No-touch icing.

[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.

Okay, so I tivo'd and watched the Pens/Isles game and the Sens/Habs game last night. Here's the breakdown

Pens committed 3 icings and negated 0

Isles committed 5 icings and negated 0

Sens committed 4 icings and negated 0

Habs committed 6 icings and negated 0

18 icings in 2 games and 0 icings negated.

Furthermore, of all the icings committed there was only 1 close race to negate it that was even remotely close. So is that the excitement I keep hearing about?

Seriously the other 17 icings the dman got back to the puck well before any forward and to be precise, there was not a single instance of contact.

From one standpoint you could say that nobody was in danger of being hurt. And from the other you can say that the "excitement" factor we keep hearing about is complete bulls***. More than 2/3'rds of the icings the team that iced it did not even make an attempt to skate down and get the puck.

There was one play where Trent Hunter slammed Brooks Orpik into the boards after Orpik touched up the puck. The problem here was Orpik new it was an icing and Hunter did not. Hunter even motioned to Oprik and the ref like "what? you called icing on that?" What's important here is that Orpik let up after the play and Hunter rammed him into the boards. Orpik could have been hurt and that's the point.

18 icings, 0 icings negated and only 1 true race to negate the icing. If that is people's idea of excitement then they need to get out more.

Yes, this is only a 2 game sample but I stand by what I said, that you would see on average 16-20+ icings in any 2 games and not the 5 you claim. 5 per team maybe.

Interesting note, during the Pens intermission Ed Olchyk? was talking about how the NHL should go to no touch icing, how the players want it and how it would be good for the game. Of course knucklehead Keith Jones was against it talking about all the excitement it generates (laughable). Olchyzk? said that in the USHL they have a different way of doing it. When there is a potential icing and players are skating back for the puck, they have an imaginary line going from face off dot to face off dot. If the defenseman gets to that spot first the ref blows the whistle. That's a good 20+ feet from the boards. If the forward gets their first the players know there is not going to be a whistle and the icing is negated no matter who touches up the puck first. Its all about getting to that line first.

I like that idea because the players know well ahead of the boards what the situation is going to be.

[eva unit zero 271]

Interesting note, during the Pens intermission Ed Olczyk was talking about how the NHL should go to no touch icing, how the players want it and how it would be good for the game. Of course knucklehead Keith Jones was against it talking about all the excitement it generates (laughable). Olczyk said that in the USHL they have a different way of doing it. When there is a potential icing and players are skating back for the puck, they have an imaginary line going from face off dot to face off dot. If the defenseman gets to that spot first the ref blows the whistle. That's a good 20+ feet from the boards. If the forward gets their first the players know there is not going to be a whistle and the icing is negated no matter who touches up the puck first. Its all about getting to that line first.

I like that idea because the players know well ahead of the boards what the situation is going to be.

In your 'icings comitted' and 'negated' categories, are you including plays where the goaltender comes out of the net to get the puck because the attacker is going to reach the puck first? Albeit less common with the trapezoid, that situation is probably the most common form of negated icing.

While on the subject of icing, the NHL should do away with free icings for teams on the PK. I've always considered that a dumb idea. The team that broke the rules gets an advantage?

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

In your 'icings comitted' and 'negated' categories, are you including plays where the goaltender comes out of the net to get the puck because the attacker is going to reach the puck first? Albeit less common with the trapezoid, that situation is probably the most common form of negated icing.

While on the subject of icing, the NHL should do away with free icings for teams on the PK. I've always considered that a dumb idea. The team that broke the rules gets an advantage?

eva, yes I was taking those into account. I thought there was going to be 1 in the Montreal game when Price came out. I replayed the video but I couldn't see where the linesman ever signaled an icing. I think what might have happened on that play was Price came out well before the ref could even signal icing because the score at the time was so lopsided either he wanted to keep the clock running or he just wanted to play the puck. There was an Ottawa player coming but he wasn't even in the picture when Price left the crease area to play the puck. My guess is that that would have been an icing call had Price stayed in net but its hard to tell because the dman never came back, he peeled off to play the puck Price had just sent up the boards so you couldn't tell if that icing would've been negated or not.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

In your 'icings comitted' and 'negated' categories, are you including plays where the goaltender comes out of the net to get the puck because the attacker is going to reach the puck first? Albeit less common with the trapezoid, that situation is probably the most common form of negated icing.

While on the subject of icing, the NHL should do away with free icings for teams on the PK. I've always considered that a dumb idea. The team that broke the rules gets an advantage?

I'm not sure where I stand on that one. You're already a man down which is a disadvantage, although with the state of some of the league's PP's I don't know how much of an advantage it is.

That would be an interesting idea to look at. Would probably generate more scoring. Although I think an idea like that would go over about as well as a fart in church. They'd probably make the goals 7 feet wide before they do away with free icings on the PK.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

The icing rule is fine as it is. Injuries are a part of the game, and the players know that and are pretty used to the icing rule.

Geez, why don't they have no-touch fighting while they're at it? It works in the NBA and MLB.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Icing - as GS&T pointed out, rarely are icing calls negated by the icing team racing down to touch the puck first. (I always thought that was funny before the two-line pass rule was abolished. Doesn't touching the puck down there make it a three-line pass and therefore illegal? But I digress.)

Anyway, if we have to look to icing races for excitement in hockey, the war is already lost and we might as well fold the league. I'm all in favor of no-touch icing, because it would speed up the game. I think the rule is brilliant that allows referee discretion as to whether the icing was intentional or simply a missed pass - it does wonders for the flow of the game. Allow the refs to blow the whistle the moment the puck is officially iced and you probably save three seconds of playing time. About ten icings a game, that adds up to what might end up being a very crucial thirty seconds at the end, depending on the score. I'm not really as worried about people getting hurt - it "might" have happened a lot but in actuality it hasn't happened much at all - I just think no-touch icing would improve the flow of the game and besides, make the rules simpler for a newbie to understand.

Oh, and icing on the power play? If the PK team couldn't do that, I think PP scoring would double. I don't really want to see 8-6 games because of one rule change. Especially not when there's already some controversy as to what's a penalty and what's not. Don't want the refs afraid to call a penalty because of how much more likely it is to score on the power play, and I don't want some stupid rinky-dink hooking penalty to decide the game at the end either. We see power play scores on average between 15-20% of the time, that's quite enough. If you want to mess with the power play, allow two goals instead of one before the penalized player returns.

[toby91_ca 620]

In terms of not allowing a team to ice the puck during a penalty kill:

I agree that it doesn't make sense to give the offending team an advantage here, I think the main issue is that the team is going to ice the puck anyway, which is going to result in more stoppages of play. I think the NHL wants to avoid stoppages as much as possible.

[OsGOD 3]

No touch icing surely speeds up the game... at least my experience with it watching the OHL games

I don't mind it at all really.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

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.

The same could be said about playing without visors, full cages, fights, hits and so forth. Hockey is full of possibly dangerous elements. What's next to be taken out? Soon enough, the game will change to be an entirely different one from the one I grew up watching. Sorry, but that is not why I watch hockey. If your opinion happens to differ from mine, good for you. Players should learn to respect each other enough not to slam one another head first into the boards. I don't see anything absurd in that... To be honest I find your post quite ignorant and unworthy of further effort. Edited March 25, 2008 by RyanBarnes!

[toby91_ca 620]

The same could be said about playing without visors, full cages, fights, hits and so forth. Hockey is full of possibly dangerous elements. What's next to be taken out? Soon enough, the game will change to be an entirely different one from the one I grew up watching. Sorry, but that is not why I watch hockey. If your opinion happens to differ from mine, good for you. Players should learn to respect each other enough not to slam one another head first into the boards. I don't see anything absurd in that... To be honest I find your post quite ignorant and unworthy of further effort.

But maybe you should put further effort into it, because from what I read, the only reason you want to keep the rule is because it has always been there and you don't like change.

In terms of the other items you mentioned:

- visors/cages - these would inhibit players vision and comfort levels and potentially limit their playing ability. Having played

with and without a cage, I can tell you, its definately easier to play without one, but you are opening yourself up to some

dangers.

- fighting - well, its part of the game and it is necessary at times. A fight can also change the momentum of a game, wake

up your teammates, the crowd, etc.

- hits - well, it needs to be there for so many reasons it would be a waste of time to list.

What is it that "touch icing" adds to the game that would be removed if the rule was changed to "no-touch icing". It absolutely makes no sense to me and the guys that are actually out there playing the game agree with me.

I have no problem if someone has an opinion that the rule shouldn't change, but I haven't really seen any logical reason to keep it yet. Keeping it for the sake of not making a change is not a logical reason.

[vangvace 12]

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?

Case closed.

lazy D = exciting play.

I see less icings and more dump-ins going to the other blue-line.

How many hits to the head result in injury? Injuries from boarding? One is too many. I wonder how many other how manys I can pull out of my nether-regions?

Interesting note, during the Pens intermission Ed Olchyk? was talking about how the NHL should go to no touch icing, how the players want it and how it would be good for the game. Of course knucklehead Keith Jones was against it talking about all the excitement it generates (laughable). Olchyzk? said that in the USHL they have a different way of doing it. When there is a potential icing and players are skating back for the puck, they have an imaginary line going from face off dot to face off dot. If the defenseman gets to that spot first the ref blows the whistle. That's a good 20+ feet from the boards. If the forward gets their first the players know there is not going to be a whistle and the icing is negated no matter who touches up the puck first. Its all about getting to that line first.

I like that idea because the players know well ahead of the boards what the situation is going to be.

That does sound like a good best of both worlds type of fit.

While on the subject of icing, the NHL should do away with free icings for teams on the PK. I've always considered that a dumb idea. The team that broke the rules gets an advantage?

I think that more puck handling goalies (along with romoving the trapazoid) would greatly negate the advantage of icing on the PK.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

The same could be said about playing without visors, full cages, fights, hits and so forth. Hockey is full of possibly dangerous elements. What's next to be taken out? Soon enough, the game will change to be an entirely different one from the one I grew up watching. Sorry, but that is not why I watch hockey. If your opinion happens to differ from mine, good for you. Players should learn to respect each other enough not to slam one another head first into the boards. I don't see anything absurd in that... To be honest I find your post quite ignorant and unworthy of further effort.

See what Toby said and come join us in the 21st century whenever you're ready.

Seriously, its already been shown that rarely does an icing ever get negated. So there isn't going to be a drastic increase in whistles, so scratch that off the list of bulls*** excuses i've seen for keeping the rule the way it is.

Excitement factor is another bulls*** reason to keep it. What excitement factor? There were 18 icings in the Montreal and Pittsburgh games, none of them were negated and on at least 2/3'rds of the icings the offending team didn't even try to skate down and touch up the puck. So what excitement are we talking about?

Just the amount of energy that would be saved on the players legs not having to go back and touch up the puck is reason enough to change the rule. Maybe injuries aren't that big an issue when it comes to icings. But that doesn't change the fact that there really is no good reason to keep it.

The BS reasons given have already been disproven. So all that's left are the diehards who are too stubborn and unable to think outside the box that want the rule to stay the same for history's sake.

The players have spoken. They'd love to see it implemented. Minor leagues are implementing it. College hockey has it and the college game has some of the fiercest, hardest hitting games you can see on a weekly basis.

Bottom line is there is no positive reason to keep it the way it is. It puts the players in unnecessary danger, tires them out and doesn't add anything to the game. Oh, unless that 1 out of 50 icings where there is actually a hard race for the puck gets you excited.

If that's the case then you need to get out more.

[Deke 0]

You're right -- The rules really need to change.

Ice is just too slippery and dangerous, so I propose we remove the ice surface in favor of something like grass.

Someone got hit by a puck and it hurt, so we're going to have to change that to a ball.

A body check is just rude, so no contact between players.

Goal scoring doesn't happen enough so we'll have extend the nets to 24 feet wide and 8 feet high.

Sticks can be used for slashing so those are out, and to make the game fun we'll say you can't use your hands.

Oh s***, someone already thought of that sport. Guess I'll just have to keep watching hockey.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Deke

[vangvace 12]

You're right -- The rules really need to change.

Ice is just too slippery and dangerous, so I propose we remove the ice surface in favor of something like grass.

Someone got hit by a puck and it hurt, so we're going to have to change that to a ball.

A body check is just rude, so no contact between players.

Goal scoring doesn't happen enough so we'll have extend the nets to 24 feet wide and 8 feet high.

Sticks can be used for slashing so those are out, and to make the game fun we'll say you can't use your hands.

Oh s***, someone already thought of that sport. Guess I'll just have to keep watching hockey.

Are you against boarding?

[Deke 0]

Are you against boarding?

Yes I'm against boarding. Boarding is a rule, partly because the injuries that can happen, but also because it's not fair to use the arena equipment as part of your hit.

I see the argument you are going to try and make, that if I am against boarding, I should be for no touch icing. But I don't agree. I would like to see the type of contact you can make on an iced puck limited to contact that you are allowed to do during a break away. No tripping, no cross checking from behind, no boarding. Basically... Following the rules already in place. The Refs need to make this call more so that iced puck races come down to using the sticks in a race.

I do not want to see no touch icing because I don't want the play to stop if the puck is dumped over the base line. And if they are going to try the "invisible line" rule where the face off dots present a line, if the forward crosses it first, and then no icing. I don't like that either. It lets the refs decide another ambiguous call. All the defender has to do is step behind that line, whether they are even near the puck or not and the play is stopped. Maybe the forward could have gotten there.

I don't want to let the refs decide more games with calls that could have gone either way. I don't want some invisible line to exist where you can't definitively say the puck did or did not cross it. I like the fact that there is a strict rule to icing. A defender has to touch the puck. That means icing. No call one way or another, it's icing.

If you put flexibility in the rules where the refs get to call whatever they feel like, then you take something away from the players. I want rules that anyone can look at and come to the same conclusion. Not something that can be decided by Mcgoo seeing that the defenders left skate's shoelace was behind an invisible line before the forward got there.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Deke

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

You're right -- The rules really need to change.

Ice is just too slippery and dangerous, so I propose we remove the ice surface in favor of something like grass.

Someone got hit by a puck and it hurt, so we're going to have to change that to a ball.

A body check is just rude, so no contact between players.

Goal scoring doesn't happen enough so we'll have extend the nets to 24 feet wide and 8 feet high.

Sticks can be used for slashing so those are out, and to make the game fun we'll say you can't use your hands.

Oh s***, someone already thought of that sport. Guess I'll just have to keep watching hockey.

It's soooooo exciting to watch players race for the puck in those few instances icing actually gets negated.

So on faceoffs, instead of dropping the puck, lets have the ref throw it as hard as he can in one direction, and everyone skates like hell after it. It could be in the corner, at the goalie, in the players bench. That would add even more excitement to the game as players chase the puck!

No! Better still! Start with the puck in the corner and the players will have to race around an obstacle course to get to it. Jumping through rings of fire, over barrels, through smoke, around gladiators firing tennis balls at them. That would really make chasing the puck exciting!

and everything should be able to be negated if you get to the puck first! If someone scores a goal, all the players dive headfirst into the net, if a player from the defending team gets it first, no goal! Penalty call? Not if I get to that puck first it's not!

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

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.

Really? Are you 100% positive on this? That's a pretty bold statement to make (hence why I bolded it) unless you work for the NHL in this department to say that the refs turn a blind eye to penalizing players for hits on icing.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Really? Are you 100% positive on this? That's a pretty bold statement to make (hence why I bolded it) unless you work for the NHL in this department to say that the refs turn a blind eye to penalizing players for hits on icing.

No, I am not 100% positive on this, but I will back up my statement based on what I've seen the past few years. Never once have I seen a guy get penalized for an impending icing hit unless it was a dirty hit to begin with (I.E. A direct hit from behind, a head shot, etc.)

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

It's soooooo exciting to watch players race for the puck in those few instances icing actually gets negated.

So on faceoffs, instead of dropping the puck, lets have the ref throw it as hard as he can in one direction, and everyone skates like hell after it. It could be in the corner, at the goalie, in the players bench. That would add even more excitement to the game as players chase the puck!

No! Better still! Start with the puck in the corner and the players will have to race around an obstacle course to get to it. Jumping through rings of fire, over barrels, through smoke, around gladiators firing tennis balls at them. That would really make chasing the puck exciting!

and everything should be able to be negated if you get to the puck first! If someone scores a goal, all the players dive headfirst into the net, if a player from the defending team gets it first, no goal! Penalty call? Not if I get to that puck first it's not!

Are you serious, HS?

[wingslogo19 281]

No, I am not 100% positive on this, but I will back up my statement based on what I've seen the past few years. Never once have I seen a guy get penalized for an impending icing hit unless it was a dirty hit to begin with (I.E. A direct hit from behind, a head shot, etc.)

Like Jones from the Flyers

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Like Jones from the Flyers

After looking at it, it was a dump in.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Never Forget Mac #25

[wingslogo19 281]

Got a link?

It was against the Bruins, and nm Mac.. That wasn't on an icing

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Yes I'm against boarding. Boarding is a rule, partly because the injuries that can happen, but also because it's not fair to use the arena equipment as part of your hit.

I see the argument you are going to try and make, that if I am against boarding, I should be for no touch icing. But I don't agree. I would like to see the type of contact you can make on an iced puck limited to contact that you are allowed to do during a break away. No tripping, no cross checking from behind, no boarding. Basically... Following the rules already in place. The Refs need to make this call more so that iced puck races come down to using the sticks in a race.

I do not want to see no touch icing because I don't want the play to stop if the puck is dumped over the base line. And if they are going to try the "invisible line" rule where the face off dots present a line, if the forward crosses it first, and then no icing. I don't like that either. It lets the refs decide another ambiguous call. All the defender has to do is step behind that line, whether they are even near the puck or not and the play is stopped. Maybe the forward could have gotten there.

I don't want to let the refs decide more games with calls that could have gone either way. I don't want some invisible line to exist where you can't definitively say the puck did or did not cross it. I like the fact that there is a strict rule to icing. A defender has to touch the puck. That means icing. No call one way or another, it's icing.

If you put flexibility in the rules where the refs get to call whatever they feel like, then you take something away from the players. I want rules that anyone can look at and come to the same conclusion. Not something that can be decided by Mcgoo seeing that the defenders left skate's shoelace was behind an invisible line before the forward got there.

Dramatic much, queen.

The players want no touch icing. How much more of an endorsement do you need?

Why didn't you address any of the figures I posted from last nights games? Wait, I know, being proven wrong is embarrassing. It's cool, I won't hold it against you.

Love the way those players went chasing after icings trying to negate them last night. Damn that was some exciting hockey.

I'll give you one thing deke. You are the textbook definition of consistency. Since you showed up here you've been wrong about everything. At least you're good at something!

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I see the argument you are going to try and make, that if I am against boarding, I should be for no touch icing. But I don't agree. I would like to see the type of contact you can make on an iced puck limited to contact that you are allowed to do during a break away. No tripping, no cross checking from behind, no boarding. Basically... Following the rules already in place. The Refs need to make this call more so that iced puck races come down to using the sticks in a race.

This is absolute brilliance by the way. If you played hockey i'm guessing defense wasn't your position. I'd love to be able to count the number of times I was going mach 2, shoulder to shoulder with a guy and things were just so simple as reaching out and getting it with my stick.....oh, and being able to break and not slip and or get hammered into the boards.

This is what i'm talking about. Its absolutely ridiculous to put players into a needlessly dangerous situation.

Plenty of other hockey leagues have implemented this to nothing but praise from the players who aren't getting hurt on stupid, unnecessary plays. Why you think the NHL needs to be any different i'll never understand.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Are you serious, HS?

of course I'm serious!

Actually, I thought I'd fight fire with fire. If a ridiculous slippery slope argument can somehow show why there shouldn't be no touch icing, I figured maybe it could work to show why there should be.