PDA

View Full Version : Hybrid Icing - Success or fail?



Pages : [1] 2 3

nyi19
12-12-2010, 09:24 PM
The refereeing has been atrocious in the northern NY/VT area when it comes to hybrid icing. Either refs aren't remembering about it or aren't being told properly about it or something. From this guy's point of view, either do it right, or don't do it.

Thoughts?

WIrinkrat
12-12-2010, 09:37 PM
im sure it's difficult overcoming so many years of icing being ingrained in your head and now having to relearn it and make those split second judgments in the flow of the game...

i saw the plattsburgh games this weekend so i know how badly those guys butchered icing on more than one occasion...but over the course of the season i've also seen far more players give up chasing an iced puck on a potentially winable race because they are so used to the old rule.

so i'm willing to give the officials more than a month or two to get more consistent in their enforcement. i think in theory it's a great rule...it will encourage teams to maybe take a few more chances in transition and it will eliminate whistles and increase flow. in theory.

if we are here 2 years from now and are having so many of the same issues, then i may feel differently.

SeymoreHockey
12-12-2010, 10:10 PM
The Canadian girls should be used to this, because they've play with this in Canada. The refs? Well, that's a different story.

It took me four years to get used to watching the defense glide down the ice beside aslowly iced puck like a curler watching his/her rock approach the house!! It looked stupid. I like the new "hybrid" icing. It keeps the game honest. But hte refs have to be able to buy in to it. (I have doubts about the St Louis's of the world...they're lucky to be able to bend over and pick up a puck, so I suspect they'll be waving off alot of icings!!!)

nyi19
12-12-2010, 10:13 PM
The Canadian girls should be used to this, because they've play with this in Canada. The refs? Well, that's a different story.

It took me four years to get used to watching the defense glide down the ice beside aslowly iced puck like a curler watching his/her rock approach the house!! It looked stupid. I like the new "hybrid" icing. It keeps the game honest. But hte refs have to be able to buy in to it. (I have doubts about the St Louis's of the world...they're lucky to be able to bend over and pick up a puck, so I suspect they'll be waving off alot of icings!!!)

Winner. He missed 2 hybrids this weekend, one by about 7 feet.

OnMAA
12-12-2010, 10:32 PM
The Canadian girls should be used to this, because they've play with this in Canada.

Whadduyu mean they play with this in Canada?. Pretty sure they did not last year in neither minor girls hockey, nor CIS hockey. I had never heard of this rule until recently or seen it applied in girls minor hockey. Saw it applied for the first time while watching a few NCAA games this year. The first time I saw it used, was wondering out loud why some icings were waived off and a fellow spectator informed me of the new icing rule "in trial mode" as he put it.

I think you might be confusing the new icing waiver rules used in the NCAA, with the one used for years that calls off icings if the D player was close enough for a chance to play the puck before it got to the line.

WIrinkrat
12-12-2010, 10:43 PM
my mini rant on officiating in the scores thread was primarily directed toward st. louis...though i thought all 3 of the guys on saturday were incompetent and lazy.

nyi19
12-12-2010, 10:48 PM
my mini rant on officiating in the scores thread was primarily directed toward st. louis...though i thought all 3 of the guys on saturday were incompetent and lazy.

Welcome to northern NY officiating...

scrambledlegs
12-13-2010, 07:18 AM
I do not like the rule at all. It seems like a lazy way to play hockey as it encourages the "icing" team to hail mary it down the ice in hopes that their forward can win a foot race. If they have a legitimate pass that is one thing but most times they don't. I might be okay with it if there was some penalty for a failed icing.

Also, it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident with two players racing towards the boards. That in itself makes the rule fool-hardy.

WIrinkrat
12-13-2010, 09:45 AM
I do not like the rule at all. It seems like a lazy way to play hockey as it encourages the "icing" team to hail mary it down the ice in hopes that their forward can win a foot race. If they have a legitimate pass that is one thing but most times they don't. I might be okay with it if there was some penalty for a failed icing.

Also, it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident with two players racing towards the boards. That in itself makes the rule fool-hardy.

I haven't seen many teams trying to employ this strategy...

And if we are so worried about an accident with two players racing towards the boards, then why are we even playing hockey in the first place? Isn't 95% of the game involving players racing for loose pucks near the boards?

IceIsNice
12-13-2010, 10:10 AM
I'm a fan of the rule....in fact, I'm even a fan of allowing a bit more in the way of body contact. Maybe not all, but I think most of the girls would tell you the same thing themselves....that they're most certainly not afraid of a little more contact in their game. The rule is fine, but as noted above, the officials still need time to get used to it.

The New England Prep League plays by NCAA rules, and the officials there were definitely not prepared to enforce this properly in the couple of games I've seen already. Granted their season is barely 2 weeks old, but we may be asking too much when we expect these officials to actually skate hard to be in position for a potential icing waive-off. I always find it refreshing when I go to a game, especially a high school or club hockey game, and see an official really working it like it's Stanley Cup Final. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen often enough, and sometimes not even at D1 level.

D2D
12-13-2010, 10:46 AM
I like the rule as well. I would not want to go the way of the NHL which forces each player to race all the way and touch the puck first. The way the college rule is written now allows plenty of time for both players to avoid injury - each just has to avoid getting tangled up with the other and then break away as soon as she reaches the face off dot.

I've seen about a dozen games this year and recall only one instance where the refs completely blew the icing call. This was the first such icing of the game (not long after the drop of the first puck) and it was obvious that the lineswoman just forgot about the rule change. What was weird was this was well into the season. There have been a few judgmental calls you could argue with, but no other such blatant blunders, at least that I've seen.

All in all, I think the change has been good for the game and I hope they keep it and also expand it to the youth and high school levels.

CanHockGuy
12-13-2010, 12:18 PM
I do not like the rule at all. It seems like a lazy way to play hockey as it encourages the "icing" team to hail mary it down the ice in hopes that their forward can win a foot race. If they have a legitimate pass that is one thing but most times they don't. I might be okay with it if there was some penalty for a failed icing.

Also, it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident with two players racing towards the boards. That in itself makes the rule fool-hardy.

I agree. It's only a matter of time before coaches figure out a way to exploit this rule. ;)

OnMAA
12-13-2010, 12:36 PM
I agree. It's only a matter of time before coaches figure out a way to exploit this rule. ;)

Adds another dimension to the "winger hangs high" approach that some coaches deploy.

Northland
12-13-2010, 12:37 PM
I agree. It's only a matter of time before coaches figure out a way to exploit this rule. ;)

I think the exploit is faster skaters than the opposition. lol

CanHockGuy
12-13-2010, 01:41 PM
I think the exploit is faster skaters than the opposition. lol

Should you be able to take advantage of icing the puck though, that is the question. Reminds me of delayed offsides. :rolleyes: Should teams be able to take advantage of stretching the rules? Smart coaches and players always will, eventually. ;)

OnMAA
12-13-2010, 05:10 PM
I think the exploit is faster skaters than the opposition. lol

I saw one team exploit this with set faceoff plays in their own end. It was on olympic size ice and the one player was really fast. They tried it five times, beat the icing call three out of the five attempts and got two goals out of it.

If the faceoff was to the right of their own net, the left winger would beeline it to the right side off the opposing teams blueline right after the faceoff. If the draw was clean to the D standing at the back of the circle, the D would proceed to pass the puck hard towards dot the winger was heading to. If the winger managed to get away unmolested, she would pick up the pass on the bounce of the side board and she would go in either on a breakaway or in some cases a semi one on one with the D hopelessy out of position to make any kind of good play. (The other D would have been tied up by the other winger, and the center would also have been slowed by the other center).

scrambledlegs
12-13-2010, 05:59 PM
I like the rule as well. I would not want to go the way of the NHL which forces each player to race all the way and touch the puck first. The way the college rule is written now allows plenty of time for both players to avoid injury - each just has to avoid getting tangled up with the other and then break away as soon as she reaches the face off dot.

That is only true if the defensemen beats the forward to the puck. If the forward wins, then the puck is still in play at a greatly accelerated speed.

And I don't agree with the "if you are afraid to get hurt, you shouldn't play hockey" sentiment. What you are asking is for two players to go racing down to the other end with the sole purpose of getting to the dot first. Neither the puck nor the player is in play at this point. If I wanted to watch that, I would watch short track and not hockey.

FranchisePlayer
12-13-2010, 06:00 PM
I'The New England Prep League plays by NCAA rules, and the officials there were definitely not prepared to enforce this properly in the couple of games I've seen already. Granted their season is barely 2 weeks old, but we may be asking too much when we expect these officials to actually skate hard to be in position for a potential icing waive-off. I always find it refreshing when I go to a game, especially a high school or club hockey game, and see an official really working it like it's Stanley Cup Final. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen often enough, and sometimes not even at D1 level.

I hated this rule when it was announced, but I have grown to like it. I have seen a couple of prep teams attempt to take advantage of it by floating someone in the neutral zone - to limited success - but really haven't seen many college teams attempt to do much of anything with it. As several others have stated, this rule definitely can be used to the advantage of a team that has speedy forwards that can beat defensemen to the circle - that is the "point of no return" at which the officials must make their call.

That said, I echo the complaints of others with regard to officiating. At both the college and prep levels that I have seen, the officials seem to be having a very difficult time with this rule. It's such a judgement call, that I do find it difficult to be overly critical of them. Like everyone else, they're trying to get used to how best to arrive at the correct calls.

scrambledlegs
12-13-2010, 06:07 PM
I saw one team exploit this with set faceoff plays in their own end. It was on olympic size ice and the one player was really fast. They tried it five times, beat the icing call three out of the five attempts and got two goals out of it.

If the faceoff was to the right of their own net, the left winger would beeline it to the right side off the opposing teams blueline right after the faceoff. If the draw was clean to the D standing at the back of the circle, the D would proceed to pass the puck hard towards dot the winger was heading to. If the winger managed to get away unmolested, she would pick up the pass on the bounce of the side board and she would go in either on a breakaway or in some cases a semi one on one with the D hopelessy out of position to make any kind of good play. (The other D would have been tied up by the other winger, and the center would also have been slowed by the other center).

Contrary to what someone else said (althought I can't find the comment :o), this rule does not speed up the game. In the example above, three times (and I haven't seen it work successfully that many times) the forward was able to take advantage of the iced puck but usually they can't and so the whistle is blown and the puck is brought back. When you add this to all the inadvertant icings or "true-pressure" icings, there is an increase in stoppage of play. And since there is no real penalty for a fresh line to give it a try, the increase of icings go up.

CanHockGuy
12-13-2010, 06:16 PM
Contrary to what someone else said (althought I can't find the comment :o), this rule does not speed up the game. In the example above, three times (and I haven't seen it work successfully that many times) the forward was able to take advantage of the iced puck but usually they can't and so the whistle is blown and the puck is brought back. When you add this to all the inadvertant icings or "true-pressure" icings, there is an increase in stoppage of play. And since there is no real penalty for a fresh line to give it a try, the increase of icings go up.

Foresight is a beautiful thing isn't it? Like I said, eventually, and probably a few of the smashups you were talking about on the way. Silly.