No-touch icing.

[Deke 0]

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.

New icing rule: The forechecker has to beat the ref to the puck. The defense has to pass the puck to the ref before icing is done. Talk about excitement.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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.

good point!

I didn't think it through, actually they'd be even more in the spotlight!

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

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.)

I just think that some people here are overhyping the excitement that comes with icings.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

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.

Eva, I never expected these ludicrous comparisons from you. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

I love the ridiculousness of your comparisons. Like you can't fathom that ice skates are integral to playing ice hockey. The game of ice hockey cannot be played without ice skates (you know what i'm saying). The game of ice hockey has proven that it can be played just fine without touch icing.

What's wrong with some of the minor leagues and college hockey? Are they not playing "hockey"?

Have they gotten rid of the doors and sticks and skates altogether?

Nope, they've just gotten rid of touch icing and yet, lo and behold they still manage to play the game of ice hockey.

Seriously eva, the lunacy of your post has brought you to an all new low.

Edited March 26, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

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.

Simple mathematics says that if you limit the number of races (if we want to call it that since there's like one race for every 10 icings) you lessen the chance of injuries.

Am I speaking Chinese here?

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

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.

HA!HA!

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

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.

Oh brother. You're not going to give a Maximus or William Wallace type speech now are you?

[eva unit zero 271]

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.

Eva, I never expected these ludicrous comparisons from you. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

I love the ridiculousness of your comparisons. Like you can't fathom that ice skates are integral to playing ice hockey. The game of ice hockey cannot be played without ice skates (you know what i'm saying). The game of ice hockey has proven that it can be played just fine without touch icing.

What's wrong with some of the minor leagues and college hockey? Are they not playing "hockey"?

Have they gotten rid of the doors and sticks and skates altogether?

Nope, they've just gotten rid of touch icing and yet, lo and behold they still manage to play the game of ice hockey.

Seriously eva, the lunacy of your post has brought you to an all new low.

Normally I would agree. Except I made those comparisons for one not-so-simple reason.

They are no more ludicrous than the idea that injuries sustained on icing plays are somehow a result of the fact that it is touch icing and that the hits causing the injuries are perfectly legal plays and not vicious boarding infractions or other forms of illegal contact. The no-touch crowd is acting like it's some obvious change that needs to happen to combat a rash of injuries that is depleting rosters and maiming countless players, when the reality is that illegal and dangerous hits sometimes occur on ALL types of plays, including icing. Think about it. What is different between Torrey Mitchell's hit on Kurtis Foster and Randy Jones' hit on Patrice Bergeron? Very little. Only one of those plays 'goes away' if you implement no-touch icing. And who's to say that the Sharks player doesn't take the extra stride before he lets the puck go, and we end up with the same play because it was at that point just a dump-in? It's foolish to suggest that icing is the only situation, or even the most common situation, where you have two players racing for the puck.

That's why I came out with those ludicrous situations. Because they are just as realistic as the notion that switching to touch icing will have any sort of significant effect in reducing injuries.

And as far as full shields/cages and neckguards go...I would not be opposed to that change actually being implemented. I have the feeling I am one of the few and far between in that opinion, but hey. Whatcha gonna do.

[eva unit zero 271]

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.

Personally, I am not in this debate because of the 'excitement' factor. I don't think there is realistically much 'excitement' to be gleaned from occasional 100 foot sprints because not much comes from most of them. My issue with switching to no-touch icing has to do with the icings that are negated because of the goaltender. It's also why I am against the trapezoid. The majority of icing calls that get negated are negated because the goaltender plays the puck. This keeps the play going and often creates transition offense. I am in favor of calling penalties as they are written on icing plays (any contact=penalty call) and removing the trapezoid. But maybe those are my positions because I prefer continuous play.

[ch777 0]

If the NHL would go to no touch icing. They should change the icing line from the center line to your own blue line. Icing is to prevent teams from clearing it from there own zone and i've noticed alot of icings are in the neutral zone. If your dumping it from the neutral zone you shouldn't be called for it. Also changing the icing line from the center to your own blue line could eliminate the trap.

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

I don't understand why some people are against implementing a small change that would reduce the chances of injuries. It is not like this is going to be a dramatic change that is going to alter the game. Someone should put a video together of icing situations so that we can have visual evidence to back up this debate.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Eva, I never expected these ludicrous comparisons from you. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

I love the ridiculousness of your comparisons. Like you can't fathom that ice skates are integral to playing ice hockey. The game of ice hockey cannot be played without ice skates (you know what i'm saying). The game of ice hockey has proven that it can be played just fine without touch icing.

What's wrong with some of the minor leagues and college hockey? Are they not playing "hockey"?

Have they gotten rid of the doors and sticks and skates altogether?

Nope, they've just gotten rid of touch icing and yet, lo and behold they still manage to play the game of ice hockey.

Seriously eva, the lunacy of your post has brought you to an all new low.

Normally I would agree. Except I made those comparisons for one not-so-simple reason.

They are no more ludicrous than the idea that injuries sustained on icing plays are somehow a result of the fact that it is touch icing and that the hits causing the injuries are perfectly legal plays and not vicious boarding infractions or other forms of illegal contact. The no-touch crowd is acting like it's some obvious change that needs to happen to combat a rash of injuries that is depleting rosters and maiming countless players, when the reality is that illegal and dangerous hits sometimes occur on ALL types of plays, including icing. Think about it. What is different between Torrey Mitchell's hit on Kurtis Foster and Randy Jones' hit on Patrice Bergeron? Very little. Only one of those plays 'goes away' if you implement no-touch icing. And who's to say that the Sharks player doesn't take the extra stride before he lets the puck go, and we end up with the same play because it was at that point just a dump-in? It's foolish to suggest that icing is the only situation, or even the most common situation, where you have two players racing for the puck.

That's why I came out with those ludicrous situations. Because they are just as realistic as the notion that switching to touch icing will have any sort of significant effect in reducing injuries.

And as far as full shields/cages and neckguards go...I would not be opposed to that change actually being implemented. I have the feeling I am one of the few and far between in that opinion, but hey. Whatcha gonna do.

So we can either hold our collective breathe that the league is going to start calling these infractions.........because the league has such a fine track record on officiating or we can just catch up to Europe, collegiate and other minor hockey leagues.

I agree with you that there isn't a rash of injuries resulting from icings. However, its just my opinion that even one injury is one too many given the relatively insignificant pros you get from touch icing.

Frankly, the best idea I have heard thus far is what they do in the USHL.

People need to think outside the box and realize what they are doing is not rocket science.

Having an imaginary line between the face off dots does a number of things.

1. It makes players still have to skate a certain length of the ice but it keeps them from having to potentially crash into the boards.

2. It is not automatically icing which gives incentive for the team icing the puck to try and negate it

3. The face off dots are what, 30 feet from the end boards? There is plenty of time for the referee to whistle the play dead or say no icing.

The bottom line is that not much will change as logic would dictate that if the defensman gets to the puck 99 times out of 100 down by the boards, he should get to that imaginary line 99 times out of 100.

So what you accomplish is sort of a best of both worlds. You keep the guys away from the dangerous plays but you still don't have automatic icing which leaves room for those who still like the races. And you save "x" number of seconds per game by not having players go that last 30 feet to retrieve the puck. Those could be valuable seconds later on. Not too mention less fatigue on the skaters and less boredom as we watch some dman coast back to the puck 10 times a night for a touch up.

Of course people are going to complain that leaving it up to the refs is just asking for trouble. Maybe. But linesman are pretty good at judging offsides. I don't see how it would be too difficult for them to judge who crossed the imaginary line first.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I don't understand why some people are against implementing a small change that would reduce the chances of injuries. It is not like this is going to be a dramatic change that is going to alter the game. Someone should put a video together of icing situations so that we can have visual evidence to back up this debate.

I agree. All of the crazy comments being thrown out like we should use soft pucks or guys shouldn't use sharp skates or sticks or we should ban all hitting. It's absurd.

It's like these people think eliminating touch icing will cause some rift in the galaxy that will open up and swallow us all up and destroy all life as we know it.

I guess these folks have never seen any games in parts of Europe. They most certainly have never seen a collegiate game right? I guess none of the pro touch crowd watches Michigan vs Michigan State games because that just can't be hockey. They have no touch icing for God's sake! It might as well be tennis they're playing.

[eva unit zero 271]

So we can either hold our collective breathe that the league is going to start calling these infractions.........because the league has such a fine track record on officiating or we can just catch up to Europe, collegiate and other minor hockey leagues.

I agree with you that there isn't a rash of injuries resulting from icings. However, its just my opinion that even one injury is one too many given the relatively insignificant pros you get from touch icing.

Frankly, the best idea I have heard thus far is what they do in the USHL.

People need to think outside the box and realize what they are doing is not rocket science.

Having an imaginary line between the face off dots does a number of things.

1. It makes players still have to skate a certain length of the ice but it keeps them from having to potentially crash into the boards.

2. It is not automatically icing which gives incentive for the team icing the puck to try and negate it

3. The face off dots are what, 30 feet from the end boards? There is plenty of time for the referee to whistle the play dead or say no icing.

The bottom line is that not much will change as logic would dictate that if the defensman gets to the puck 99 times out of 100 down by the boards, he should get to that imaginary line 99 times out of 100.

So what you accomplish is sort of a best of both worlds. You keep the guys away from the dangerous plays but you still don't have automatic icing which leaves room for those who still like the races. And you save "x" number of seconds per game by not having players go that last 30 feet to retrieve the puck. Those could be valuable seconds later on. Not too mention less fatigue on the skaters and less boredom as we watch some dman coast back to the puck 10 times a night for a touch up.

Of course people are going to complain that leaving it up to the refs is just asking for trouble. Maybe. But linesman are pretty good at judging offsides. I don't see how it would be too difficult for them to judge who crossed the imaginary line first.

I would not necessarily be opposed to the 'imaginary line' rule. But when I say I am opposed to no-touch icing, I am referring to the rule used in most youth leagues and the NCAA. While I can't speak for how the hybrid affects the flow of the game, straight no touch ABSOLUTELY harms the flow of the game, which is my main concern on this topic.

[IceMunkee 15]

i know I will get killed for this but I agree with changing the rule. I think it is a stupid way to lose your career. Almost everytime the defenseman gets to the puck. I just feel like it would change so little to the game but so much for the injury prevention. I do not think it makes the league less manly or more peewee, that is silly. I think other rules should get changed to. I think since the instigator rule there has been more dirty hits and more injury so I am not looking to pussify the sport. I love hitting, fighting and all around face paced games but I would hate to lose Nick Lidstrom, or any of our defenseman because they were trying to get the icing call. Control your puck in your zone and now worries. I am also intersted in not changing it if only they would call the current rule more often. Stop calling the stupid ass hooking calls because someone was grazed with a stick and make the calls that prevent the injuries. That is just me....

[imisssergei 0]

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.

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

So we can either hold our collective breathe that the league is going to start calling these infractions.........because the league has such a fine track record on officiating or we can just catch up to Europe, collegiate and other minor hockey leagues.

I agree with you that there isn't a rash of injuries resulting from icings. However, its just my opinion that even one injury is one too many given the relatively insignificant pros you get from touch icing.

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

You contradict yourself here GST. On one hand you agree with Toby that things such as visors, and fighting are just part of the game, and on the other you say that touch icing needs to be removed based on nothing more than one injury.

So Stevie getting hit in the eye with a puck, or Berard getting sticked in the eye isn't enough for you to say visors might be a good idea? They wouldn't effect the game nearly as much as eliminating touch icing. And if it is in fact all about players safety, then they should be protected from all potentially dangerous reoccurring situations.

I won't go as far out as to say hitting should be eliminated, we all know that is part of the game. However, to use the argument that one injury is enough to call for a rule change is just absurd. Especially when there are many more occasions where a player is in more severe danger than when absorbing a hit. Berard is the ideal example. It was a freak accident, no doubt. But the frequency with which players are hit in the face with sticks and pucks is much higher than that of players who are hit while racing to touch the puck on an icing call.

My biggest problem with changing this rule is that there are other things that could, and possibly should be looked at before this. Despite my personal opinion, goaltenders equipment is something that should be addressed. Getting a penalty for shooting the puck over the glass in your defensive zone, goaltenders playing the puck, why penalties aren't called during the playoffs, ect. To me, this icing thing is really a non-issue. Especially when you consider how infrequently injuries happen.

Perhaps what needs to be addressed is the icing rule itself, say making it more liberal like gaining your own blue line instead of the red line.

[betterREDthandead 58]

I would not necessarily be opposed to the 'imaginary line' rule. But when I say I am opposed to no-touch icing, I am referring to the rule used in most youth leagues and the NCAA. While I can't speak for how the hybrid affects the flow of the game, straight no touch ABSOLUTELY harms the flow of the game, which is my main concern on this topic.

It does not. What part of the game is flowing when a defenseman takes his obligatory lazy skate back to touch the puck just to get the icing call? That accounts for most potential icings.

[vangvace 12]

It does not. What part of the game is flowing when a defenseman takes his obligatory lazy skate back to touch the puck just to get the icing call? That accounts for most potential icings.

fans running to the bathroom!

[eva unit zero 271]

It does not. What part of the game is flowing when a defenseman takes his obligatory lazy skate back to touch the puck just to get the icing call? That accounts for most potential icings.

Which has better flow?

A game where 10 of 30 of all potential icings are negated, be it through the attacking player reaching first or the goalie leaving the crease...

OR

A game where 0 of 30 potential icings are negated, because the whistle was blown automatically?

That is the argument. I'm not saying touch icing leads to better flow on every play, simply for the overall game.

And as I said, I would be open to a sort of hybrid rule as has been suggested, provided the flow of the game is not harmed or is harmed minimally.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Which has better flow?

A game where 10 of 30 of all potential icings are negated, be it through the attacking player reaching first or the goalie leaving the crease...

OR

A game where 0 of 30 potential icings are negated, because the whistle was blown automatically?

That is the argument. I'm not saying touch icing leads to better flow on every play, simply for the overall game.

And as I said, I would be open to a sort of hybrid rule as has been suggested, provided the flow of the game is not harmed or is harmed minimally.

I'll take the 0 of 30. See, as I've mentioned, it takes 2-3 extra seconds off the clock when the defenseman strolls down the ice to chase the puck just for a ceremonial touch-up. That might not seem like much but it adds up at the end of the game. If you have 20 such icings in a game (as in your 10 of 30 scenario) you then get 40-60 extra seconds at the end. If you have a close game, a tied one or a one-goal lead, that can make all the difference.

I'd much rather see the whistle blown straight away, and get to the faceoff straight away.

[sinbin 3]

I say leave it alone,......but, penalize the players for bad judgement. Remember, this is a job, I think OSHA rules should apply here as well. The game has gotten more aggresive over the years. Yes I know we are big boys & we can take of ourselves, but, we are still human. I played hockey and accepted the environment, but people who are out there to mame others to benefit the outcome is not acceptable! This is a game! The league is allowing too much goonery! Fix it! Fix it now, before someone pays the price!

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Which has better flow?

A game where 10 of 30 of all potential icings are negated, be it through the attacking player reaching first or the goalie leaving the crease...

OR

A game where 0 of 30 potential icings are negated, because the whistle was blown automatically?

That is the argument. I'm not saying touch icing leads to better flow on every play, simply for the overall game.

And as I said, I would be open to a sort of hybrid rule as has been suggested, provided the flow of the game is not harmed or is harmed minimally.

Eva, your numbers are way, way off.

10 of 30? You're saying 33% of icings are negated by the forward beating the D or the goalie coming out?

That is way, way off base. 3% probably would be more accurate and even that may be high.

I'll give you 1 out of 30 or even 2 out of 30 and then your entire argument doesn't hold water anymore.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

You contradict yourself here GST. On one hand you agree with Toby that things such as visors, and fighting are just part of the game, and on the other you say that touch icing needs to be removed based on nothing more than one injury.

So Stevie getting hit in the eye with a puck, or Berard getting sticked in the eye isn't enough for you to say visors might be a good idea? They wouldn't effect the game nearly as much as eliminating touch icing. And if it is in fact all about players safety, then they should be protected from all potentially dangerous reoccurring situations.

I won't go as far out as to say hitting should be eliminated, we all know that is part of the game. However, to use the argument that one injury is enough to call for a rule change is just absurd. Especially when there are many more occasions where a player is in more severe danger than when absorbing a hit. Berard is the ideal example. It was a freak accident, no doubt. But the frequency with which players are hit in the face with sticks and pucks is much higher than that of players who are hit while racing to touch the puck on an icing call.

My biggest problem with changing this rule is that there are other things that could, and possibly should be looked at before this. Despite my personal opinion, goaltenders equipment is something that should be addressed. Getting a penalty for shooting the puck over the glass in your defensive zone, goaltenders playing the puck, why penalties aren't called during the playoffs, ect. To me, this icing thing is really a non-issue. Especially when you consider how infrequently injuries happen.

Perhaps what needs to be addressed is the icing rule itself, say making it more liberal like gaining your own blue line instead of the red line.

I don't think i'm contradicting myself at all. The issue isn't about face shields being mandatory. If we want to talk about that we can. But we're not talking about it. Nor are we talking about blows to the head. We're ONLY talking about touch icing vs no touch icing.

If you didn't get a chance to read all 9 pages of the thread you probably didn't see where I repeatedly have said that there are not many injuries attributed to icing.

However, let's all just be honest with ourselves and admit that there are very few races for pucks, not many goals scored from negated icings, hell there aren't many negated icings period and hardly any injuries.

All those things being equal what is the point of touch icing.

If you agree there aren't many injuries and that the defensive team ices the puck over 90+% of the time and rarely is there ever a goal scored on a negated icing what you're left with is the decision to unneccessarily risk players getting hurt for very minimal reward.

Other leagues have proven you don't need touch icing for the game to still be played. This is a fact. The game continues to be played and is still the game of hockey we all love even with no touch icing.

And for those that say it kills the flow. That is purely speculation not based upon any statistical data.

You can watch any sampling of NHL games and you will see well over 90% of icings are not negated, which leaves you with the end result being a whistle.

Are people trying to pawn off the BS notion that 1 negated icing every 3 or 4 games is killing the flow of the game?

You are talking about potentially 1 or 2 extra whistles based upon historical, statistical data.

Bulls*** that it kills the flow. Your end result is whistles. But in no touch you have 100 whistles. With touch you have 98 whistles. Whoop de doo.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I just think that some people here are overhyping the excitement that comes with icings.

That's fair enough, and I would agree with you. Personally, I like the hybrid theory the USHL uses.

[eva unit zero 271]

Eva, your numbers are way, way off.

10 of 30? You're saying 33% of icings are negated by the forward beating the D or the goalie coming out?

That is way, way off base. 3% probably would be more accurate and even that may be high.

I'll give you 1 out of 30 or even 2 out of 30 and then your entire argument doesn't hold water anymore.

That's based on the numbers posted earlier where there were 20 icings where either the attacking player touched or the defending player touched, not including the goaltender coming out, in two games played. You're saying you don't see the goalie come out for an iced puck a few times per game?