No-touch icing.

[eva unit zero 271]

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 and 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 there 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.

In that situation? Realistically, the play should be blown the dead the moment the penalty occurs. Because regardless of which player touches the puck, the play is dead upon that occuring, and the faceoff will go down the other end.

But just to play along...if the defensive player gets to the puck and stands over it without touching it, and physically prevents the offensive player from touching it, he should be called for interference for the same reason; at that point there is no situation where the DEFENSIVE player can lay a legal hit either.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Ok, I hear you Eva, but now its my mission to find a scenario where a hit would be considered "legal" during an icing.

I will find one!

Edited March 24, 2008 by Never Forget Mac #25

[eva unit zero 271]

I'm not talking about standing over the puck and preventing the offensive player from touching, I'm talking about standing over it and hoping to run off a few extra seconds before the offensive player is able to get his stick on it (which would obviously blow the play dead anyway).

Intentionally blocking a player without the puck is interference even if there is no contact or you don't initiate contact. The only player who can physically impede a player without the puck is the puck carrier, who is allowed to block players attempting to take the puck. As the defensive player is NOT the puck carrier (or the whistle would be blown) this is not the case in your example.

[imisssergei 0]

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.

If it isn't a legal check, then why isn't there a penalty called every time? Or even a majority of the time. There isn't a penalty called because it is a legal play. It's called paying the price.

As far as icing technicalities are concerned, you are wrong, the puck does not need to cross the red line to avoid icing. Per the rulebook

"For the purpose of this rule, the point of last contact with the puck

by the team in possession shall be used to determine whether icing

has occurred or not. As such, the team in possession must “gain the

line” in order for the icing to be nullified. “Gaining the line” shall mean

that the puck (not the player’s skate) must make contact with the

center red line in order to nullify a potential icing."

Technically, the puck must touch the leading edge of the red line to nullify the icing. But as we all know, the refs give a few feet of leeway on this.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I'm with Eva on this one. A touch-up icing is a pretty specific set of circumstances.

The play is going to end two ways, with the defenseman making the touch up which ends the play, or with the forward getting there first to negate the icing. The only situation where I can think throwing a check would be a legal play is if the forward is clearly going to get there first to negate it, the defenseman knows the play will continue and could then hit the guy when he touches up. It's still a very dangerous play though.

if it's neck and neck racing towards the puck, it makes sense that the forward needs to be playing the puck not the body, otherwise it will be interference or a late hit as the play is blown dead.

Edited March 24, 2008 by haroldsnepsts

[imisssergei 0]

In that situation? Realistically, the play should be blown the dead the moment the penalty occurs. Because regardless of which player touches the puck, the play is dead upon that occuring, and the faceoff will go down the other end.

But just to play along...if the defensive player gets to the puck and stands over it without touching it, and physically prevents the offensive player from touching it, he should be called for interference for the same reason; at that point there is no situation where the DEFENSIVE player can lay a legal hit either.

Wrong. The play would be blow dead as soon as either team touches the puck. In event that the defending team doesn't touch to puck in effort to run time off the clock, the ref has the option of blowing the play dead.

[eva unit zero 271]

If it isn't a legal check, then why isn't there a penalty called every time? Or even a majority of the time. There isn't a penalty called because it is a legal play. It's called paying the price.

Just because a penalty ISN'T called does not mean one has not been committed. As far as the rules are concerned, and as far as interference is handled in every other situation, a penalty SHOULD be called every time.

As far as my being wrong on the icing rule...I had just finished a ten hour shift at work with only a fifteen minute break in the middle, and I had been awake for about 20 hours at that point. A little leeway is allowed there, no?

[RedFX 48]

No...No...No.

Here's the problem with no-touch icing. You're assuming the other team is automatically gonna touch the puck. Sometimes, you'll catch a situation where the defensive player falls asleep going back for the puck, and the offensive player rockets in, throws the puck in front of the net, and his teammate one-times it in. Suddenly, you have a stoppage in play turn into a goal advantage for your team. In high school, we played with no-touch icing and everyone hated it. I can't count how many times we had a great scoring opportunity negated by the no-touch rule. Plays like that can turn out to be the difference in games.

I can understand the argument with the players getting hurt, but last time I checked hockey was a contact sport, not a courtesy sport. Make your opponents work for every inch of ice. Do your job: Play the puck, take the contact, and move on.

[imisssergei 0]

Just because a penalty ISN'T called does not mean one has not been committed. As far as the rules are concerned, and as far as interference is handled in every other situation, a penalty SHOULD be called every time.

As far as my being wrong on the icing rule...I had just finished a ten hour shift at work with only a fifteen minute break in the middle, and I had been awake for about 20 hours at that point. A little leeway is allowed there, no?

I would buy the argument that just because it isn't called doesn't mean it's not a penalty, if it were called at least say 1 out of every 8 times. But it isn't. It's part of the game.

Hah, 10 hour day with a break? Either you are in or you are out Eva. Break out the smelling salts if you aren't awake!

[imisssergei 0]

No...No...No.

Here's the problem with no-touch icing. You're assuming the other team is automatically gonna touch the puck. Sometimes, you'll catch a situation where the defensive player falls asleep going back for the puck, and the offensive player rockets in, throws the puck in front of the net, and his teammate one-times it in. Suddenly, you have a stoppage in play turn into a goal advantage for your team. In high school, we played with no-touch icing and everyone hated it. I can't count how many times we had a great scoring opportunity negated by the no-touch rule. Plays like that can turn out to be the difference in games.

I can understand the argument with the players getting hurt, but last time I checked hockey was a contact sport, not a courtesy sport. Make your opponents work for every inch of ice. Do your job: Play the puck, take the contact, and move on.

I seem to remember something my coach used to always yell as we were doing bear crawls, mountains, suicides, ect...

"YOU GO HARD BETWEEN WHISTLES! NEVER STOP UNTIL YOU HEAR A WHISTLE!"

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I'm with Eva on this one. A touch-up icing is a pretty specific set of circumstances.

The play is going to end two ways, with the defenseman making the touch up which ends the play, or with the forward getting there first to negate the icing. The only situation where I can think throwing a check would be a legal play is if the forward is clearly going to get there first to negate it, the defenseman knows the play will continue and could then hit the guy when he touches up. It's still a very dangerous play though.

if it's neck and neck racing towards the puck, it makes sense that the forward needs to be playing the puck not the body, otherwise it will be interference or a late hit as the play is blown dead.

But what if its neck-and-neck and an offensive player has the knowabouts to not only get his stick out but simultaneously hit the defending player from the side?

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

If it isn't a legal check, then why isn't there a penalty called every time? Or even a majority of the time. There isn't a penalty called because it is a legal play. It's called paying the price.

Whether its legal or not, this is hard to argue with. I'm not saying I don't see your point Eva, but imisssergei got a valid one as well.

[redwing_sparty 0]

no-touch icing sucks! they use it in college games and everytime i watch a college game it ticks me off when they ice the puck and nobody rushes for it. it def takes an aspect of excitement out of the game. plus it slows the game down. touch icing should def stay.

[up2here 41]

no-touch icing sucks! they use it in college games and everytime i watch a college game it ticks me off when they ice the puck and nobody rushes for it. it def takes an aspect of excitement out of the game. plus it slows the game down. touch icing should def stay.

No touch icing may take that 1 in 100 excitment chance away but it does NOT slow the game down.

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

I agree 100% with eva on this issue.

[imisssergei 0]

No touch icing may take that 1 in 100 excitment chance away but it does NOT slow the game down.

How does it not slow the game down? Even if only 1 icing per game is negated, that's 1 more stoppage that you would have with no touch, which is also one more opportunity for a commercial break.

With no touch as soon as the ref yells 'ICE!!' everyone stops skating. You lose a lot of flow.

Let's say that there is an average of 20 icings a game. With touch icings, the defending team must skate 200 feet and touch the puck. At a normal rate of skating, this usually takes about 3 seconds. Now with no touch icings, you take away those 3 seconds each time, and the game is now 1 minute longer. It doesn't sound like much, it's a ton of extra time on the clock.

I compare no touch icing to no tag offsides. They both kill the flow of a game with those instant whistles.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I agree 100% with eva on this issue.

If you agree with Eva, how can you refute the fact that no penalty is called?

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

If you agree with Eva, how can you refute the fact that no penalty is called?

Because of the bulls*** reffing that has happened in the NHL this year. Just because it is not called does not equate to the fact that it should be called. It's almost like saying Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal was a legal play when we know for a fact that it is not. A hit on an icing should result in the following penalties:

Interference

Boarding

Kneeing

Cross-checking

I have never seen a body check that would be considered legal on an icing EVER in my life. Let me clarify that there is a difference between going hard and fighting for the puck and an actual body contact (i.e. If there is a little contact and a player loses an edge).

[HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878]

I really think they should get rid of no touch icing. There can be a player thats going to get there way before everyone else and it still would be icing.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Because of the bulls*** reffing that has happened in the NHL this year. Just because it is not called does not equate to the fact that it should be called. It's almost like saying Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal was a legal play when we know for a fact that it is not. A hit on an icing should result in the following penalties:

Interference

Boarding

Kneeing

Cross-checking

I have never seen a body check that would be considered legal on an icing EVER in my life. Let me clarify that there is a difference between going hard and fighting for the puck and an actual body contact (i.e. If there is a little contact and a player loses an edge).

No, this is not like the Brett Hull's Stanley Cup Winning goal at all. This is a "play" that the league has never once told its officiating crew to not only watch, but penalize. It may not be legal, but as imisssergei said, its called paying the price, and the league has never told its officials to monitor it and make calls accordingly.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I really think they should get rid of no touch icing. There can be a player thats going to get there way before everyone else and it still would be icing.

No touch icing doesn't exist in the NHL....yet. So at this point there's nothing to get rid of.

[HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878]

No touch icing doesn't exist in the NHL....yet. So at this point there's nothing to get rid of.

Oh I miss read this wrong.

[imisssergei 0]

Because of the bulls*** reffing that has happened in the NHL this year. Just because it is not called does not equate to the fact that it should be called. It's almost like saying Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal was a legal play when we know for a fact that it is not. A hit on an icing should result in the following penalties:

Interference

Boarding

Kneeing

Cross-checking

I have never seen a body check that would be considered legal on an icing EVER in my life. Let me clarify that there is a difference between going hard and fighting for the puck and an actual body contact (i.e. If there is a little contact and a player loses an edge).

So you are saying that this is the first year that this type of play hasn't been called a penalty?

I agree 110% with the statement that just because it isn't called doesn't mean it isn't a penalty. However in this scenario, it is a not only a solid hockey play, but it's never been called a penalty.

[lfd250 1]

I don't care what they do as long as they stop the TV timeout after the home team ices the puck. You might as well allow them to change players.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

What's the point in playing hockey if everything that is even remotely dangerous about the game is taken out? Sorry, hockey is fast, tough and not for everyone!