PDA

View Full Version : New rules in NHL should be instituted at all level - especially in the women's game



taxicab
03-14-2011, 01:45 PM
The new rules that are being talked about today at the NHL GM's meeting should be looked at very seriously by the NCAA, USA Hockey, IIHF and at all levels of the women's/girl's game. When these types of hits are given in the women's game they are even more devistating. Women players are very vulnerable for a serious injury because they are not expecting the hit since there is "no checking" in their game. It would also mean educated refs in the women's game.

123kidd
03-14-2011, 05:31 PM
The new rules that are being talked about today at the NHL GM's meeting should be looked at very seriously by the NCAA, USA Hockey, IIHF and at all levels of the women's/girl's game. When these types of hits are given in the women's game they are even more devistating. Women players are very vulnerable for a serious injury because they are not expecting the hit since there is "no checking" in their game. It would also mean educated refs in the women's game.

Cabi - The NHL basically "runs" college hockey, especially mens DI.

brookyone
03-14-2011, 06:11 PM
cabi - the nhl basically "ruins" college hockey, especially mens di.
Fixed your post. ;)

brookyone
06-25-2011, 02:59 PM
Article from the women's main page regarding rules...or tweaking of current rules enforcement:

http://www.uscho.com/2011/06/23/rules-committee-addresses-terminology-in-head-contact-rule/


Several other rules changes and new proposals were looked at by the panel, including those governing embellishment/diving and face shields.

The tactic of diving in order to try to draw minor penalties — a growing problem in the eyes of many coaches — will come under greater scrutiny during the 2011-12 season, with tighter rules to come if they are deemed necessary.

“We took it to the coaches,” said McLaughlin, “and they overwhelmingly felt that diving or embellishment needed to be addressed. I think it’s an important issue, because we certainly don’t want to lose the integrity of the game. I want it to be easier for the officials to call.”

I recall talk awhile back...couple summers ago I think regarding the "embellishment" rule. If I recall it could only be called in conjunction with another infraction. Let me know if my memory is faulty on that. Since then I don't think I've ever seen it called...but have seen several instances where it should have been IMO...as long as it's on the books. At the same time I thought it was kind of a silly infraction since it was only supposed to be called if the player was actually the victim of a penalty, and decided to "enhance" the effect of the penalty perpetrated upon them. Why not just call the actual infraction and have an official tell the player guilty of embellishment to give it a rest...or take some drama lessons.

CanHockGuy
06-25-2011, 09:11 PM
If a five minute major were called for "embellishment" it would rid the league and any league of this cowardly act, period. ;) Problem is, do the refs have the yarbles to call it? Too much soccer crap in the game I agree.

NUProf
06-25-2011, 09:11 PM
Article from the women's main page regarding rules...or tweaking of current rules enforcement:

http://www.uscho.com/2011/06/23/rules-committee-addresses-terminology-in-head-contact-rule/



I recall talk awhile back...couple summers ago I think regarding the "embellishment" rule. If I recall it could only be called in conjunction with another infraction. Let me know if my memory is faulty on that. Since then I don't think I've ever seen it called...but have seen several instances where it should have been IMO...as long as it's on the books. At the same time I thought it was kind of a silly infraction since it was only supposed to be called if the player was actually the victim of a penalty, and decided to "enhance" the effect of the penalty perpetrated upon them. Why not just call the actual infraction and have an official tell the player guilty of embellishment to give it a rest...or take some drama lessons.

Seems to me that if a player dives when there is no justified penalty, that's the time to call embellishment. If a player embellishes an actual penalty, make it a "no call" and let play go on. At the next whistle tell the player, "if you hadn't dived, you'd have had a power play..."

Hammer
06-25-2011, 09:42 PM
My favorite is the yammerhead in the stands that cries about "how can you call a penalty and a dive at the same time? I no understand" as he wolfs down his 2nd dish of nachos and his 3rd Diet Coke (he's on a diet, after all).

If a guy (or a girl, for purposes of this forum) dives, call it, whether there's a penalty or not. You don't have to flop to the ice like you've been shot in the face with a bazooka. The reason they went to 2 minutes instead of 10 was that the referees did not want to issue that severe of a penalty for a dive. So, CHG, we have answered your question about whether the referees would have the yarbles to hand out a 5. If they're not going to send a player off for 10 while not putting the team shorthanded, they're sure as hell aren't going to put a team down a skater for the full 5, either. And yes, somewhere my English teacher just took another guzzle of scotch after reading that last sentence.

CanHockGuy
06-25-2011, 09:53 PM
My favorite is the yammerhead in the stands that cries about "how can you call a penalty and a dive at the same time? I no understand" as he wolfs down his 2nd dish of nachos and his 3rd Diet Coke (he's on a diet, after all).

If a guy (or a girl, for purposes of this forum) dives, call it, whether there's a penalty or not. You don't have to flop to the ice like you've been shot in the face with a bazooka. The reason they went to 2 minutes instead of 10 was that the referees did not want to issue that severe of a penalty for a dive. So, CHG, we have answered your question about whether the referees would have the yarbles to hand out a 5. If they're not going to send a player off for 10 while not putting the team shorthanded, they're sure as hell aren't going to put a team down a skater for the full 5, either. And yes, somewhere my English teacher just took another guzzle of scotch after reading that last sentence.

True, but I wonder if the precedence were to be set for a while, as per recent hooking and holding crap, would the players smarten up? Maybe. :)

Hammer
06-25-2011, 10:08 PM
I don't think the rule would be in place long enough for a precedent to be set. People would raise holy hell after about the 3rd dive called. It would probably remind me of the year the CCHA first tried the 2 referee-2 linesman system (about 2000-2001 or so). They made such a mess of it that they scrapped it by about the end of January and went back to the old way for a few more years.

I've still got to believe that if they're not going to issue a 10, they sure aren't going to issue a 5.

EDIT: Now, what I could suggest is making diving a point of emphasis for a season or two under the current rules.

CanHockGuy
06-25-2011, 10:20 PM
I don't think the rule would be in place long enough for a precedent to be set. People would raise holy hell after about the 3rd dive called. It would probably remind me of the year the CCHA first tried the 2 referee-2 linesman system (about 2000-2001 or so). They made such a mess of it that they scrapped it by about the end of January and went back to the old way for a few more years.

I've still got to believe that if they're not going to issue a 10, they sure aren't going to issue a 5.

EDIT: Now, what I could suggest is making diving a point of emphasis for a season or two under the current rules.

You're right, ten would be better. The NHL final was a disgrace with all the crap trying to create an advantage. Most of the playoffs were similar. Tough to ref against all this silly stuff that is probably created by coaching. The team that cheats the best sometimes creates a clear advantage sometimes. Some things never change. :(

Hammer
06-25-2011, 10:27 PM
Acutally, I like the 2 as it is now, because now there's more of a chance (albeit still a small one) that they'll actually call a dive. Every year the NCAA makes a rule or two a point of emphasis. I'd like to see diving be at the top of that list.

You start sending players off for 2 and I could see the diving stop. Start sending players off for 5 and I could see players, coaches, and fans waiting outside the referees' locker rooms after games with torches and pitchforks.

giwan
06-26-2011, 09:13 AM
Acutally, I like the 2 as it is now, because now there's more of a chance (albeit still a small one) that they'll actually call a dive. Every year the NCAA makes a rule or two a point of emphasis. I'd like to see diving be at the top of that list. You start sending players off for 2 and I could see the diving stop. Start sending players off for 5 and I could see players, coaches, and fans waiting outside the referees' locker rooms after games with torches and pitchforks.

They need to start using the diving call at the lower levels. Far to often the less aggressive player and/or the smaller one falls and the attacking player gets called.

brookyone
06-26-2011, 10:27 AM
They need to start using the diving call at the lower levels. Far to often the less aggressive player and/or the smaller one falls and the attacking player gets called.
That happens quite a bit...not necessarily a "dive" though. Officials need to do a better job of recognizing it's simply the lighter / smaller player losing the "within the rules" physical contact battle in the game. It can be a difficult call to make...legal / allowed contact, or infraction. They're going to get it wrong sometimes...no way around that IMO. I think those occurrences are some of the more likely times you'll see embellishment.

I'd be interested in the thoughts of anyone that watches WCHA hockey regularly. While I said earlier I've seen instances when I thought embellishment could / should have been called, again, as long as it's in the rulebook, I don't really think either diving or embellishment are pervasive or rampant by any stretch. A little more diving going on than embellishment I think. Also...a somewhat, slightly more frequent tactic of one particular WCHA team so far as I've witnessed.

D2D
06-26-2011, 12:29 PM
Also...a somewhat, slightly more frequent tactic of one particular WCHA team so far as I've witnessed.

LOL, I have a feeling I know which team you speak of here Brooky.

spike
06-28-2011, 03:45 PM
As with any rule change, enforceability is a factor. Diving is a judgement call by the referee. At the NHL level they can rely on their officials to make those calls. Perhaps a bit less so at the Men's NCAA level. At the Women's NCAA level, we already are used to watching our girls play in front of marginally competent officials. Relying on them to interepret this and make the right call is a disaster waiting to happen.

giwan
06-28-2011, 04:12 PM
As with any rule change, enforceability is a factor. Diving is a judgement call by the referee. At the NHL level they can rely on their officials to make those calls. Perhaps a bit less so at the Men's NCAA level. At the Women's NCAA level, we already are used to watching our girls play in front of marginally competent officials. Relying on them to interepret this and make the right call is a disaster waiting to happen.

Don't want them to call the dive? Then don't call every ticky touchy fall.

zoofer
06-28-2011, 05:41 PM
Call the college game like some of the CWHL games that I've seen....contact is fine but no intentional, blatent checking, and even that should be okay when "of equal pressure" in some instances.....I don't want the men's game but these women aren't wimps and enjoy some physicality

brookyone
06-28-2011, 06:20 PM
As with any rule change, enforceability is a factor. Diving is a judgement call by the referee. At the NHL level they can rely on their officials to make those calls. Perhaps a bit less so at the Men's NCAA level. At the Women's NCAA level, we already are used to watching our girls play in front of marginally competent officials. Relying on them to interepret this and make the right call is a disaster waiting to happen.


Don't want them to call the dive? Then don't call every ticky touchy fall.


Call the college game like some of the CWHL games that I've seen....contact is fine but no intentional, blatent checking, and even that should be okay when "of equal pressure" in some instances.....I don't want the men's game but these women aren't wimps and enjoy some physicality

Yes, yes and yes. Consistent, competent officiating is probably the biggest hurdle. I wouldn't anticipate myself, or anyone else that watches much hockey witnessing flawless officiating anytime soon. Especially since there's probably several thousand varied concepts of "flawless" among those in the stands. ;)

sbkbghockey
06-28-2011, 08:51 PM
I would like to see more NHL rules at the college game, and also a few college rules such as the hybrid icing at the NHL level.

I'm pretty new to the world of women's hockey but it looks like some of the upper level beer leagues I'm in now that I'm out of the college- there's some physical play, contact and some hits/bumping off the puck. But haven't seen any hits with the speed and force of men's hockey. I've seen far less injuries in the women's game in general too

FlagDUDE08
06-29-2011, 03:25 PM
In addition to the diving, what should really be looked at are the situations where a player puts him/herself into the situation deliberately in order to draw the penalty, like when players were turning around in order to draw the 5-minute CFB in the men's play. I'm not sure how many situations in women's play could result in this happening, maybe on an interference...