No-touch icing.

[miller76 463]

It always seems to be an issue towards the end of the season or if a player is seriously injured from a hit or from racing towards a puck and/or being injured in some other way.

No touch icing. Does it take the excitement out of the game, racing for the puck? I don't know if I necessarily have an opinion on this. I know there was a thread about the hit last week, but I didnt see a thread solely on this issue.

tsn.ca has had opinions on it all week.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/mckenzie/?id=232516

I guess I just expected more of a unity among the GM's in the league. Heck they voted to not even discuss the subject for three years! One thing that made me feel that it was a good thing, was an interview with Lidstrom not long ago, and he was in favor of the no-touch icing.

Opinions, responses, comments. What do you guys/gals think?

Edited March 24, 2008 by miller76

[Echolalia 2,961]

Keep the icing rule how it is. Its the nhl, not pee-wee hockey. If anything the nhl should impose stricter rules against being checked on an icing call. Double-minors for any check on a play which was ruled an icing by the ref, at least.

[Systemfel 33]

Don't change the rule. We've got no-touch icing in Europe, and everyone I know dislike it.

[miller76 463]

Sorry I had initially posted the wrong link, but I fixed it.

[VM1138 1,921]

Keep the icing rule how it is. Its the nhl, not pee-wee hockey. If anything the nhl should impose stricter rules against being checked on an icing call. Double-minors for any check on a play which was ruled an icing by the ref, at least.

Exactly. The races are exciting, but there is no reason to check someone on an icing. Slamming them into the boards doesn't get you the puck. I've never, ever seen a situation where it was necessary to check someone in order to touch the puck before them.

[Redwingsfan18 1]

Exactly. The races are exciting, but there is no reason to check someone on an icing. Slamming them into the boards doesn't get you the puck. I've never, ever seen a situation where it was necessary to check someone in order to touch the puck before them.

Agreed - but its fun to see them race for it so I'd like to keep it as touch icing. Just as someone said above though, give a minor penalty for hitting someone on an icing, its not necessary.

[Mikeal 60]

No touch is bs this is hockey not youth soccer. I love the race to the corner punish the dirty players not the race.

[DenJ91 0]

it's tough to say because they're plus and minus' for both rulings. i'm tired of seeing so many injuries and dangerous hits. if i had to choose, i'd say leave touch icing the way it is, but make it a double minor for hitting when the ref's arm is up for an icing call. like others have said, there is no reason to hit the player your racing because hitting him isn't going to let you touch it first which is your goal. plus it's just flat out dangerous. such a shame for foster, he's a good defenseman and he's going to miss the playoffs and it's such a bad injury who knows if he'll ever really be the same.

[Saran 1]

keep the rule the way it is, i would hate no-touch icing. to prevent injuries players should be given penalties when they run the guy from behind even when they clearly have been beaten to the puck. also the final vote should be given to the players, they are the only ones who are actually on the ice and have the risk of being injured.

[imisssergei 0]

Keep the icing rule how it is. Its the nhl, not pee-wee hockey. If anything the nhl should impose stricter rules against being checked on an icing call. Double-minors for any check on a play which was ruled an icing by the ref, at least.

That's ridiculous. It all comes down to who wants the puck more. It's part of the game. To give a double minor for a perfectly legal check is ludacris. You give a huge advantage to the defenseman in that situation. All he has to do is gain position, and he knows he won't get hit.

You can't make a knee jerk decision.

Keep touch icing. It makes the game more exciting.

[umredwing11 2]

If anyone has ever gone to a college hockey game they know how annoying no-touch icing is. It slows down the speed of an otherwise fast-paced, exciting game and so many times a player would clearly be the first one there, or is just inches away from getting to the puck before it hits the goal line--and instead of an exciting upcoming offensive chance, we get another stoppage. In relating this to the NHL, the league is trying to boost offense and pick up the speed of the game and implementing no-touch icing won't help either of these causes.

Edited March 24, 2008 by umredwing11

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

I don't really get it. 9 times out of 10 we are going to see a stoppage anyways with the current rule, this is something I wouldn't mind seeing as it keeps more time on the clock for the offensive players. I would hate to see someone like a Kronwall having a career ending injury to create excitement.

[eva unit zero 271]

That's ridiculous. It all comes down to who wants the puck more. It's part of the game. To give a double minor for a perfectly legal check is ludacris. You give a huge advantage to the defenseman in that situation. All he has to do is gain position, and he knows he won't get hit.

You can't make a knee jerk decision.

Keep touch icing. It makes the game more exciting.

There is nothing that is 'perfectly legal' about a check thrown on an icing play. It's either interference because the player doesn't have the puck, or it's unsportsmanlike conduct for hitting after the whistle. Never during an icing play is there a legal opportunity to hit a player because the moment he touches the puck, and not a nanosecond after, the play ends.

I am personally of the opinion that the current rules say a penalty should be called on any check that occurs on an icing play, the league simply needs to enforce this.

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

Eva makes a good point, the defensive player can make a check after contact but not the offensive player.

[stevie for president 42]

i think if theres absolutely no way an opposing player can touch the puck than just blow the play dead. we dont need to see lidstrom skate half way down the ice uncontested to touch a puck. it takes seconds off the clock. if an opposing player has a shot at negating the icing well see who touches the puck first. if the defenseman doesnt want to get hit he shouldnd play the damn game! injuries happen. its hockey.

as far as a double minor is concerned, thats a little extreme. MAYBEE if the ref deems the hit completely unnecessary than give a minor, but this still wouldnt stop injuries. getzlaf or bertuzzi would LOVE to run a wings defensemen. theyd gladly take 2 minutes in exchange for hurting lids or rafalski.

i say s*** happens. how many people get hurt from a slap shot? you arent going to take that out of the game so deal with the icing the way it is.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

I am not for automatic icing, mostly because I do not like how much it slows down the game. If icing is intended to keep pressure on a defense, why automatically give them a rest?

[T-Ruff 47]

I'm surprised at the amount of people who want to keep it the way it is.....

The league definitely needs to implement a form of no-touch icing..... How often is there a race for the icing and within that scenario how often does the opposing player actually negate the icing? Put in no-touch icing with a few judgment call exceptions: If it is clear that an icing could be negated they shouldn't blow the whistle, and they should also wave more icings off if it's close.... intended passes, players skating too slow, etc. I keep the flow of the game going....

[imisssergei 0]

There is nothing that is 'perfectly legal' about a check thrown on an icing play. It's either interference because the player doesn't have the puck, or it's unsportsmanlike conduct for hitting after the whistle. Never during an icing play is there a legal opportunity to hit a player because the moment he touches the puck, and not a nanosecond after, the play ends.

I am personally of the opinion that the current rules say a penalty should be called on any check that occurs on an icing play, the league simply needs to enforce this.

No, it is a perfectly legal play. The check is thrown simultaneously as the player gains possession of the puck as the whistle is blown.

There is a lot of gray area in how this rule is called. Just like on the opposite end, a player is supposed to actually come in physical contact with the red line in order to avoid an icing call, yet most linesmen will allow a few feet of leeway.

[skacore 2]

keep it touch icing.. not even for the "excitement" it brings to the fans, just for what it brings to the game, if you can beat a guy to the puck good for you, you deserve to continue playing... they refs need to enforce the 5 min major and game misconduct penalty that they gave Carcillo this week when a player makes contact with another during an icing race

[eva unit zero 271]

No, it is a perfectly legal play. The check is thrown simultaneously as the player gains possession of the puck as the whistle is blown.

There is a lot of gray area in how this rule is called. Just like on the opposite end, a player is supposed to actually come in physical contact with the red line in order to avoid an icing call, yet most linesmen will allow a few feet of leeway.

It is not a legal play. A legal check is one thrown at the front or side of the puck carrier; the player in possession of the puck during play. When in an icing race, the defending player never becomes the puck carrier. Ever. The moment he touches the puck, the play is over. There is no point where the defending player gains possession of the puck during play. Meaning one of two things. Either the hit was thrown during play at a player without the puck, or it was thrown after the play at the player who last touched the puck. Either way it is a penalty.

As far as 'the other end' it is not the player but the PUCK that must cross the center line to avoid an icing. In the same respect as an offsides call, the center line is considered 'neutral space' in that on the way out of the defensive end, if the puck is let go on the red line it will be icing, but if the puck is cleared back to (but not over) the red line and then iced, it will NOT be an icing even if from the exact same spot. The blue line works like this for offsides; you have to completely cross over the blue line to enter the zoen on sides, but the puck has to go all the way over the line to be out, as well.

Touch icing is not the problem. The problem is that the league fails to penalize players who act dangerously and outside of the rules on icing plays. If the league properly penalized them, you would never see injuries from contact on icing plays.

[seeinred 1,488]

It is not a legal play. A legal check is one thrown at the front or side of the puck carrier; the player in possession of the puck during play. When in an icing race, the defending player never becomes the puck carrier. Ever. The moment he touches the puck, the play is over. There is no point where the defending player gains possession of the puck during play. Meaning one of two things. Either the hit was thrown during play at a player without the puck, or it was thrown after the play at the player who last touched the puck. Either way it is a penalty.

As far as 'the other end' it is not the player but the PUCK that must cross the center line to avoid an icing. In the same respect as an offsides call, the center line is considered 'neutral space' in that on the way out of the defensive end, if the puck is let go on the red line it will be icing, but if the puck is cleared back to (but not over) the red line and then iced, it will NOT be an icing even if from the exact same spot. The blue line works like this for offsides; you have to completely cross over the blue line to enter the zoen on sides, but the puck has to go all the way over the line to be out, as well.

Touch icing is not the problem. The problem is that the league fails to penalize players who act dangerously and outside of the rules on icing plays. If the league properly penalized them, you would never see injuries from contact on icing plays.

It's not just icing plays where players act outside of the letter of the law. I would say a good portion of hits thrown are on players who either just got rid of the puck or were just about to touch the puck. As long as a player is close to the puck, the ref is going to let it go most times, and I guess they just extend that to icing calls.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

It is not a legal play. A legal check is one thrown at the front or side of the puck carrier; the player in possession of the puck during play. When in an icing race, the defending player never becomes the puck carrier. Ever. The moment he touches the puck, the play is over. There is no point where the defending player gains possession of the puck during play. Meaning one of two things. Either the hit was thrown during play at a player without the puck, or it was thrown after the play at the player who last touched the puck. Either way it is a penalty.

As far as 'the other end' it is not the player but the PUCK that must cross the center line to avoid an icing. In the same respect as an offsides call, the center line is considered 'neutral space' in that on the way out of the defensive end, if the puck is let go on the red line it will be icing, but if the puck is cleared back to (but not over) the red line and then iced, it will NOT be an icing even if from the exact same spot. The blue line works like this for offsides; you have to completely cross over the blue line to enter the zoen on sides, but the puck has to go all the way over the line to be out, as well.

Touch icing is not the problem. The problem is that the league fails to penalize players who act dangerously and outside of the rules on icing plays. If the league properly penalized them, you would never see injuries from contact on icing plays.

I hear what you're saying Eva, and maybe I'm just having a case of Monday morning sleepiness given that I'm drinking a Rockstar in order to wake up, but correct me if I'm wrong. Not being the puck "carrier" and getting checked isn't automatically interference or unsportsmanlike conduct. There are plenty of instances where the puck is being passed to a player and they get lit up right as they are about to gain possession. A prime example of this was the center ice Vladdy hit against the Flyers in the 97 finals. The player never gained "possession" of the puck, but it was in the vacinity of them, thus making Vladdy's hit legal.

Now, if the defending player is hit a split second before they touch up, technically they are "in the vacinity" of the puck, and it took place while the game was in play. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am still waking up from a long weekend.

[eva unit zero 271]

It's not just icing plays where players act outside of the letter of the law. I would say a good portion of hits thrown are on players who either just got rid of the puck or were just about to touch the puck. As long as a player is close to the puck, the ref is going to let it go most times, and I guess they just extend that to icing calls.

The difference being that a player who just got rid of the puck was a legal target moments earlier, and it's reasonable to suggest that a player who was throwing a hit at a player with the puck wouldn't be able to pull up in the brief moment between the player giving up the puck and the contact being made, assuming the hit was initiated at a legal point in time. With icing, there is no such situation because the defensive player is never a legal target because he never has the puck during play.

[eva unit zero 271]

I hear what you're saying Eva, and maybe I'm just having a case of Monday morning sleepiness given that I'm drinking a Rockstar in order to wake up, but correct me if I'm wrong. Not being the puck "carrier" and getting checked isn't automatically interference or unsportsmanlike conduct. There are plenty of instances where the puck is being passed to a player and they get lit up right as they are about to gain possession. A prime example of this was the center ice Vladdy hit against the Flyers in the 97 finals. The player never gained "possession" of the puck, but it was in the vacinity of them, thus making Vladdy's hit legal.

Now, if the defending player is hit a split second before they touch up, technically they are "in the vacinity" of the puck, and it took place while the game was in play. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am still waking up from a long weekend.

The difference is this. In examples such as Vladdy's hit, the player is about to become the puck carrier, so it's reasonable to argue that the hitting player expected the player being hit to have the puck by the time contact was made, and this happens often where a player gets leveled after getting the puck by a check initiated before he had it. Woywitka's hit on Kopecky is an example of this kind of hit, where the player throws the check expecting the puck to be there. With an icing call, this is never the case, because the defensive player is not in possession of the puck at any time during play. If the offensive player throws a check and it helps him touch the puck first, that's interference because he impeded a player who did not have the puck. If he throws the check after the defensive player touches the puck, it's a late hit and should be penalized as unsportsmanlike contact. The difference is there is never any situation where the attacking player can throw a LEGAL check on an icing play, so any time it does happen it should be penalized accordingly.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

The difference is this. In examples such as Vladdy's hit, the player is about to become the puck carrier, so it's reasonable to argue that the hitting player expected the player being hit to have the puck by the time contact was made, and this happens often where a player gets leveled after getting the puck by a check initiated before he had it. Woywitka's hit on Kopecky is an example of this kind of hit, where the player throws the check expecting the puck to be there. With an icing call, this is never the case, because the defensive player is not in possession of the puck at any time during play. If the offensive player throws a check and it helps him touch the puck first, that's interference because he impeded a player who did not have the puck. If he throws the check after the defensive player touches the puck, it's a late hit and should be penalized as unsportsmanlike contact. The difference is there is never any situation where the attacking player can throw a LEGAL check on an icing play, so any time it does happen it should be penalized accordingly.

Yeah that first part makes complete sense but just to play devils advocate, you keep using the word "possession" which is what's throwing people off. First of all, as you said, there is no "possession" on an icing touch-up since the play is blown dead at the exact moment the puck is touched. Now, if you have two guys skating to grab the puck (one to cause icing and one to negate it) and the defender is hauled down on the blue line, then you've got interference. However, when a defender gets within a couple feet of the puck, couldn't it be considered that they are in the vicinity of the puck, thus making the hit legal as long as it was performed before the puck was touched.

Here's my reasoning for this. Let's say a team fires a puck down ice in the last few seconds of a period into what would be considered icing, and while two players charge down to create icing/negate it, the offensive team gets charged with a too-many men on the ice delayed penalty. There are times where teams on the PK are about to be charged with another penalty and rather than touching the puck they stand over it trying to run off as much time as they can to create less time on the 5-on-3. Now, the defending team technically could do the same in an icing situation if a period was about to end (I.E. there's only a few seconds left in the period and thus holding off the full PP until the start of the next period).

The point is, while this is beyond a far-fetched scenario (in fact, I think this is Sirdrake territory) it is a possible scenario, and thus making a hit on a guy that just charges down and wants to hold off the icing call until the last second legal since they are impeding the progress of the offensive player. My point is...whether this is right or wrong, maybe this is the reasoning for allowing the defender to be hit before the puck is touched up.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Never Forget Mac #25