PDA

View Full Version : Rules Changes for 2010-11



Pages : [1] 2

aparch
09-21-2010, 04:09 PM
The CCHA has created a website to highlight the rules changes that were adopted for the 2010-11 season.

http://www.ccha.com/2010-11_rules_primer.aspx


Some important rule changes will be put in place for the 2010-11 season. Here are some informational pieces to help you the fan learn more about these rules.

NCAA Rules Video (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_video/ice_hockey/2010/2010-11_m_ice_hockey_rules.html)

New Rules (http://www.ccha.com/assets/1/workflow_staging/News/17117.PDF)

NCAA Rules Book (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH12.pdf)

ExileOnDaytonStreet
09-21-2010, 04:32 PM
The CCHA has created a website to highlight the rules changes that were adopted for the 2010-11 season.

http://www.ccha.com/2010-11_rules_primer.aspx

The "shorthanded team not allowed to ice the puck" rule is still pretty absurd. I pray that it dies a painful death.

ScoobyDoo
09-21-2010, 04:39 PM
The "shorthanded team not allowed to ice the puck" rule is still pretty absurd. I pray that it dies a painful death.

Didn't that rule get thrown out? Did the CCHA really adopt that for this year? I was certain I read that the WCHA considered it and threw it out?

aparch
09-21-2010, 04:45 PM
The "shorthanded team not allowed to ice the puck" rule is still pretty absurd. I pray that it dies a painful death.
Didn't that rule get thrown out? Did the CCHA really adopt that for this year? I was certain I read that the WCHA considered it and threw it out?

Reading isn't apparently required at Big Ten Institutions.

From the rules notes:

<html><table border=1><tr><td>Shorthanded team not allowed to ice the puck 6-27-b, HR-74</td><td>In exhibition games ONLY, enforce icing at all times of the game.</td><td>This change would remove a contradiction in the rules that allows a team that has violated the rules in one area to violate another rule in order to compensate for being shorthanded. This would provide more scoring opportunities for the power play team and could encourage more skilled play from the defensive team.</td></tr></table></html>

It's for use only in exhibition games. Same thing the CCHA did when it tried the same rule change six years ago.

joecct
09-21-2010, 05:26 PM
Hmmm didn't see this one....

3 Game Misconducts in a season = a game off.

ExileOnDaytonStreet
09-21-2010, 05:36 PM
Reading isn't apparently required at Big Ten Institutions.

:rolleyes:

Even if it is only used in exhibition matches, it's not in any way dead.

"Exhibition only" means that its being tested out. Like when other leagues have used pre-season games as a trial for new rules (NHL doing shootouts after every preseason game in the fall of 2005, for instance).

If the rule were truly dead, then why even bother having it in exhibition games?

ScoobyDoo
09-21-2010, 05:38 PM
I don't even understand the desire to "try out" a rule like that. {shrug}

FlagDUDE08
09-21-2010, 05:40 PM
I don't even understand the desire to "try out" a rule like that. {shrug}

It's because someone on the rules commitee liked it a lot and tried to force it in, all the coaches said no, but the soft spot for the rule was too large to give it up, so they pushed it to exhibition matches. There's a part of me that hopes it gets booed every single time it is called, regardless of against which team it is called.

ScoobyDoo
09-21-2010, 05:46 PM
It's because someone on the rules commitee liked it a lot and tried to force it in, all the coaches said no, but the soft spot for the rule was too large to give it up, so they pushed it to exhibition matches. There's a part of me that hopes it gets booed every single time it is called, regardless of against which team it is called.

Look at the way the explanation of the rule is written in that post below.


This change would remove a contradiction in the rules that allows a team that has violated the rules in one area to violate another rule in order to compensate for being shorthanded. This would provide more scoring opportunities for the power play team and could encourage more skilled play from the defensive team.

No self respecting hockey fan would ever write trash like that.

aparch
09-21-2010, 06:49 PM
I don't even understand the desire to "try out" a rule like that. {shrug}

The CCHA tried it a few years ago (I want to say around 2004 or 2005), with the same "experimental, for exhibition only" use. It was confusing and pointless, and from what I remember the coaches hated it.

I don't know why it was tried to be forced through again earlier this summer. :confused:

Nevergoodenough
09-21-2010, 07:51 PM
Did I also see that half-shields are now legal in Men's play?

hockeyplayer1015
09-21-2010, 08:44 PM
Did I also see that half-shields are now legal in Men's play?

No. They are going to investigate the possible implementation of it in the future, but full facial protection is the only option at this time.

sbkbghockey
09-21-2010, 11:45 PM
No. They are going to investigate the possible implementation of it in the future, but full facial protection is the only option at this time.

That's one of the worst proposed rules. (along with icing the puck on the pk):mad:. With limited rosters that pros and jr hockey don't have to worry as much about having players out with facial injuries could really put a dent in some teams depth charts. Also increased medical expenses could be bad for smaller programs and at schools with money issues.

Also fights could increase with the easier removal of helmets while wearing the shield. And the fact that getting a highstick to the face with the half shield is A LOT more annoying than a smack on the cage you don't even feel.

It’s ironic hockey and football have both really increased prevention of concussions. Hockey in particular has focused on hits from behind, etc… but the NCAA wants to reduce facial protection.

state of hockey
09-22-2010, 12:00 AM
I have found that the less facial protection there is, the less often people skate around with their sticks six feet in the air. I'd be much more worried about slappers from the point and being a defenseman.

redhawkman10
09-22-2010, 10:52 AM
The "shorthanded team not allowed to ice the puck" rule is still pretty absurd. I pray that it dies a painful death.


:rolleyes:

Even if it is only used in exhibition matches, it's not in any way dead.

"Exhibition only" means that its being tested out. Like when other leagues have used pre-season games as a trial for new rules (NHL doing shootouts after every preseason game in the fall of 2005, for instance).

If the rule were truly dead, then why even bother having it in exhibition games?


I don't even understand the desire to "try out" a rule like that. {shrug}

The only reason it is being used in exhibition games is to save face. The rule will never be put in place it is the most absurd thing ever. It was propossed and pushed by people who have very little hockey knowledge. The NCAA rules committe got pressured into propossing it and when every single NCAA coach raised holy hell they realized it had no chance of working. This is the problem when presidents and NCAA officials who think they know more than they do get involved.

It makes ZERO sense to try this in exhibition games when you won't use it in regular season games, its pitiful to protect a powerfull person because they are an idiot....

Sorry for the rant, but it is ridiculous that this ever came up.

However I am on board with half shields. These kids play with half shields in juniors and then half to come back to full cages. You don't see a lot of bad injuries often in the junior ranks with half shields. I think it is smart that they are taking their time and studying it but they use them before and after the college game, might as well allow it in the college game.

Alton
09-22-2010, 11:16 AM
It was propossed and pushed by people who have very little hockey knowledge.

I think I am on pretty safe ground in saying that this is not the case. The proposal came from the rules committee, the rules committee has been saying for years that they want more scoring, and after this change they stated repeatedly through their chairman that they were happy with the change, and they stuck by it until the massive rebellion that came from the top-tier Division I Men's coaches. The Rules Committee is made up entirely of hockey people.

I have a theory about this rule, and I have absolutely nothing but circumstantial evidence to support it, so don't ask me to prove it--I can't.

The rules committee is made up almost equally of Men's Division I hockey people, Men's Division III hockey people, Women's Division I hockey people and Women's Division III hockey people. I think this rule change did not come from the side of the sport that we follow the most--Men's Division I hockey. It certainly did not come from people who were interested in developing NHL talent, because this proposed change had the opposite effect.

Have you looked at women's college hockey scores? They are like soccer scores--lots of 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 0-0 games. I think this proposal came from women's hockey people--they need to do something about their game, and I think they are a little desparate. The goalies in women's hockey are not too far from the level of goalies in men's hockey, but the strength and speed of the forwards is not even close to men's hockey. As a result, low-scoring games and no end in sight to the problem, and crazy rule changes proposed to fix it--no matter the consequences for the men's sport.

Maybe I'm wrong about where this came from, but this women's hockey theory has been in the back of my head for a while.

moose97
09-22-2010, 11:21 AM
That's one of the worst proposed rules. (along with icing the puck on the pk):mad:. With limited rosters that pros and jr hockey don't have to worry as much about having players out with facial injuries could really put a dent in some teams depth charts. Also increased medical expenses could be bad for smaller programs and at schools with money issues.

Also fights could increase with the easier removal of helmets while wearing the shield. And the fact that getting a highstick to the face with the half shield is A LOT more annoying than a smack on the cage you don't even feel.

It’s ironic hockey and football have both really increased prevention of concussions. Hockey in particular has focused on hits from behind, etc… but the NCAA wants to reduce facial protection.

Sorry, but I'm with these two:

I have found that the less facial protection there is, the less often people skate around with their sticks six feet in the air. I'd be much more worried about slappers from the point and being a defenseman.

However I am on board with half shields. These kids play with half shields in juniors and then half to come back to full cages. You don't see a lot of bad injuries often in the junior ranks with half shields. I think it is smart that they are taking their time and studying it but they use them before and after the college game, might as well allow it in the college game.

First, there is this concern about "losing" the battle against major jr. right now. Sure, it may seem like a little thing, but why give them any amunition, where those teams might use something against you?

And, quickly, more fights? Seriously? What do you think does more to prevent fights - full shields or auto game dq's?

RaceBoarder
09-22-2010, 12:10 PM
I think I am on pretty safe ground in saying that this is not the case. The proposal came from the rules committee, the rules committee has been saying for years that they want more scoring, and after this change they stated repeatedly through their chairman that they were happy with the change, and they stuck by it until the massive rebellion that came from the top-tier Division I Men's coaches. The Rules Committee is made up entirely of hockey people.

I have a theory about this rule, and I have absolutely nothing but circumstantial evidence to support it, so don't ask me to prove it--I can't.

The rules committee is made up almost equally of Men's Division I hockey people, Men's Division III hockey people, Women's Division I hockey people and Women's Division III hockey people. I think this rule change did not come from the side of the sport that we follow the most--Men's Division I hockey. It certainly did not come from people who were interested in developing NHL talent, because this proposed change had the opposite effect.

Have you looked at women's college hockey scores? They are like soccer scores--lots of 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 0-0 games. I think this proposal came from women's hockey people--they need to do something about their game, and I think they are a little desparate. The goalies in women's hockey are not too far from the level of goalies in men's hockey, but the strength and speed of the forwards is not even close to men's hockey. As a result, low-scoring games and no end in sight to the problem, and crazy rule changes proposed to fix it--no matter the consequences for the men's sport.

Maybe I'm wrong about where this came from, but this women's hockey theory has been in the back of my head for a while.

Since they operate under a different set of rules, wouldn't the Women's side of things have their own rules commitee :confused:

Or is there just one NCAA rulebook with the rules differences noted within?

Alton
09-22-2010, 12:45 PM
Since they operate under a different set of rules, wouldn't the Women's side of things have their own rules commitee :confused:

Or is there just one NCAA rulebook with the rules differences noted within?

One book, one committee. Don't ask me why; they are 2 different games in many respects. The rule book has some rules marked "Men only" and others marked "Women only."

The 12-member Ice Hockey Rules Committee that tried to adopt this icing rule--

MEN'S DIVISION I INTERESTS:
Forrest Karr (Alaska athletic director), committee chair
John Hill (Minnesota assistant coach)
Derek Schooley (Robert Morris head coach)
Ed McLaughlin (Niagara athletic director)

WOMEN'S DIVISION I INTERESTS:
Sarah Fraser (Brown assistant athletic director)
Robert Wells (St Lawrence head coach)
Claudia Asano (Union head coach)

MEN'S DIVISION II/III INTERESTS:
Chris Salani (Finlandia athletic director)
Frank Millerick (Becker athletic director)
Bill Gorman (Wentworth associate athletic director)

WOMEN'S DIVISION II/III INTERESTS:
Mike Carroll (Gustavus Adolphus head coach)
William Mandigo (Middlebury head coach)

aparch
09-22-2010, 12:52 PM
...The 12-member Ice Hockey Rules Committee that tried to adopt this icing rule--

MEN'S DIVISION I INTERESTS:
Forrest Karr (Alaska athletic director), committee chair...

And the funny thing (and how out of touch Athletic Directors are from their own staff) is that Dallas Ferguson, Alaska's Head Coach was adamantly leading the charge AGAINST this rule.

:eek: