No-touch icing.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

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!

That's absurd. Not having no touch icing is unnecessarily putting players in jeopardy.

People are talking about the games lasting 1 minute longer. Are you kidding me? Is it worth the risk of some ******* like Steve Ott not even going for the puck and just reaming Brian Rafalski into the boards knowing he has no chance to negate the icing?

You can play hockey without a helmet too. But the league realized that it put players in jeopardy for no good reason, so we have helmets. Not having no touch icing just puts players in a position to get hurt for no good reason.

There's nothing tough about that. Icings having nothing to do with toughness and your wanting to equate everything in the game of hockey to toughness is becoming over the top and absurd nowadays.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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?

Boy aren't you being a stickler this morning.

My main stance on this issue is that it is a dangerous situation that could be easily remedied without having to resort to no-touch icing. Though it's currently allowed in the game by refs (though rarely goes unanswered by the players), they could make it clear that hitting someone while racing towards an icing call is a penalty. You can make a play on the puck, but can't just give up the icing to get a free shot on a defenseless player when you know the play is about to be called dead.

Obviously there should be some refs discretion as to if the player was trying to hit the guy or not.

As for argument about "hockey is a dangerous game" (not saying you made this one Mac, just addressing other issues brought up), why not flip the slippery slope reasoning the other way? Allow all high sticks on the puck to be a legal play. Make hitting from behind legal. After all, hockey is a rough sport and you shouldn't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Make it legal to leave your feet while hitting, so guys like Tootoo can make flying bodychecks at players.

The obvious answer is that while hockey is a physical and sometimes dangerous sport, there are limits on the game to eliminate unnecessary risk of injury. High sticking, hits from behind, boarding, etc. Making it a penalty to hit a guy on an icing would be a good trade-off to eliminate risk to the players chasing the puck without sacrificing the flow of the game.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Boy aren't you being a stickler this morning.

My main stance on this issue is that it is a dangerous situation that could be easily remedied without having to resort to no-touch icing. Though it's currently allowed in the game by refs (though rarely goes unanswered by the players), they could make it clear that hitting someone while racing towards an icing call is a penalty. You can make a play on the puck, but can't just give up the icing to get a free shot on a defenseless player when you know the play is about to be called dead.

Obviously there should be some refs discretion as to if the player was trying to hit the guy or not.

As for argument about "hockey is a dangerous game" (not saying you made this one Mac, just addressing other issues brought up), why not flip the slippery slope reasoning the other way? Allow all high sticks on the puck to be a legal play. Make hitting from behind legal. After all, hockey is a rough sport and you shouldn't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Make it legal to leave your feet while hitting, so guys like Tootoo can make flying bodychecks at players.

The obvious answer is that while hockey is a physical and sometimes dangerous sport, there are limits on the game to eliminate unnecessary risk of injury. High sticking, hits from behind, boarding, etc. Making it a penalty to hit a guy on an icing would be a good trade-off to eliminate risk to the players chasing the puck without sacrificing the flow of the game.

Well said Harold.

How about this. How about some type of compromise. Instead of no-touch icing, the offensive team still has to go back and touch up the puck. Game continues to run, seconds continue to tick. The team that iced it cannot retrieve it or negate the icing in any way nor can they change their lines.

If this were the case all those who said the game would be longer now have no argument. Because now you're only talking about the instances where the icing would have been negated, which is like what, less than 1% of all icings?

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Boy aren't you being a stickler this morning.

My main stance on this issue is that it is a dangerous situation that could be easily remedied without having to resort to no-touch icing. Though it's currently allowed in the game by refs (though rarely goes unanswered by the players), they could make it clear that hitting someone while racing towards an icing call is a penalty. You can make a play on the puck, but can't just give up the icing to get a free shot on a defenseless player when you know the play is about to be called dead.

Obviously there should be some refs discretion as to if the player was trying to hit the guy or not.

As for argument about "hockey is a dangerous game" (not saying you made this one Mac, just addressing other issues brought up), why not flip the slippery slope reasoning the other way? Allow all high sticks on the puck to be a legal play. Make hitting from behind legal. After all, hockey is a rough sport and you shouldn't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Make it legal to leave your feet while hitting, so guys like Tootoo can make flying bodychecks at players.

The obvious answer is that while hockey is a physical and sometimes dangerous sport, there are limits on the game to eliminate unnecessary risk of injury. High sticking, hits from behind, boarding, etc. Making it a penalty to hit a guy on an icing would be a good trade-off to eliminate risk to the players chasing the puck without sacrificing the flow of the game.

Sure they could, but they don't. Probably the reason behind that is like you said, it gets answered by the players. The fact remains though that regardless of whether or not its legal/illegal, interference/unsportmanslike conduct, it still gets let go.

You're remedy to the situation sounds great, but my point was that regardless of its legality, it still happens and the refs don't do a thing about it.

Sidenote: It's Monday morning......I'm allowed to be a stickler/smartass. It helps get you through the first workday of the week.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Well said Harold.

How about this. How about some type of compromise. Instead of no-touch icing, the offensive team still has to go back and touch up the puck. Game continues to run, seconds continue to tick. The team that iced it cannot retrieve it or negate the icing in any way nor can they change their lines.

If this were the case all those who said the game would be longer now have no argument. Because now you're only talking about the instances where the icing would have been negated, which is like what, less than 1% of all icings?

It always worries me when you and I agree Gordie.

Sure they could, but they don't. Probably the reason behind that is like you said, it gets answered by the players. The fact remains though that regardless of whether or not its legal/illegal, interference/unsportmanslike conduct, it still gets let go.

You're remedy to the situation sounds great, but my point was that regardless of its legality, it still happens and the refs don't do a thing about it.

Sidenote: It's Monday morning......I'm allowed to be a stickler/smartass. It helps get you through the first workday of the week.

Yeah, it's definitely an accepted part of the game when it does happen. I don't think refs really condone it, but I rarely see a penalty called because of it. I think it's viewed a lot like taking an extra whack at the goalie when he's covered the puck. The players usually police it, and the refs rarely do anything about it even though it's after the whistle.

[up2here 41]

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.

The whistle is actually blown earlier in 99% of icing calls so you get back to action faster than watching a defenseman skate back and touch.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

IMO, I like the race. No-touch would kill the potential for a great play. I remember in 97 when the Wings were playing the Avs and there was a dump in by Detroit where there would have been an icing. Foote was going back to touch and Fedorov tore ass down and beat him to the puck. Foote roughed him up a bit after the touch and a penalty was called. Exciting play that lead to a scoring chance.

Penalties should be blown on offensive players that throw hits racing for the puck. The defensive player is going for a whistle and is not concerned with what happens after he touches the puck. The defensive player can hit the offensive player AFTER he negates the icing because the play is still ongoing. If a defensive player touches the puck the play is DEAD. Any player that throws a hit on a guy looking for a whistle should be penalized.

Solution, double minor for intent to injure. Running a guy who is not expecting it is dirty.

[toby91_ca 620]

I don't think there is much of an argument for "touch" icing. Think about this:

- are races for the puck really exciting? Not for me, but I suppose some may find it so...

- in situations where the attacking team would clearly get to the puck with no trouble at all, an icing is likely waived off

anyway

- how often do you actually see the attacking player get to the puck first in a race for it (negating the whistle)?

- in instances where the attacking player gets to the puck first, how often does it result in a play of any consequence?

I think it is silly not to change. 9 times out of 10 (no support for this, just making it up), the defender gets there first, so the play is stopped anyway. The 1 time out of 10 the attacking player gets there first, the result is a whole lot of nothing (99 out of 100 times).

[Echolalia 2,961]

I think it is silly not to change. 9 times out of 10 (no support for this, just making it up), the defender gets there first, so the play is stopped anyway. The 1 time out of 10 the attacking player gets there first, the result is a whole lot of nothing (99 out of 100 times).

1 out of 10 isn't considered "rare" by any means; especially when icings are as common as they are. And in that one scenario out of every ten, it could very easily change the course of the game. Even if it doesn't directly result in a goal, it could result in a face off in the opposition's end that results in a penalty, goal, or whatever you want. Also, that one out of every ten means the team who beat out the icing gets to change their tired players off the ice, thus preventing what could've been a good scoring opportunity for the other team.

Also, I believe against San Jose in the playoffs last year, Nabokov had to come out of the net to beat Datsyuk to the puck for what was going to be a negated icing call (of course I could very well be mistaken), and Dats intercepted the pass and scored a playoff goal. Thats a pretty significant one out of ten.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

1 out of 10 isn't considered "rare" by any means; especially when icings are as common as they are. And in that one scenario out of every ten, it could very easily change the course of the game. Even if it doesn't directly result in a goal, it could result in a face off in the opposition's end that results in a penalty, goal, or whatever you want. Also, that one out of every ten means the team who beat out the icing gets to change their tired players off the ice, thus preventing what could've been a good scoring opportunity for the other team.

Also, I believe against San Jose in the playoffs last year, Nabokov had to come out of the net to beat Datsyuk to the puck for what was going to be a negated icing call (of course I could very well be mistaken), and Dats intercepted the pass and scored a playoff goal. Thats a pretty significant one out of ten.

Watch any NHL game, or better yet watch 2 in one night. My guess is you will see about 14-25 times over those 2 games.

I would be surprised if there was more than 1 negated icing.

I know the 1 out of 10 number was just being thrown out there but the point he was making is that its rare. In reality, its less than 1 out of 10. I would say at least 1 out of 20, at least.

And in that math you're talking about 50 out of every 1000 icings. And of those maybe 1 or 3 results in a goal? Sure, that 1 goal might mean the difference in a win, or a playoff spot if you want to follow the whole butterfly effect theory into eternity. But frankly, if that 1 negated icing makes the difference for you, then you aren't that good to begin with.

And the idea that maybe a couple of goals could possibly be scored doesn't in my mind outweight the danger factor imposed on defenseman.

Of course all of this is silly. All it would take is for Lidstrom to get his feet taken out from under him, accidently or not and crash into the boards and break his leg before the playoffs for this entire forum to be rethinking their stance on no touch icing.

[Deke 0]

Watch any NHL game, or better yet watch 2 in one night. My guess is you will see about 14-25 times over those 2 games.

I would be surprised if there was more than 1 negated icing.

I know the 1 out of 10 number was just being thrown out there but the point he was making is that its rare. In reality, its less than 1 out of 10. I would say at least 1 out of 20, at least.

And in that math you're talking about 50 out of every 1000 icings. And of those maybe 1 or 3 results in a goal? Sure, that 1 goal might mean the difference in a win, or a playoff spot if you want to follow the whole butterfly effect theory into eternity. But frankly, if that 1 negated icing makes the difference for you, then you aren't that good to begin with.

And the idea that maybe a couple of goals could possibly be scored doesn't in my mind outweight the danger factor imposed on defenseman.

Of course all of this is silly. All it would take is for Lidstrom to get his feet taken out from under him, accidently or not and crash into the boards and break his leg before the playoffs for this entire forum to be rethinking their stance on no touch icing.

Your numbers are amazingly off. There are generally only about 4 to 5 icings per game. Any quick search can validate this stat, as well as a quick sampling of game summaries available on NHL.com. This number used to be 10 plus until the rule change that says you can't change lines if you ice the puck.

Your strawman arguement regarding Lidstrom is pretty weak. Hockey is about competition. Without races to the puck there is no competition. There would be a ton of stoppages in play as mishandled passes suddenly turn into icing. If hockey changed the rules every time someone was injured, hockey would be played on a surface of pillows with nerf sticks. Any play can result in an injury.

How many injuries have happened this year due to icing races? Well I don't know that number, but I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that it's around 1%. If you want to reduce the number of injuries, no-touch icing is not the place to do it.

Players need to be allowed to race and battle for the puck.

The only rule change I would be in favor of would be one that limits the type of contact you can have while racing for an iced puck.

But honestly it's hockey. Injuries happen. Smart players avoid injury by not putting themselves in position to get injured. Take away the battle for the puck and you take away the passion. Take away the passion and you take away the sport. I like how fluid hockey is. The fewer stops in play, the better.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Your numbers are amazingly off. There are generally only about 4 to 5 icings per game. Any quick search can validate this stat, as well as a quick sampling of game summaries available on NHL.com. This number used to be 10 plus until the rule change that says you can't change lines if you ice the puck.

Your strawman arguement regarding Lidstrom is pretty weak. Hockey is about competition. Without races to the puck there is no competition. There would be a ton of stoppages in play as mishandled passes suddenly turn into icing.

If hockey changed the rules every time someone was injured, hockey would be played on a surface of pillows with nerf sticks. Any play can result in an injury.

How many injuries have happened this year due to icing races? Well I don't know that number, but I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that it's around 1%. If you want to reduce the number of injuries, no-touch icing is not the place to do it.

Players need to be allowed to race and battle for the puck.

The only rule change I would be in favor of would be one that limits the type of contact you can have while racing for an iced puck.

But honestly it's hockey. Injuries happen. Smart players avoid injury by not putting themselves in position to get injured. Take away the battle for the puck and you take away the passion. Take away the passion and you take away the sport. I like how fluid hockey is. The fewer stops in play, the better.

There's 4 games on tonight. I'll watch 2 of them and count up the number of icings.

Regarding your comments I bolded

1. Who says mishandled passes are part of this equation. Its still up to the referees discretion if it should be an icing or not. I'm not calling for those instances to be no touch icings. I'm talking about the deliberate icings or any play where icing is going to be called by the referee. He can blow the whistle well ahead of time and avoid unneccessary injuries to players on meaningless plays. I have never once said any puck sent down has to be an automatic icing. We're still talking about the rules being enforced within the discretion of the referees. At least that's what I was talking about. Therefore I disagree with your assumption that there would be more stoppages.

2. I can't even begin to address the redundancy of this comment. I move to have it stricken from the record entirely for its lack of use in any context.

3. I find this comment somewhat surprising. I never knew icings were such an integral part of puck battles in the game of hockey. What with 99+% of them being whistled and the play stopped. What passion are you talking about? The passion where a dman is needlessly slammed into the boards and a scuffle breaks out because of it? That's not passion. That's senselessly putting players in danger for no reason.

What is truly funny to me about this whole thing is the utter failure of the no touch icing opponents to grasp the concept of 99+% of icings resulting in whistles anyway. So what, you're complaining that the handful of negated icings over the course of a year is going to negatively impact the flow of the game?

You might as well argue that they should keep the game going when the puck hits the net or have the refs just keep a spare and chuck it on the ice if the puck leaves the playing surface. Icings and pucks leaving the ice are not something you can count on from game to game enough so as to be concerned about stoppages in play.

Icings exist already, almost all of them result in a whistle. So what you're really against is that 1 extra whistle every few games? Sheesh, and I thought I nitpicked s***.

[Deke 0]

There's 4 games on tonight. I'll watch 2 of them and count up the number of icings.

You don't have to. Go to NHL.com and look at the play by play for 10 games. Hit ctrl F and type in icing. Count how many timse you hit enter before you are done. Or do some simple google searching on icing per game.

Your still making strawman arguements.

My contention is that if you implement no touch icing you are setting a precident for lazy play where at least one puck race is eliminated from the game. Suddenly you have defensemen getting lazier becuase they know they don't have to go back for the puck because it's no touch. It might not impact the stats of the game that much, or the number of whistles, but it's just against hockey philosophy if you ask me. It's weak.

There are not that many injuries related to icing races. Fact: This year there have been more injuries related to contact with the puck than there have been related to icing. Do you want to change the puck now?

Following your logic, you'd like to make the puck out of soft kitten fur held together with hopes and dreams.

Case closed.

[toby91_ca 620]

You don't have to. Go to NHL.com and look at the play by play for 10 games. Hit ctrl F and type in icing. Count how many timse you hit enter before you are done. Or do some simple google searching on icing per game.

Your still making strawman arguements.

My contention is that if you implement no touch icing you are setting a precident for lazy play where at least one puck race is eliminated from the game. Suddenly you have defensemen getting lazier becuase they know they don't have to go back for the puck because it's no touch. It might not impact the stats of the game that much, or the number of whistles, but it's just against hockey philosophy if you ask me. It's weak.

There are not that many injuries related to icing races. Fact: This year there have been more injuries related to contact with the puck than there have been related to icing. Do you want to change the puck now?

Following your logic, you'd like to make the puck out of soft kitten fur held together with hopes and dreams.

Case closed.

You are arguing that there are only 4 or 5 icings per game and that you may be eliminated 1 race for the puck per game, of which, most are won by the defenseman. So really, we are talking about every 10 games or so, you'll see someone beat the defender to the puck and that will likely result in him losing the puck anyway and it going the other way.

What is the real excitement that is being taken away by simplying implementing no touch icing?

By the way, the players themselves, support no touch icing.

[Deke 0]

You are arguing that there are only 4 or 5 icings per game and that you may be eliminated 1 race for the puck per game, of which, most are won by the defenseman. So really, we are talking about every 10 games or so, you'll see someone beat the defender to the puck and that will likely result in him losing the puck anyway and it going the other way.

What is the real excitement that is being taken away by simplying implementing no touch icing?

By the way, the players themselves, support no touch icing.

I'm not arguing one way or another about how many icings should or should not take place. I'm making a point that catering to lazier play style will change the game for the worse. Don't take the battles out. If you implement no touch icing, then the defense will just watch the puck go over the line and wait for the whistle. I don't like that.

All that's really happening here is that a mistake by one player can be turned into an opportunity by another player. I don't want to see that go away.

The only arguement I see here is based on injuries. And there just aren't that many of them. There are far more injuries from open ice hits and contact with the puck.

[Barrie 900]

I'm all for no-touch icing. They have it in the OHL and whenever I see the OHL, and the first icing call is made, I say, "Oh yea, they have no-touch icing, they should do that in the NHL".

[toby91_ca 620]

I'm not arguing one way or another about how many icings should or should not take place. I'm making a point that catering to lazier play style will change the game for the worse. Don't take the battles out. If you implement no touch icing, then the defense will just watch the puck go over the line and wait for the whistle. I don't like that.

All that's really happening here is that a mistake by one player can be turned into an opportunity by another player. I don't want to see that go away.

The only arguement I see here is based on injuries. And there just aren't that many of them. There are far more injuries from open ice hits and contact with the puck.

You could also argue that removing the needless all out race for a puck would result in tiring the player out on a play that doesn't matter at all. Now, they can save that energy and apply it to aspects of the game that matter.

I think the injury aspect is only one argument, but it is probably important. No matter how rare, the fact that a player could get hurt during a play that doesn't even need to happen, makes no sense. I think you'd have to look at the pros and cons here. Obviously, the risk of injury would be a pro for implementing no touch icing. To be honest, I haven's really seen any pros at all for not implementing. One argument is that you remove the excitement of a race for the puck. I'm sorry, but I don't see that as very exciting. Now, the attacking player make get there first and make something happen....that might be exciting, but the fact is, that rarely, rarely, rarely happens, so what's the point? No need to complete a pro/con list if you can't really get a single pro on one side.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I'm not arguing one way or another about how many icings should or should not take place. I'm making a point that catering to lazier play style will change the game for the worse. Don't take the battles out. If you implement no touch icing, then the defense will just watch the puck go over the line and wait for the whistle. I don't like that.

All that's really happening here is that a mistake by one player can be turned into an opportunity by another player. I don't want to see that go away.

The only arguement I see here is based on injuries. And there just aren't that many of them. There are far more injuries from open ice hits and contact with the puck.

Well then as I suggested in a different thread, why not force the other team to have to touch the puck? Would that be okay in your opinion then?

To clarify, if a team ices the puck they cannot retrieve it or otherwise negate the icing, BUT, the whistle doesn't blow until the other team touches the puck. Would that keep dmen from being lazy and then would you be okay with it?

As for your injury comparisons. How can people miss the point of a topic so badly.

You can't take hitting out of the game, you can't take playing the puck and or the body out of the game, they are integral parts of the game.

The point we're making here is that icings aren't necessary. Its a needless way for players to get injured. Based on the rewards, which is what, the rare case an icing is negated and turned into a positive play just don't happen enough for them to outweigh the risks.

You can make no touch icing a part of the game, seems to have worked fine in collegiate hockey and that's some of the most ferocious, hard hitting hockey you'll find anywhere.

Are you going to tell me that the other leagues and all of collegiate hockey that have no touch icing is just crap hockey, full of lazy dmen and extra long games with a bazillion more stoppages than the NHL? Even though 99% of icings are stoppages (duh?, still don't see how people don't grasp that).

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

You could also argue that removing the needless all out race for a puck would result in tiring the player out on a play that doesn't matter at all. Now, they can save that energy and apply it to aspects of the game that matter.

I think the injury aspect is only one argument, but it is probably important. No matter how rare, the fact that a player could get hurt during a play that doesn't even need to happen, makes no sense. I think you'd have to look at the pros and cons here. Obviously, the risk of injury would be a pro for implementing no touch icing. To be honest, I haven's really seen any pros at all for not implementing. One argument is that you remove the excitement of a race for the puck. I'm sorry, but I don't see that as very exciting. Now, the attacking player make get there first and make something happen....that might be exciting, but the fact is, that rarely, rarely, rarely happens, so what's the point? No need to complete a pro/con list if you can't really get a single pro on one side.

Well said Toby!

[schulzte 18]

Comparing college and NHL icing rules, I prefer the college no-touch rule. There is supposed to be something of a consequence for icing the puck (that is why it's icing), and I think the no-touch rule punishes a team more for wanting to ice the puck, because they are automatically going to get the puck back in their end. The goal of having the icing rule is to prevent icing, and no-touch puts more teeth into it. Even Don Cherry, the neo-con of hockey is a proponent of no-touch icing.

[tweekvp 0]

If the current icing rule stays than the team that iced the puck should not be allowed to throw a hit when they can not negate the icing. Why should the team that broke the rule be allowed to wear down the other teams D by hitting them. It is giving them a benifit for breaking the rules.

I think the injury thing could be prevented if it was a race to the goal line rather than the puck. The D would still win most of the time but would not be in a position to be hit and injured.

[eva unit zero 271]

I am still against no-touch. I think the rule is fine as it is...the only thing no-touch does is brings the illegal hit out in front of the goal line...which is quite possibly more dangerous to the defending player.

If the NHL wants to get serious about the apparent epidemic of icing-rerlated injuries that those who support no-touch are seeing...they need to call a penalty on every icing play where the defender gets hit. That would reduce injuries more than no-touch icing, because it would get rid of unneccessarily dangerous contact instead of just relocating it five feet up ice.

[rage 24]

I am still against no-touch. I think the rule is fine as it is...the only thing no-touch does is brings the illegal hit out in front of the goal line...which is quite possibly more dangerous to the defending player.

If the NHL wants to get serious about the apparent epidemic of icing-rerlated injuries that those who support no-touch are seeing...they need to call a penalty on every icing play where the defender gets hit. That would reduce injuries more than no-touch icing, because it would get rid of unneccessarily dangerous contact instead of just relocating it five feet up ice.

Hell yes. You are spot on here man.

Think about it.....put the game even more into the refs hands??????

The real problem is the the lack of respect in that play which causes injuries. How many injuries per year are we seeing from this anyway?? Not that many. The skill level in the NHL is that of such that having a no-touch icing rule would be a joke (IMO).

Keep it how it is, get stricker on those plays and hits that cause the injuries. Get strickter on those, "I can step on you with my skate cause I am Chris Pronger" penalties.

Stop trying to make the best game out there better, and make the best game out there more popular. Please.

EDIT: Grammer, spelling, puncuation, the whole bit.........

[Guest paveldatsukthenextsavard]

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.

qft

[McCartyFanForLife 17]

Personally I'm not a fan of no-touch icing. I like the hustle for the loose puck; these guys are professionals and they know how to go for an iced puck without getting injured. The way to stop the injuries is to penalize/suspend the player for making an illegal hit.

However, I do think that if no touch icings were instituted that the number of icings would go down. If the score is close at the end of the game with a few seconds remaining, players are less likely to toss it down the ice if the clock is going to stop as soon as it crosses the line as opposed to waiting for the player to touch the puck.