No-touch icing.

[Deke 0]

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!

You've taken 2 games and that's your proof? Wow, here comes the 3rd grade math again. Congrats, your sample has a confidence of about 0 percent. That's what people who understand numbers like to call "anecdotal". Go ahead and look it up, this post will be here when you get back. Go to NHL.com and get some real stats, those stats you posted are very much past the league average.

Proven wrong? I can't believe I'm even dignifying this with a response, but you can't prove my opinion about the no-touch rule wrong. I don't want no-touch icing in the NHL. Why you feel the need to be so right about the subject makes wonder about your personal life. You strive so hard to be some INTRAWEBZ BLAGOSPHERE WRITING tough guy and it makes me laugh. Ok you win, you're opinion about hockey is some how more right than mine if that were some how possible. Do me a favor and go look up opinion and fact and write a 1 paragraph essay on the difference. I'll expect your essay on my desk tomorrow morning.

[Deke 0]

Back on topic, you guys are seriously ok with the Refs having to draw an imaginary line in their heads between the two face off dots and determining who crossed that line first? Because that's likely going to be rule if the NHL goes with no touch. If you guys are ok with that kind of Referee discretion during a game, you must watch different games than I do. I don't trust refs on anything ambiguous and want more concrete rules to the game.

Me, I just don't trust the refs to make the right call half the time.

[Kp-Wings 3]

No touch icing really wouldn't slow the game down as much as people think. Unless you've got guys like Hal Gill and Brad Norton as your defenseman, more often than not, the defenseman will beat the forward back to the puck anyways. Obviously there are exceptions, but this is looking at it in the bigger picture.

No touch icing cuts down on serious injuries, which is the reason why it should be considered.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Back on topic, you guys are seriously ok with the Refs having to draw an imaginary line in their heads between the two face off dots and determining who crossed that line first? Because that's likely going to be rule if the NHL goes with no touch. If you guys are ok with that kind of Referee discretion during a game, you must watch different games than I do. I don't trust refs on anything ambiguous and want more concrete rules to the game.

Me, I just don't trust the refs to make the right call half the time.

is there a source on that?

The thing is, the refs already have discretion when it comes to icing when they decide whether or not to wave it off. I don't see how this is much different.

There's situations where the ref's discretion is better than an all encompassing rule, like shooting the puck over the glass.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

is there a source on that?

The thing is, the refs already have discretion when it comes to icing when they decide whether or not to wave it off. I don't see how this is much different.

There's situations where the ref's discretion is better than an all encompassing rule, like shooting the puck over the glass.

The intermission guys on Versus were discussing the issue and one of them threw this idea out. If a defender were across the line first there would be a whistle, if not then game on.

[Deke 0]

is there a source on that?

The thing is, the refs already have discretion when it comes to icing when they decide whether or not to wave it off. I don't see how this is much different.

There's situations where the ref's discretion is better than an all encompassing rule, like shooting the puck over the glass.

Good question. It comes from all of the articles about the GM's talking about revisiting the no touch rule after they agreed not to talk about it for 3 years at the last GM summit. They are revisiting the topic due to the recent injury.

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/R...ortsHockey/home

From the article:

he imaginary icing line is a concept that's been bounced around. The most popular one would see an imaginary line across the faceoff dots. If the defensive player crosses that line first, it's icing. If it's the forechecker, then he's beat the icing and the play continues. This is a compromise position from the European no-touch icing.

This isn't the only article I've read that suggests if the NHL does go with no-touch, that it will be the rule. It is a compromise that allows for a limited race, but one that doesn't take place near the boards so makes it less dangerous.

What I don't like about it, is that a defender could be on one side, a forward could be on the other side near the puck. If the defender gets behind this imaginary line first, all the sudden you had what might have been a break turn into an icing call.

And you're right that the refs already have discretion to wave it off or not. But I think that is different because the call can be made long before the critical race can happen. The ref pretty much has to wave it off long before the puck would have been iced, so there is constantly a race going until the moment that icing is indicated and the defender has to touch. If it was waved off, the play doesn't stop. It seems like with a no touch rule there will be let up as the ref decides icing or not and where the race was. A ref could potentially stop a race from happening with a whistle and even if that won't happen but 1 in a million and seven games, if it happens once in a game I'm watching that matters, it'll suck.

The counter arguement here is the injury aspect. Well if the refs would just start calling contact on the races then it would go away on it's own.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Deke

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

First time popping in this thread so I apologize if I have rehashed the opinions/points of others.

I'd like to keep the rule as is. I like to see the skaters turn on the jets and hustle to either ice the puck or prevent an icing call.

[imisssergei 0]

is there a source on that?

The thing is, the refs already have discretion when it comes to icing when they decide whether or not to wave it off. I don't see how this is much different.

There's situations where the ref's discretion is better than an all encompassing rule, like shooting the puck over the glass.

If you check out the original TSN link, somewhere in that story they mention there is a league that does it. I want to say it's the USHL. It seems too arbitrary to me.

[vangvace 12]

This isn't the only article I've read that suggests if the NHL does go with no-touch, that it will be the rule. It is a compromise that allows for a limited race, but one that doesn't take place near the boards so makes it less dangerous.

What I don't like about it, is that a defender could be on one side, a forward could be on the other side near the puck. If the defender gets behind this imaginary line first, all the sudden you had what might have been a break turn into an icing call.

And you're right that the refs already have discretion to wave it off or not. But I think that is different because the call can be made long before the critical race can happen. The ref pretty much has to wave it off long before the puck would have been iced, so there is constantly a race going until the moment that icing is indicated and the defender has to touch. If it was waved off, the play doesn't stop. It seems like with a no touch rule there will be let up as the ref decides icing or not and where the race was. A ref could potentially stop a race from happening with a whistle and even if that won't happen but 1 in a million and seven games, if it happens once in a game I'm watching that matters, it'll suck.

The counter arguement here is the injury aspect. Well if the refs would just start calling contact on the races then it would go away on it's own.

What sucks more, an early whistle or a stretcher?

A question to the LGW oldtimers old guys... has contact other than the exceptionally bad ever been called regularly on an icing race?

[toby91_ca 620]

What sucks more, an early whistle or a stretcher?

A question to the LGW oldtimers old guys... has contact other than the exceptionally bad ever been called regularly on an icing race?

The only time it would warrant a call is if the hit is dirty or late. Nothing wrong with hitting someone while battling for a lose puck. I've seen the argument that for a hit to be legal, you can only hit a puck carrier, but that really isn't true.

[eva unit zero 271]

The only time it would warrant a call is if the hit is dirty or late. Nothing wrong with hitting someone while battling for a lose puck. I've seen the argument that for a hit to be legal, you can only hit a puck carrier, but that really isn't true.

Hitting someone who doesn't have the puck is interference. Hitting someone after the play is over is a late hit.

Nowhere is there ever an option for a legal hit on an icing play. This is not a 'gray area' like many want to say it is. The rules are cut and dried in such a way that it is theoretically impossible for a legal hit to occur on an icing play.

And as far as the 'injury' thing is concerned...numbers were posted earlier that said about ten icings occured per game, and each of those saw one race for the puck in every ten. My unscientific number for the amount of injuries sustained on icing chases is 5 per season on the average. SO let's see...there's about 1300 games per season including playoffs, each with an average of ten icing calls. That's 13000 icing calls per season, and 1300 races for the puck.

So what we're saying is, a race for the puck on an icing call has a 0.5% chance of resulting in an injury. Sounds like a problem that must be addressed. Hell, with those kind of numbers it's probably LESS likely to hurt you than carrying the puck over the blue line or receiving a pass in open ice!

[RyanBarnes! 293]

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.

You people obviously completely lack the ability to read between the lines. I know perfectly well what the above mentioned features brings to the game, that's why I used them in the first place. Also, this is about so much more than keeping status quo.

The argument to take out touch icing is based on player safety, but the same argument could be used to eliminate all risks listed above and these are key elements of the game. Remove touch icing and you will have a very tough time to defend the logic behind not making additional changes to more vital elements of the game. These voices are already strong and they will grow stronger with each additional change.

Finally what does touch icing add to the game? A natural game flow. Living in Europe I have plenty of experience of non-touch icing. Personally, I think it is a sad thing to watch. Suddenly, icing the puck is all about getting a stoppage in play. Zero chance of something more exciting to happen. Zero. Might not mean a whole lot to you, but that is my opinion. Then again I also think watching two players racing for the puck is exciting.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

Hitting someone who doesn't have the puck is interference. Hitting someone after the play is over is a late hit.

Nowhere is there ever an option for a legal hit on an icing play. This is not a 'gray area' like many want to say it is. The rules are cut and dried in such a way that it is theoretically impossible for a legal hit to occur on an icing play.

And as far as the 'injury' thing is concerned...numbers were posted earlier that said about ten icings occured per game, and each of those saw one race for the puck in every ten. My unscientific number for the amount of injuries sustained on icing chases is 5 per season on the average. SO let's see...there's about 1300 games per season including playoffs, each with an average of ten icing calls. That's 13000 icing calls per season, and 1300 races for the puck.

So what we're saying is, a race for the puck on an icing call has a 0.5% chance of resulting in an injury. Sounds like a problem that must be addressed. Hell, with those kind of numbers it's probably LESS likely to hurt you than carrying the puck over the blue line or receiving a pass in open ice!

Nice, finally some stats that actually say something!

[toby91_ca 620]

Hitting someone who doesn't have the puck is interference. Hitting someone after the play is over is a late hit.

Nowhere is there ever an option for a legal hit on an icing play. This is not a 'gray area' like many want to say it is. The rules are cut and dried in such a way that it is theoretically impossible for a legal hit to occur on an icing play.

And as far as the 'injury' thing is concerned...numbers were posted earlier that said about ten icings occured per game, and each of those saw one race for the puck in every ten. My unscientific number for the amount of injuries sustained on icing chases is 5 per season on the average. SO let's see...there's about 1300 games per season including playoffs, each with an average of ten icing calls. That's 13000 icing calls per season, and 1300 races for the puck.

So what we're saying is, a race for the puck on an icing call has a 0.5% chance of resulting in an injury. Sounds like a problem that must be addressed. Hell, with those kind of numbers it's probably LESS likely to hurt you than carrying the puck over the blue line or receiving a pass in open ice!

You do not have to be in possession of the puck for you to be hit legally.

A “pick” is the action of a player or goalkeeper who

checks an opponent who is not in possession of the

puck and is unaware of the impending check/hit. A

player who is aware of an impending hit, not deemed

to be a legal “battle for the puck,” may not be

interfered with by a player or goalkeeper delivering a

“pick.” A player or goalkeeper delivering a “pick” is

one who moves into an opponent’s path without

initially having body position, thereby taking him out

of the play. When this is done, an interference

penalty shall be assessed.

If two players are racing for the puck, they are allowed to hit one another, as long as you are within reasonable range of the puck. If you hit someone that is going for the puck, but is 10-15 feet away from it, that would be different.

In terms of the % chance of injury on icings, I know it is low, very remote, but that's not really the point. Almost as remote is the chance that something is going to happen from touch icing, so why bother keeping the rule. Implementing no-touch icing may even speed up the game.

[eva unit zero 271]

You do not have to be in possession of the puck for you to be hit legally.

Rule 67(a)

A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck.

If two players are racing for the puck, they are allowed to hit one another, as long as you are within reasonable range of the puck. If you hit someone that is going for the puck, but is 10-15 feet away from it, that would be different.

In terms of the % chance of injury on icings, I know it is low, very remote, but that's not really the point. Almost as remote is the chance that something is going to happen from touch icing, so why bother keeping the rule. Implementing no-touch icing may even speed up the game.

Rule 67, Note 1

Body position shall be determined as the player skating in front of or beside his opponent, traveling in the same direction. A player who is behind an opponent, who does not have the puck, may not use his stick, body or free hand in order to restrain his opponent, but must skate in order to gain or reestablish his proper position in order to make a check.

A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may "block" the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponent's path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself "bigger" and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going); his free hand is not used and he does not take advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check.

It would seem you are incorrect on both counts, toby. As stated in Rule 67, hitting a player who is not in possession of the puck is interference. I don't know how much clearer it could be.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Nice, finally some stats that actually say something!

For what its worth, Cherry doesn't like touch icing either

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hnic/coach...or_notouch.html

here's an article that mentions outlawing contact but keeping touch icing. personally, seems like the hard road to take. how will the refs judge if there's contact? who initiated the contact? seems like it would open up a huge can of worms in the discretion department that touch icing proponents fear so much.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/morrison/2...o_with_gms.html

i don't know this guy but he agrees with me so he must be cool. except I don't agree with him about Buttman.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_ga.../dolie_insider/

http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/168736

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I'll expect your essay on my desk tomorrow morning.

I don't answer to those that are beneath me.

[toby91_ca 620]

Rule 67(a)

A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck.

Rule 67, Note 1

Body position shall be determined as the player skating in front of or beside his opponent, traveling in the same direction. A player who is behind an opponent, who does not have the puck, may not use his stick, body or free hand in order to restrain his opponent, but must skate in order to gain or reestablish his proper position in order to make a check.

A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may "block" the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponent's path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself "bigger" and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going); his free hand is not used and he does not take advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check.

It would seem you are incorrect on both counts, toby. As stated in Rule 67, hitting a player who is not in possession of the puck is interference. I don't know how much clearer it could be.

None of the rules you posted have anything to do with a legal "battle for the puck" where a person could be legally hit while not possessing the puck, as noted in the excerpt from the rulebook that I previously posted.

The rulebook basically says that if you hit someone who is not in possession of the puck and is not deemed a legal "battle for the puck" you should be assessed an interference penalty. I think that is pretty clearly stating that there are instances "battles for the puck" whereby you could legally hit someone not possessing the puck. I don't know how much clearer it could be.

Edit: by the way, I'm not sure what rulebook you are refering to, but it's out of date. In the current, official rulebook, there is not rule 67(a). Granted all the rules are pretty much the same as you have stated, except the fact that you have left out the "battle for the puck" part.

Edited March 26, 2008 by toby91_ca

[eva unit zero 271]

None of the rules you posted have anything to do with a legal "battle for the puck" where a person could be legally hit while not possessing the puck, as noted in the excerpt from the rulebook that I previously posted.

The rulebook basically says that if you hit someone who is not in possession of the puck and is not deemed a legal "battle for the puck" you should be assessed an interference penalty. I think that is pretty clearly stating that there are instances "battles for the puck" whereby you could legally hit someone not possessing the puck. I don't know how much clearer it could be.

That excerpt is referring to a battle of the puck along the boards where both players could be deemed in possession of the puck but do not retain sole possession. It is not referring to a race for the puck as occurs with icing.

[toby91_ca 620]

That excerpt is referring to a battle of the puck along the boards where both players could be deemed in possession of the puck but do not retain sole possession. It is not referring to a race for the puck as occurs with icing.

I think your "interpretation" is clearly different than the NHL's.

[eva unit zero 271]

I think your "interpretation" is clearly different than the NHL's.

The only time I can find 'battle for the puck' in the NHL rulebook is in the 'pick' provision you posted. That is referring specifically to instances where two players are not moving the same direction, or at all. On an icing call, the two players would presumably be moving the same direction, which brings me back to:

Rule 67, Note 1

Body position shall be determined as the player skating in front of or beside his opponent, traveling in the same direction. A player who is behind an opponent, who does not have the puck, may not use his stick, body or free hand in order to restrain his opponent, but must skate in order to gain or reestablish his proper position in order to make a check.

A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may "block" the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponent's path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself "bigger" and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going); his free hand is not used and he does not take advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check.

That is the only part of the interference rule that deals with the situation of two players without the puck moving in the same direction, such as they do in a race for the puck on an icing play. The 'pick' provision is stating that using part or all of your body to block an opponent without establishing position or moving the same direction is interference. A 'legal battle for the puck' in this case would mean where both players' contact occurs as a RESULT of attempts to acquire the puck, not as a MEANS to acquire the puck. Incidental contact is a term often used for this. A bodycheck is still not allowed on a player without the puck; the pick provision is geared more towards preventing a penalty call for interference when two or more players battle along the boards for the puck. On an icing play, there is no battle for the puck unless the offensive player touches first.

There is NEVER a legal instance where an attacking player can hit a defensive player on an icing play. EVER. If it ever happens, and is not penalized, that is the wrong call as the rule is written.

[Deke 0]

For what its worth, Cherry doesn't like touch icing either

Don Cherry also thinks Jovanowksi should win the Norris trophy. Cherry just says whatever will stir up the most controversy and attention, just like his clothes.

here's an article that mentions outlawing contact but keeping touch icing. personally, seems like the hard road to take. how will the refs judge if there's contact? who initiated the contact? seems like it would open up a huge can of worms in the discretion department that touch icing proponents fear so much.

The same way they determe who initiates contact in any other penalty. Seeing contact is a hell of a lot better and definitive than trying to use an imaginary line in your head.

[Deke 0]

I don't answer to those that are beneath me.

If that were in fact true, you wouldn't be allowed to post on the forum.

[Earthhuman 8]

I'm with Eva.

Either penalties need to be called more, or the rule needs to be revised:

"A player may not hit another player during an icing play, unless it seems entertaining to those watching. IF there are not clearly entertaining circumstances, a hit should be considered interference."

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

If that were in fact true, you wouldn't be allowed to post on the forum.

Ha! LOL. No, there are plenty of folks here that don't agree with a word I say but they're still knowledgeable and good posters.

But then there's you..............and a handful of others. You definitely qualify! Hooray!