No-touch icing.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

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.

So by Don being wrong on Jovanovski, logic states he must be wrong about everything else.

Why don't you address this little factoid. That the NHLPA, it's memebers (you know, the ******* players) have voted unanimously to go to no-touch icing.

If we aren't going to listen to the people who actually play the game, who should we listen to?

[Echolalia 2,961]

What will a no-touch icing actually bring to the table if it were brought into the nhl?

The only real argument I can think of is less injuries- but as people have already pointed out; icing's aren't an especially common thing in games (approx 5-7) and those where a race for the puck occurs are even rarer. Besides, as Eva has countlessly pointed out already, the only reason a player would get injured on an icing call is through an illegal act by the other player; one that would either result in interference or a check after the play ended- both penalties that should be enforced, but have somehow slipped below the radar even after the 'new nhl' era.

So others may say "well if they're so "rare", and the chances of the opposition beating out an icing call are even rarer, why do we even need the rule how it is? The chances are practically 0 of anything happening. Actually, the chances are higher than that, and as I pointed out earlier a good example of this is Datsyuk's intercepting of Nabokov's pass in the playoffs last year which resulted in a goal that would've never occurred had no touch icing been in place. Even though they aren't especially common, they do affect the game, and they can only affect the game if the other team hustles their ass off to earn 100% of it. Also, if you're going to play the 'its not common so lets get rid of it' card, why not get rid of penalty shots while we're at it? They only happen a couple times a year, and there's only a 40% chance of a player scoring on it anyway.

So to answer my original question of what will a no-touch icing actually bring to the table?

The only actual thing I concluded is less opportunities for an exciting play to occur against the odds of beating out an icing. Instead, we'll have a face-off 100% of the time, and infringing players not even trying to skate because they'd rather save their energy that they'll need after the commercial break because they can't change lines.

[toby91_ca 620]

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.

What you are doing is interpreting the actual words in the rulebook and the instances to which they would apply. I have no problem with your interpretation and it does make sense, however, the NHL obviously has a different interpretation as no penalties are called when players are hit without the puck in certain circumstances. I'm not just referring to races for the puck on an icing.

I think what you are trying to say is that the NHL is not calling penalties they should be calling based on the rules as written. While I think the rules could be clarified as you can easily interpret the rules different ways.

[Deke 0]

So others may say "well if they're so "rare", and the chances of the opposition beating out an icing call are even rarer, why do we even need the rule how it is? The chances are practically 0 of anything happening. Actually, the chances are higher than that, and as I pointed out earlier a good example of this is Datsyuk's intercepting of Nabokov's pass in the playoffs last year which resulted in a goal that would've never occurred had no touch icing been in place. Even though they aren't especially common, they do affect the game, and they can only affect the game if the other team hustles their ass off to earn 100% of it. Also, if you're going to play the 'its not common so lets get rid of it' card, why not get rid of penalty shots while we're at it? They only happen a couple times a year, and there's only a 40% chance of a player scoring on it anyway.

So to answer my original question of what will a no-touch icing actually bring to the table?

The only actual thing I concluded is less opportunities for an exciting play to occur against the odds of beating out an icing. Instead, we'll have a face-off 100% of the time, and infringing players not even trying to skate because they'd rather save their energy that they'll need after the commercial break because they can't change lines.

I agree. No touch icing would cause a new strategy to be in play where the defenders can just try and force bad passes into the zone where icing is going to automatically be called. Then move the puck back and take another face off. It's going to suck and it's not in the spirit of hockey, which is constantly EARNING your puck position. You also pretty much garuntee that the goalie isn't going to go fetch the puck and just let it go over the imaginary line so the puck will be iced.

If we want to improve icing, they need to: Take away the free TV time out for home team icing and limit the contact for puck races.

To GS&T:

You can bring up that the NHLAPA wants no touch icing all you want. In fact, you have, over and over again. Repeating yourself doesn't help. I don't care if the players want it, I still don't like it and that isn't going to change my opinion or make you right.

At this point I'm convinced that you don't even care that much about the rule and would argue with a wall if you thought it would make you look smarter. Keep repeating the same crap over and over again, keep having Don Cherry feed you your opinions. I'm just going to put you on ignore and focus my replies on people who use logic and are rational. Even if I don't agree, at least the other guys in this thread are more interested in talking about the topic rather than boosting your forum ego. I seriously envision your thought process going something like: ZOMG I WON AN INTRAWBEZ THREAD, ALL THE GIRLS WILL LIKE ME NOW.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Deke

[Deke 0]

What you are doing is interpreting the actual words in the rulebook and the instances to which they would apply. I have no problem with your interpretation and it does make sense, however, the NHL obviously has a different interpretation as no penalties are called when players are hit without the puck in certain circumstances. I'm not just referring to races for the puck on an icing.

I think what you are trying to say is that the NHL is not calling penalties they should be calling based on the rules as written. While I think the rules could be clarified as you can easily interpret the rules different ways.

Going to have to agree with that one. Even though the rules state no contact that impedes the progress of a player who doesn't have the puck, it's not called that way 100%. I see people getting pinned agsainst the boards all the time who don't have the puck. It seems that grey area is only applied to the boards in and around the net though, if you try and tie someone up in open ice, you'll get called.

As far as puck races go, no contact should be initiated other than lifting the stick until someone has touched the puck. Then the war body position should begin.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

What will a no-touch icing actually bring to the table if it were brought into the nhl?

The only real argument I can think of is less injuries- but as people have already pointed out; icing's aren't an especially common thing in games (approx 5-7) and those where a race for the puck occurs are even rarer. Besides, as Eva has countlessly pointed out already, the only reason a player would get injured on an icing call is through an illegal act by the other player; one that would either result in interference or a check after the play ended- both penalties that should be enforced, but have somehow slipped below the radar even after the 'new nhl' era.

So others may say "well if they're so "rare", and the chances of the opposition beating out an icing call are even rarer, why do we even need the rule how it is? The chances are practically 0 of anything happening. Actually, the chances are higher than that, and as I pointed out earlier a good example of this is Datsyuk's intercepting of Nabokov's pass in the playoffs last year which resulted in a goal that would've never occurred had no touch icing been in place. Even though they aren't especially common, they do affect the game, and they can only affect the game if the other team hustles their ass off to earn 100% of it. Also, if you're going to play the 'its not common so lets get rid of it' card, why not get rid of penalty shots while we're at it? They only happen a couple times a year, and there's only a 40% chance of a player scoring on it anyway.

So to answer my original question of what will a no-touch icing actually bring to the table?

The only actual thing I concluded is less opportunities for an exciting play to occur against the odds of beating out an icing. Instead, we'll have a face-off 100% of the time, and infringing players not even trying to skate because they'd rather save their energy that they'll need after the commercial break because they can't change lines.

The data can be interpreted any way you like depending upon which side of the fence you are on.

Let's just call these things givens:

1. There are very few injuries resulting directly from icings

2. There are very few icings negated, which means very few of these "exciting" races people keep talking about.

3. Given the rarity of a negated icing the notion that there will be more stoppages really doesn't hold water.

So what you are left with is the opportunity cost of those very few possible negated icings that could result in a goal versus the possible injuries to players.

From my perspective all one need look at is the Foster injury. The severity to which his leg was damaged may impair the rest of his career. Is that a favorable trade off for the minute chance an icing might be negated and an even more remote chance that a goal would result from it?

Edited March 26, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I agree. No touch icing would cause a new strategy to be in play where the defenders can just try and force bad passes into the zone where icing is going to automatically be called. Then move the puck back and take another face off. It's going to suck and it's not in the spirit of hockey, which is constantly EARNING your puck position. You also pretty much garuntee that the goalie isn't going to go fetch the puck and just let it go over the imaginary line so the puck will be iced.

If we want to improve icing, they need to: Take away the free TV time out for home team icing and limit the contact for puck races.

To GS&T:

You can bring up that the NHLAPA wants no touch icing all you want. In fact, you have, over and over again. Repeating yourself doesn't help. I don't care if the players want it, I still don't like it and that isn't going to change my opinion or make you right.

At this point I'm convinced that you don't even care that much about the rule and would argue with a wall if you thought it would make you look smarter. Keep repeating the same crap over and over again, keep having Don Cherry feed you your opinions. I'm just going to put you on ignore and focus my replies on people who use logic and rational. Even if I don't agree, at least the other guys in this thread are more interested in talking about the topic rather than boosting your forum ego. I seriously envision your thought process going something like: ZOMG I WON AN INTRAWBEZ THREAD, ALL THE GIRLS WILL LIKE ME NOW.

Even if no touch is implemented why can't referees still use discretion as they do now in determining if it was a deliberate icing or if it was an intended pass? Going from touch to no touch doesn't mean referee discretion on calling it icing or waiving it off has to be changed. That can be left the same.

As for your other comments. Good grief. Grow up already and think of some better comebacks. If I could dumb myself down to your level your words might have some impact upon me. As it stands I can't possibly decrease my I.Q. enough to care what the next moronic thing out of your mouth happens to be.

Cheers!

PS: It's rationale dipstick.

Edited March 26, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[Echolalia 2,961]

From my perspective all one need look at is the Foster injury. The severity to which his leg was damaged may impair the rest of his career. Is that a favorable trade off for the minute chance an icing might be negated and an even more remote chance that a goal would result from it?

Players get injured along the boards all the time, whether from an icing or not. I'm not saying injuries are good, but its hockey, not tennis, and if you're that worried about the possibility of an injury, why not vouch to get rid of checking and fighting all together? They do a heck of a lot more than icing injuries.

Besides, there are rules in place to penalize anyone who checks on an icing, the thing is those rules aren't enforced very well, which is the only thing that should be looked at when discussing changing the icing rules.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Players get injured along the boards all the time, whether from an icing or not. I'm not saying injuries are good, but its hockey, not tennis, and if you're that worried about the possibility of an injury, why not vouch to get rid of checking and fighting all together? They do a heck of a lot more than icing injuries.

Besides, there are rules in place to penalize anyone who checks on an icing, the thing is those rules aren't enforced very well, which is the only thing that should be looked at when discussing changing the icing rules.

You're comparing apples to B47's.

There is a fundamental point here that seems to be escaping some folks. It isn't that we're just concerned about injuries.

THE POINT, is that injuries on icings don't have to happen. You have to check people to play hockey. You have to use a stick. You have to use a puck. Sometimes you have to fight. These things need to be a part of the game. Touch up icings don't need to be in the game, hence it is a unnecessary danger that should be eliminated.

I don't understand why its so difficult to grasp the fundamental difference between hitting needing to be in the game versus touch up icing not needing to be in the game. One is integral to the sport the other is not. By having touch up icing you are needlessly putting players in danger no matter how infrequent that may be.

[Deke 0]

PS: It's rationale dipstick.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development. [/i\

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationale%20

1. the fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something.

2. a statement of reasons.

3. a reasoned exposition of principles.

Rationale is used when talking about reasons and thoughts. Rational is used when talking about a behavoir. A person being rational has rationale, but it's grammatically incorrect to say someone are rationale. Someone is rational, or has rationale. One is an adjective and one is a noun. If you want to nitpick, I suggest you look it up first.

Why do you insist on picking apart people's posts that has nothing to do with the topic? Are you in politics? You sure do like to misdirect the attention away from the topic a lot.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Deke

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development. [/i\

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationale%20

1. the fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something.

2. a statement of reasons.

3. a reasoned exposition of principles.

Rationale is used when talking about reasons and thoughts. Rational is used when talking about a behavoir. A person being rational has rationale, but it's grammatically incorrect to say someone are rationale. Someone is rational, or has rationale. One is an adjective and one is a noun. If you want to nitpick, I suggest you look it up first.

Why do you insist on picking apart people's posts that has nothing to do with the topic? Are you in politics? You sure do like to misdirect the attention away from the topic a lot.

Ha! You're too funny. Way to edit your post and sticking that "are" in there. You know and I know your sentence was incorrect. And since it was aimed at bashing me I felt I should point it out to you. Like I said, if you want to bash me at least get your s*** together first.

Furthermore, I thought you had me on ignore sweet cheeks?

So not only are you incompetent and tried to cover up your tracks, you're also a liar.

According to you I have nothing to add, I am not rational, I have no rationale if you will and there are others here that do. So put your money where your mouth is you big baby. Put your tail between your legs and follow through with what you said you'd do. Put me on ignore already dorothy.

[Deke 0]

Ha! You're too funny. Way to edit your post and sticking that "are" in there. You know and I know your sentence was incorrect. And since it was aimed at bashing me I felt I should point it out to you. Like I said, if you want to bash me at least get your s*** together first.

Furthermore, I thought you had me on ignore sweet cheeks?

So not only are you incompetent and tried to cover up your tracks, you're also a liar.

According to you I have nothing to add, I am not rational, I have no rationale if you will and there are others here that do. So put your money where your mouth is you big baby. Put your tail between your legs and follow through with what you said you'd do. Put me on ignore already dorothy.

Wow, just wow, after showing you the definition of the words you resort to 3rd grade insults? I guess it matches the math level. Big baby? Are you being serious? Edit my post, ok there Cindy, I edited it to fix spelling. What is this, CSI-LETSGOWINGS?

I think your posts provide too much entertainment value to put you on ignore. I'm getting a huge kick out of this.

Go write about it in your blog, there Mr. internet tough guy. You want to get back on to talking about hockey or diagram sentences some more? Wow, what kind of hockey fan are you that you go to this much length to feel important on an internet forum?

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Wow, just wow, after showing you the definition of the words you resort to 3rd grade insults? I guess it matches the math level. Big baby? Are you being serious? Edit my post, ok there Cindy, I edited it to fix spelling. What is this, CSI-LETSGOWINGS?

I think your posts provide too much entertainment value to put you on ignore. I'm getting a huge kick out of this.

Go write about it in your blog, there Mr. internet tough guy. You want to get back on to talking about hockey or diagram sentences some more? Wow, what kind of hockey fan are you that you go to this much length to feel important on an internet forum?

No, so long as you are going to provide me links to a dictionary, I think I'll just continue to have fun owning you.

snap!

ps: if you want to get in the last jab feel free. But I suggest for our sake and the board's, that we cease and desist before one of the friendly neighborhood mods takes it into their own hands.

savvy?

Edited March 26, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[Echolalia 2,961]

You're comparing apples to B47's.

There is a fundamental point here that seems to be escaping some folks. It isn't that we're just concerned about injuries.

THE POINT, is that injuries on icings don't have to happen. You have to check people to play hockey. You have to use a stick. You have to use a puck. Sometimes you have to fight. These things need to be a part of the game. Touch up icings don't need to be in the game, hence it is a unnecessary danger that should be eliminated.

I don't understand why its so difficult to grasp the fundamental difference between hitting needing to be in the game versus touch up icing not needing to be in the game. One is integral to the sport the other is not. By having touch up icing you are needlessly putting players in danger no matter how infrequent that may be.

You're missing the point of my post. I referred to getting rid of checking and fighting all together because its such a ridiculous claim and should be a part of the game, as should icings ie sarcasm. If your only argument against icings is because once every 200 years someone gets injured, why don't you focus more on the neglected rules surrounding checking someone on an icing call. They aren't being enforced, and if anything should be made more severe. Then what little injuries that do occur will be punished more severely. No touch icing is for pee-wee hockey leagues, not the nhl where players get paid millions of dollars to play.

[Deke 0]

You're missing the point of my post. I referred to getting rid of checking and fighting all together because its such a ridiculous claim and should be a part of the game, as should icings ie sarcasm. If your only argument against icings is because once every 200 years someone gets injured, why don't you focus more on the neglected rules surrounding checking someone on an icing call. They aren't being enforced, and if anything should be made more severe. Then what little injuries that do occur will be punished more severely. No touch icing is for pee-wee hockey leagues, not the nhl where players get paid millions of dollars to play.

Exactly. If the refs just start calling illegal contact on puck races, the injuries will be decreased.

It's like hooking. After the lockout, the refs called everything that remotely resembled a hook. They did it so much, they called plays that weren't hooks. But hooking was majorly decreased now to a more acceptable level.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

You're missing the point of my post. I referred to getting rid of checking and fighting all together because its such a ridiculous claim and should be a part of the game, as should icings ie sarcasm. If your only argument against icings is because once every 200 years someone gets injured, why don't you focus more on the neglected rules surrounding checking someone on an icing call. They aren't being enforced, and if anything should be made more severe. Then what little injuries that do occur will be punished more severely. No touch icing is for pee-wee hockey leagues, not the nhl where players get paid millions of dollars to play.

You must not have seen the post where I said to just forget about the injuries.

To reiterate, let's just call these things a wash.

1. Injuries rarely happen on icings

2. Icings are rarerly negated

3. Goals are almost never the result of negated icings

i'll add another

4. Watch any game and tell me how many "exciting" races for the puck there are on icing calls. I will bet you more than 90% of icings the team that iced it makes zero attempt to get it or its not even close with the dman at least 15+ feet ahead of the forward attempting to ice it. In short, its a BS argument about the excitement factor. Most icings don't even have a race.

So all those things being washed out what are we left with?

We're left with weighing the costs of the potentially catastophic injuries to players against the one in a thousand chance a negated icing will end up in a goal.

Are you telling me that that's a fair trade off? That the specter of some jerk player putting Lidstrom into the wall and ending his career on a meaningless icing doesn't outweigh the opportunity that Datsyuk could outhustle an icing and generate 1 goal for us?

It's fine that we disagree. I just think the risks are not nearly worth the rewards.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Exactly. If the refs just start calling illegal contact on puck races, the injuries will be decreased.

It's like hooking. After the lockout, the refs called everything that remotely resembled a hook. They did it so much, they called plays that weren't hooks. But hooking was majorly decreased now to a more acceptable level.

What about the instances where guys just lose their balance or a stick gets into somebody's skate and they crash into the boards.

Still seems like there's alot of danger factor involved in such a meaningless play.

[eva unit zero 271]

You must not have seen the post where I said to just forget about the injuries.

To reiterate, let's just call these things a wash.

1. Injuries rarely happen on icings

2. Icings are rarerly negated

3. Goals are almost never the result of negated icings

i'll add another

4. Watch any game and tell me how many "exciting" races for the puck there are on icing calls. I will bet you more than 90% of icings the team that iced it makes zero attempt to get it or its not even close with the dman at least 15+ feet ahead of the forward attempting to ice it. In short, its a BS argument about the excitement factor. Most icings don't even have a race.

So all those things being washed out what are we left with?

We're left with weighing the costs of the potentially catastophic injuries to players against the one in a thousand chance a negated icing will end up in a goal.

Are you telling me that that's a fair trade off? That the specter of some jerk player putting Lidstrom into the wall and ending his career on a meaningless icing doesn't outweigh the opportunity that Datsyuk could outhustle an icing and generate 1 goal for us?

It's fine that we disagree. I just think the risks are not nearly worth the rewards.

Just to bring a little perspective...Mitchell's hit on Foster was a dangerous play that was well outside the rules. The fact that he wasn't suspended for what he did only underlines the point that the NHL is not enforcing its own rules and disciplining players who break them consistently. If the NHL called the contact the way the rule says, dangerous contact on icing plays would go away.

[eva unit zero 271]

What about the instances where guys just lose their balance or a stick gets into somebody's skate and they crash into the boards.

Still seems like there's alot of danger factor involved in such a meaningless play.

What about the times a player gets hit legally right as someone opens the door?

We should eliminate doors altogether to prevent that.

What about those skate injuries to the head and neck?

Better wear ice shoes instead.

What about the times a shot puck hits someone in the face or throat?

Full shields and neckguards for all!

What about players who suffer career impairing or ending injuries because they went down oddly from a legal hit?

Better outlaw contact altogether.

In fact, hockey is pretty dangerous. We shouldn't let anyone play it since there is so much danger involved. Robots only from now on. Well, robots and Igor Grigorenko.

[betterREDthandead 58]

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.

What natural game flow? Guys waste energy racing after a puck that 99 times out of 100, they're not going to get to. Then the game is stopped anyway. I don't buy that no-touch icing will reduce injuries, because it rarely happens.

But....I don't think any European leagues have the rule that the defensive team can't change after an icing. That should take care of any issues of teams icing the puck just to get a stoppage - what good is a stoppage if the other team can get fresh legs out there and you can't?

I want to see the no-touch icing specifically because I think it will improve the game flow and stop wasting seconds off the clock. Those seconds add up at the end and if the game is close, we get thirty extra seconds of desperation hockey instead of ten stupid wild-goose chases. As I said earlier, if we need the race to an iced puck to keep the game exciting, then hockey is finished and we may as well go watch tiddlywinks.

The NHL actually has icing down almost pat. Giving the refs discretion, and allowing no change for the offending team, these have been wildly successful, IMO. They should add no-touch to the list.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Just to bring a little perspective...Mitchell's hit on Foster was a dangerous play that was well outside the rules. The fact that he wasn't suspended for what he did only underlines the point that the NHL is not enforcing its own rules and disciplining players who break them consistently. If the NHL called the contact the way the rule says, dangerous contact on icing plays would go away.

Everyone knows i'm all for no touch.

But i'm not totally against any sort of compromise or adjustment.

If they want to use the imaginary line like they do in the USHL, i'm fine with that.

They should still allow refs to use discretion when deciding to call an icing or letting it go due to a missed pass or whatever, like they do now. Moving to no touch doesn't mean you have to lose that referee discretion.

Certainly i'd be for the league calling things by the rulebook.

However, when has anybody ever had faith that the league is going to call the game the way they are supposed to?

Anybody...............Beuhler????

Seriously, I'd just as soon bet I'd hit the megamillions than the league would get its officiating act together.

Meanwhile, players still run the risk of getting seriously injured and as happened in the Czech league I believe, a player even died on an icing play.

Do we really need somebody to die before we fix this?

[Deke 0]

What about the instances where guys just lose their balance or a stick gets into somebody's skate and they crash into the boards.

Still seems like there's alot of danger factor involved in such a meaningless play.

We'll just have to make losing your balance a penalty. As far as getting a stick in someone's skates, then that's probably a tripping call depending on the circumstances.

Seriously though, why does losing your balance have anything to do with it? If there was a no-touch rule, and 2 guys go racing in for the puck that the ref's waved off the icing, you still have the same exact danger. I don't agree with the hypothetical injury you are talking about because the same injury can happen on a race where the icing was waved off.

Pretty soon the refs are going to be out there with radar guns clocking Gaborik and giving him a speeding ticket for skating too fast because he might have lost his balance and hurt himself.

Can we agree that all of the injuries that can happen on a touch up race can happen on a waved off race? Because it's the same race, only one can end up in a whistle if the back checker arrives first. Compared to the other way which there is no whistle despite the outcome of the race. You're calling it a meaningless play. If the fore checker gets there first, it is not a meaningless play. It went from a meaningless play to a potential play. But with no touch icing, all of those will be meaningless because there is a point of no return where the icing is automatic. A point of no return means the fore checker has to give up. Giving up is not in my hockey lexicon.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

What about the times a player gets hit legally right as someone opens the door?

We should eliminate doors altogether to prevent that.

What about those skate injuries to the head and neck?

Better wear ice shoes instead.

What about the times a shot puck hits someone in the face or throat?

Full shields and neckguards for all!

What about players who suffer career impairing or ending injuries because they went down oddly from a legal hit?

Better outlaw contact altogether.

In fact, hockey is pretty dangerous. We shouldn't let anyone play it since there is so much danger involved. Robots only from now on. Well, robots and Igor Grigorenko.

How many times is someone going to use this slippery slope argument???

As Gordie and others have said (including me, I think). It's about evaluating the risk versus the potential reward or "excitement" of the current icing rules.

Honestly, I never realized how many people actually found that an exciting play. It rarely turns into anything interesting.

And those times it has the most potential for excitement are also the most dangerous. Two guys racing neck and neck at top speed towards the end boards, jockeying for positions with their sticks out to touch the puck.

Honestly I'm not sure it's time for no-touch icing. There may be other solutions. But I'm tired of the "hockey is dangerous" reasoning. Because it can work the other way too.

why not eliminate helmets? cups? then we'll see who really wants to block that shot. allow all high sticks. Why should you not be able to play the puck just because it's over your head? hockey is a rough sport. If someone gets skewered in the face with a stick, they should've had their head up.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

What about the instances where guys just lose their balance or a stick gets into somebody's skate and they crash into the boards.

Still seems like there's alot of danger factor involved in such a meaningless play.

That's really the heart of the issue.

And as brtd pointed out, all the talk of excitement touch up icing brings overlooks all the times we get to watch a defenseman mosey back to his end of the rink to get the puck without another player within 60 ft.

I think the biggest proponents of keeping current icing are linesman. They always seem so excited when they grab the puck and race down the ice to the faceoff circle. It's their one moment in the spotlight.

Edited for clarity, hopefully.

Edited March 26, 2008 by haroldsnepsts

[toby91_ca 620]

I think the biggest proponents of keeping current icing are linesman. They always seem so excited when they grab the puck and race down the ice to the faceoff circle. It's their one moment in the spotlight.

Actually, it shouldn't matter to them as they will still be doing the same thing except they won't have to wait for the defenseman to touch the puck first. Unless you are suggesting they are thinking the number of icings will be decreased, which is a dintinct possibility.