing while a team is shorthanded has been pulled off the table, the NCAA announced Thursday.

                    But it’s not going away entirely, and it could resurface again.

                    The NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee’s proposal met with largely negative reaction from coaches, so it will be used in exhibition games only during the two-year cycle of the next rule book, which starts with the coming season.

                    The committee will then have experience to work with in determining whether the rule will be implemented starting with the 2012-13 season.

                    “The committee appreciates the membership feedback and values the opinions of coaches and administrators,” Forrest Karr, outgoing chair of the committee and athletic director at Alaska, said in a statement. “Responses indicate that while several coaches like the concept, there are concerns about the potential for unintended consequences.”

                    The other proposals forwarded to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel for final approval were unchanged. The panel is scheduled to meet via conference call on July 29.

                    In proposing always-on icing, the rules committee cited the desire to reward speed and skill and to help create scoring chances.

                    Karr also noted that it had been brought up that allowing icing while shorthanded is, in a way, rewarding a penalized team by giving it the benefit of a ruling it doesn’t get at full strength.
                    Perhaps the NCAA would be better served in rewarding both the players and fans alike, by diligently working with their reffing staff in an attempt to offer some speed and skill...just sayin.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

                      Just for some finalization... the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP) did ratify the proposals that were sent the them. Note that this doesn't mention the "always-on icing" as an experimental rule, but it doesn't say that it was eliminated either.

                      BTW, did I mention that USCHO said nothing about this (the ratification), even on the men's side?

                      http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...0_10_ncaa_news
                      Head contact in hockey gets stricter sanction

                      Jul 30, 2010 8:17:08 AM

                      By Greg Johnson
                      The NCAA News

                      The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved a proposal Thursday for more stringent rules and enforcement standards regarding contact to the head in men’s ice hockey.

                      Violations will carry a minimum of a major penalty and a game misconduct or disqualification penalty.

                      A major penalty calls for the offender to be ruled off of the ice for five minutes, during which time a substitute is not permitted.

                      The oversight panel took the action in the spirit of student-athlete safety, which is among its primary areas of responsibility and a consideration in all playing-rules changes.

                      The contact-to-the-head rule originally was approved in 2003. The NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee, which recommended the change, believes the NCAA’s strong stance on hitting from behind has altered player behavior, making the game safer.

                      Other ice hockey proposals PROP approved include a new icing procedure that will allow play to continue in more situations; the removal of the obtainable-pass rule, which allowed linesmen to waive off some icing calls; and minor changes to overtime in an effort to reduce the number of tie games in NCAA play.

                      PROP also approved a recommendation to alter the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.
                      Give blood... Play Gopher Hockey!
                      Men's National Championships: 1974, 1976, 1979, 2002, 2003
                      Women's National Championships: 2000, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

                        The delayed penalty rule is nuts. Two power plays for one infraction? The extra power play time with the goalie out is enough. Having to get it out might work....... Maybe the refs will call less penalties this way? Wouldn't want to be a ref, they might have to wear cages.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

                          Originally posted by CanHockGuy View Post
                          The delayed penalty rule is nuts. Two power plays for one infraction? The extra power play time with the goalie out is enough. Having to get it out might work....... Maybe the refs will call less penalties this way? Wouldn't want to be a ref, they might have to wear cages.
                          I actually like the delayed penalty rule. That's one of the things that I like better about lacrosse than hockey - when the flag goes down, you can fire away at the net, and even if you score, the guy still goes into the box.

                          Why don't you like it, CanHockey? It's actually not all that often that the team scores during the delayed infraction ... although I'd love to know what the percentage is.

                          Did I miss it - was there any mention of the proposal to remove face masks for the men? To me, THAT idea is nuts...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

                            Originally posted by FranchisePlayer View Post
                            I actually like the delayed penalty rule. That's one of the things that I like better about lacrosse than hockey - when the flag goes down, you can fire away at the net, and even if you score, the guy still goes into the box.

                            Why don't you like it, CanHockey? It's actually not all that often that the team scores during the delayed infraction ... although I'd love to know what the percentage is.

                            Did I miss it - was there any mention of the proposal to remove face masks for the men? To me, THAT idea is nuts...
                            Yup and if you put a red flame behind the puck when it's going fast and a blue flame when it's going slow ...people will be able to follow the game better...

                            Stop screwing around with the game. That's not how it's played.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

                              Originally posted by 5 4 Fighting View Post
                              Yup and if you put a red flame behind the puck when it's going fast and a blue flame when it's going slow ...people will be able to follow the game better...

                              Stop screwing around with the game. That's not how it's played.
                              Ok, well you're talking about two separate things - Fox trying to make the game more appealing to people that don't watch it and an attempt to change the game by people that are actually involved in it ... for the better, I'd say. Perhaps this will provide more offense and will encourage knuckleheads to think before they do something stupid since they could cost their teams TWO goals.

                              And, um, I'm betting that you know that the rules USED to be that you could score as many times as possible on the power play, right? Do you remember why the NHL changed that rule?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Proposed rule changes - Summer 2010

                                Originally posted by FranchisePlayer View Post
                                Ok, well you're talking about two separate things - Fox trying to make the game more appealing to people that don't watch it and an attempt to change the game by people that are actually involved in it ... for the better, I'd say. Perhaps this will provide more offense and will encourage knuckleheads to think before they do something stupid since they could cost their teams TWO goals.

                                And, um, I'm betting that you know that the rules USED to be that you could score as many times as possible on the power play, right? Do you remember why the NHL changed that rule?
                                Hey wait a minute...I was a knucklehead!

                                The rules should only be able to be altered by the governing body of the NHL...not the NCAA or anybody else for that matter. Do you see anybody changing the rules in golf without the PGA being involved?

                                The NHL tinkered with not blowing the whistle until they have cleared the zone, not just gaining possession of the puck. I don't mind that but I doubt it will happen any time soon.

                                With respect to your trivia question ..I do know, but why don't you enlighten us.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X