No-touch icing.

[imisssergei 0]

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.

You are contradictng yourself. You are saying that in one situation, one injury is enough to warrant a rule change. While in another situation, numerous more career threatening injuries aren't enough. Regardless of the topic, that is a contradictory stance.

The fact that you have repeatidly said there are very few injuries attriuted to icings (btw, I have read every post in this thread) just further adds to the level on contradiction in your stance.

The only real argument you have for changing the rule is injuries, yet you admit there are very few. Furthermore, you ignore that same argument for making visors mandatory, which would prevent much more injuries than changing the icing rule would even have the chance to impact.

You want to use other leagues as an examples? Every leagues requires players under 18 to wear full facial protection, as does the CCHA. Every Jr. league I've seen play requires a full cage or visor. Many minor leagues also require a visor. The game marches on.

As you always say, you can manipulate the data to show whatever it is you want.

Lastly, please explain the bolded statement. It's impossible for the team on offense to ice the puck. Ever icing is attributed to a team on the defensive side of the red line.

[toby91_ca 620]

You are contradictng yourself. You are saying that in one situation, one injury is enough to warrant a rule change. While in another situation, numerous more career threatening injuries aren't enough. Regardless of the topic, that is a contradictory stance.

The fact that you have repeatidly said there are very few injuries attriuted to icings (btw, I have read every post in this thread) just further adds to the level on contradiction in your stance.

The only real argument you have for changing the rule is injuries, yet you admit there are very few. Furthermore, you ignore that same argument for making visors mandatory, which would prevent much more injuries than changing the icing rule would even have the chance to impact.

You want to use other leagues as an examples? Every leagues requires players under 18 to wear full facial protection, as does the CCHA. Every Jr. league I've seen play requires a full cage or visor. Many minor leagues also require a visor. The game marches on.

As you always say, you can manipulate the data to show whatever it is you want.

Lastly, please explain the bolded statement. It's impossible for the team on offense to ice the puck. Ever icing is attributed to a team on the defensive side of the red line.

I think you and many other people are really missing the big picture. You seem to think the big argument for changing is due to the risk of injury and point to so many other things that create injuries. I think the media has tended to go overboard on the injury risk thing, because it probably is a fact that injuries resulting from touch icing are very rare. But this really shouldn't be the big picture here.

To be honest, I really couldn't care less if they changed the rule, because I don't see it making a real impact one way or another, but if I were to vote, I would vote to change the rule and here is why:

- ingorning the injury argument for a moment, if you change to no-touch icing, what is really going to change? 95 times out of 100, or more, the same play will result in the same thing....a whistle, except, theorectically, the play can get moving quicker because you don't have to wait for someone to go touch the puck. Theoretically, the number of icings may reduce because players may be less likely to throw the puck the length of the ice if they know there is no chance of avoiding a whistle and being stuck out there. The other 5 times out of a 100 that the icing is negated because the offensive player gets there first and does absolutely nothing other than turn the puck over seconds later (most cases) would be eliminated.....so what? The argument that there are far more negated icings by goalies coming out to touch the puck does not hold water with me. In those situations, it is clear that the offensive player is so far ahead, the icing would be waived off anyway, the rule change would have zero impact on this play.

- so, taking that into consideration, why not change the rule even if it could prevent 1 serious injury every 10 years? Yes, it is rare, but when it doesn't have to happen, why not avoid it.

All the discussions around more injuries being incurred in other scenarios are pointless because you would have to look at what you would be losing should you try to eliminate those situations. With this one, you are eliminating basically nothing from the game, in fact, you may be improving the flow. In other situations where injuries occur, to eliminate the risk, you would have to change the game significantly.....completely different discussion. However, let's be clear, there are several discussions about changing certain rules to avoid injury in other areas as well, including visors, etc.

[eva unit zero 271]

I think you and many other people are really missing the big picture. You seem to think the big argument for changing is due to the risk of injury and point to so many other things that create injuries. I think the media has tended to go overboard on the injury risk thing, because it probably is a fact that injuries resulting from touch icing are very rare. But this really shouldn't be the big picture here.

To be honest, I really couldn't care less if they changed the rule, because I don't see it making a real impact one way or another, but if I were to vote, I would vote to change the rule and here is why:

- ingorning the injury argument for a moment, if you change to no-touch icing, what is really going to change? 95 times out of 100, or more, the same play will result in the same thing....a whistle, except, theorectically, the play can get moving quicker because you don't have to wait for someone to go touch the puck. Theoretically, the number of icings may reduce because players may be less likely to throw the puck the length of the ice if they know there is no chance of avoiding a whistle and being stuck out there. The other 5 times out of a 100 that the icing is negated because the offensive player gets there first and does absolutely nothing other than turn the puck over seconds later (most cases) would be eliminated.....so what? The argument that there are far more negated icings by goalies coming out to touch the puck does not hold water with me. In those situations, it is clear that the offensive player is so far ahead, the icing would be waived off anyway, the rule change would have zero impact on this play.

- so, taking that into consideration, why not change the rule even if it could prevent 1 serious injury every 10 years? Yes, it is rare, but when it doesn't have to happen, why not avoid it.

All the discussions around more injuries being incurred in other scenarios are pointless because you would have to look at what you would be losing should you try to eliminate those situations. With this one, you are eliminating basically nothing from the game, in fact, you may be improving the flow. In other situations where injuries occur, to eliminate the risk, you would have to change the game significantly.....completely different discussion. However, let's be clear, there are several discussions about changing certain rules to avoid injury in other areas as well, including visors, etc.

The goaltender argument is mine, and I have repeatedly stated that my only opposition to no-touch is if it is th etype of no-touch used in the CCHA where it is the same rule, except the whistle is blown once the puck crosses the goal line. The hybrid rule that has been suggested would be a palatable alternative, as that obviously would not harm the flow of the game. But if you watch a CCHA game...there are many occurences of icing that would have been negated if they used the NHL rule, either through the attacking player touching up or the goaltender coming out to play the puck. Just blowing the whistle on those plays? This harms the flow of the game.

[imisssergei 0]

I think you and many other people are really missing the big picture. You seem to think the big argument for changing is due to the risk of injury and point to so many other things that create injuries. I think the media has tended to go overboard on the injury risk thing, because it probably is a fact that injuries resulting from touch icing are very rare. But this really shouldn't be the big picture here.

To be honest, I really couldn't care less if they changed the rule, because I don't see it making a real impact one way or another, but if I were to vote, I would vote to change the rule and here is why:

- ingorning the injury argument for a moment, if you change to no-touch icing, what is really going to change? 95 times out of 100, or more, the same play will result in the same thing....a whistle, except, theorectically, the play can get moving quicker because you don't have to wait for someone to go touch the puck. Theoretically, the number of icings may reduce because players may be less likely to throw the puck the length of the ice if they know there is no chance of avoiding a whistle and being stuck out there. The other 5 times out of a 100 that the icing is negated because the offensive player gets there first and does absolutely nothing other than turn the puck over seconds later (most cases) would be eliminated.....so what? The argument that there are far more negated icings by goalies coming out to touch the puck does not hold water with me. In those situations, it is clear that the offensive player is so far ahead, the icing would be waived off anyway, the rule change would have zero impact on this play.

- so, taking that into consideration, why not change the rule even if it could prevent 1 serious injury every 10 years? Yes, it is rare, but when it doesn't have to happen, why not avoid it.

All the discussions around more injuries being incurred in other scenarios are pointless because you would have to look at what you would be losing should you try to eliminate those situations. With this one, you are eliminating basically nothing from the game, in fact, you may be improving the flow. In other situations where injuries occur, to eliminate the risk, you would have to change the game significantly.....completely different discussion. However, let's be clear, there are several discussions about changing certain rules to avoid injury in other areas as well, including visors, etc.

I'm not missing the big picture, I'm just seeing a serious flaw in arguments.

It makes no sense to say that by changing one rule you can prevent 10 injuries a year, so it should be done. Then to turn around and say, by changing this rule we could prevent 1000 injuries a year, but changing this rule isn't a good idea.

What's good for the goose...

[toby91_ca 620]

The goaltender argument is mine, and I have repeatedly stated that my only opposition to no-touch is if it is th etype of no-touch used in the CCHA where it is the same rule, except the whistle is blown once the puck crosses the goal line. The hybrid rule that has been suggested would be a palatable alternative, as that obviously would not harm the flow of the game. But if you watch a CCHA game...there are many occurences of icing that would have been negated if they used the NHL rule, either through the attacking player touching up or the goaltender coming out to play the puck. Just blowing the whistle on those plays? This harms the flow of the game.

In the NHL, when it is obvious that an attacking player would get to the puck first, the icing would be waived off or the linseman's arm never would have gone up in the first place. This is why I am suggesting the rule change would have no impact on that scenario.

[toby91_ca 620]

I'm not missing the big picture, I'm just seeing a serious flaw in arguments.

It makes no sense to say that by changing one rule you can prevent 10 injuries a year, so it should be done. Then to turn around and say, by changing this rule we could prevent 1000 injuries a year, but changing this rule isn't a good idea.

What's good for the goose...

I understand what you are saying, but you need to consider this:

- a change that would save 1000 injuries a year would result in basically changing the game to a different game all together

- a change (icing) that would save 10 injuries a year (actually less) would result in absolutely no change to the game really, actually, it could improve flow.

[imisssergei 0]

I understand what you are saying, but you need to consider this:

- a change that would save 1000 injuries a year would result in basically changing the game to a different game all together

- a change (icing) that would save 10 injuries a year (actually less) would result in absolutely no change to the game really, actually, it could improve flow.

Making visors mandatory would not change the game. In fact, for many players, the NHL is the first league they play in where they aren't required to wear a visor.

Regardless of opinion, it is fact that until a player is 18+, he doesn't even have the option of wearing anything but full facial protection. So it isn't like the players aren't sued to playing with something.

Personally, I don't think visors should be mandatory, it's a players choice. However, to argue that icing should be changed because i might prevent 10 injuries a year, but not change something like the visor rule which would prevent 100 fold more injuries is simply ridiculous.

[eva unit zero 271]

In the NHL, when it is obvious that an attacking player would get to the puck first, the icing would be waived off or the linseman's arm never would have gone up in the first place. This is why I am suggesting the rule change would have no impact on that scenario.

It depends on what the rule change is. As I have stated my argument is against the kind of no-touch used in some amateur and minor leagues where there is an automatic whistle even if the attacking player is obviously goign to get there first.

If the rule requires the defensive player to be ahead, such as the 'imaginary line' rule, then I have no problem because it takes out the parts of the rule change that harm the flow of the game. Why have I had to say this so many times?

[toby91_ca 620]

Making visors mandatory would not change the game. In fact, for many players, the NHL is the first league they play in where they aren't required to wear a visor.

Regardless of opinion, it is fact that until a player is 18+, he doesn't even have the option of wearing anything but full facial protection. So it isn't like the players aren't sued to playing with something.

Personally, I don't think visors should be mandatory, it's a players choice. However, to argue that icing should be changed because i might prevent 10 injuries a year, but not change something like the visor rule which would prevent 100 fold more injuries is simply ridiculous.

Visors will likely become mandatory. I think this is different though. You are dealing with adults, who should be able to make the choice vs. players under 18 who shouldn't have the choice. Either way, this is probalby being discussed more than changing the icing rule, so I'm not sure why you are making the comparison.

[imisssergei 0]

Visors will likely become mandatory. I think this is different though. You are dealing with adults, who should be able to make the choice vs. players under 18 who shouldn't have the choice. Either way, this is probalby being discussed more than changing the icing rule, so I'm not sure why you are making the comparison.

Someone else made the comparison, but both you and GST had the same viewpoint on it.

All I am doing is making a comparison between two very similar situations. You and GST seem to think that mandating visors would somehow drastcially change the game. It won't. As I said before, every player starts off wearing full facial protection, and many players don't have the option to not wear a visor until they reach the NHL. It's a fact that more injuries occur from stick and pucks to the face. This is an injury risk that can be greatly reduced by wearing a visor.

Now on one hand you both are arguing that the touch icing rule needs to be changed because of the injury factor. You have already agreed that far less injuries occur from the touch icing than from sticks and pucks to the face.

So there is a severe flaw in your logic. You can't argue to change one rule based on a slim chance of injuries, when there are other rules that allow the players to be exposed to far more injures.

You see what I'm saying?

BTW, I'm very interested to hear how, and why you think visors being mandated will change the game so dramatically.

EDIT: We aren't talking about players being 18+ or not when speaking about visors. I'm merely pointing out that every player that comes into the NHL has played his entire career with facial protection. In some cases, the player has had the option of playing without a visor, but in most cases, this isn't the case, regardless of age.

Edited March 27, 2008 by imisssergei

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I'm not missing the big picture, I'm just seeing a serious flaw in arguments.

It makes no sense to say that by changing one rule you can prevent 10 injuries a year, so it should be done. Then to turn around and say, by changing this rule we could prevent 1000 injuries a year, but changing this rule isn't a good idea.

What's good for the goose...

Why not solve world hunger or find a cure for AIDS while we're at it?

Nobody is arguing that visors wouldn't probably help more guys avoid getting facial injuries.

Too ******* bad that's not the topic. The topic is icing. And as Toby and I have pointed out a bazillion times, nothing is really going to change if we go from touch to no touch except you're reducing the likelihood that that type of play will result in injuries.

What's so hard to grasp here?

Try to stay on the topic of touch icing vs no touch icing instead of trying to make it no touch icing versus face shields or whatever.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Someone else made the comparison, but both you and GST had the same viewpoint on it.

All I am doing is making a comparison between two very similar situations. You and GST seem to think that mandating visors would somehow drastcially change the game. It won't. As I said before, every player starts off wearing full facial protection, and many players don't have the option to not wear a visor until they reach the NHL. It's a fact that more injuries occur from stick and pucks to the face. This is an injury risk that can be greatly reduced by wearing a visor.

Now on one hand you both are arguing that the touch icing rule needs to be changed because of the injury factor. You have already agreed that far less injuries occur from the touch icing than from sticks and pucks to the face.

So there is a severe flaw in your logic. You can't argue to change one rule based on a slim chance of injuries, when there are other rules that allow the players to be exposed to far more injures.

You see what I'm saying?

BTW, I'm very interested to hear how, and why you think visors being mandated will change the game so dramatically.

EDIT: We aren't talking about players being 18+ or not when speaking about visors. I'm merely pointing out that every player that comes into the NHL has played his entire career with facial protection. In some cases, the player has had the option of playing without a visor, but in most cases, this isn't the case, regardless of age.

OMG. I can't believe you're sticking with this.

So basically, the whole reason you're being a ****** is because we have picked icing as the rule to change and not some other, more prevalent injury causing aspect of the game first.

Is there a ******* book that says in which priority we have to discuss potential rule changes.

By the way, show me where I ever ******* said anything pro or con about visors specifically?

Other people have brought up more injury causing aspects of the game and rightfully so. But that is not the point of the debate about touch icing vs no touch icing.

If we want to talk about icing before we want to try and make everyone where visors or some other rule that is our right and we are not contradicting ourselves in the slightest if we don't want to ******* address anything but icing.

We're talking about icing so stick to the topic or mosey your ass on to another thread.

I'm not hear to squabble with you about what would prevent more injuries, no touch or visors.

I'm here, in this thread to talk about the absolute worthlessness of touch icing to the NHL game. I don't care if mandatory visors are higher up on your priority list. f***, why not talk about weight restrictions for players or stick restrictions on the type of material. Why not go even further and talk about going to olympic sized rinks so there's more room for the now bigger, faster NHL player. This is ******* ridiculous. If you want to talk about those things then start a thread about them.

This is about no touch vs touch icing and nothing more.

[eva unit zero 271]

This is about no touch vs touch icing and nothing more.

Not really. It's about touch vs no-touch vs hybrid.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Not really. It's about touch vs no-touch vs hybrid.

Actually, if we are going to get anal about it its really about

touch vs no touch vs hybrid vs the officials actually calling the play by the rulebook.

[imisssergei 0]

OMG. I can't believe you're sticking with this.

So basically, the whole reason you're being a ****** is because we have picked icing as the rule to change and not some other, more prevalent injury causing aspect of the game first.

Is there a ******* book that says in which priority we have to discuss potential rule changes.

By the way, show me where I ever ******* said anything pro or con about visors specifically?

Other people have brought up more injury causing aspects of the game and rightfully so. But that is not the point of the debate about touch icing vs no touch icing.

If we want to talk about icing before we want to try and make everyone where visors or some other rule that is our right and we are not contradicting ourselves in the slightest if we don't want to ******* address anything but icing.

We're talking about icing so stick to the topic or mosey your ass on to another thread.

I'm not hear to squabble with you about what would prevent more injuries, no touch or visors.

I'm here, in this thread to talk about the absolute worthlessness of touch icing to the NHL game. I don't care if mandatory visors are higher up on your priority list. f***, why not talk about weight restrictions for players or stick restrictions on the type of material. Why not go even further and talk about going to olympic sized rinks so there's more room for the now bigger, faster NHL player. This is ******* ridiculous. If you want to talk about those things then start a thread about them.

This is about no touch vs touch icing and nothing more.

I'm not the one who brought it up. I'm just merely pointing out the faults in your logic.

I don't remember who brought it up, but Toby said something to the effect that mandating visors would drastically change the game, and you agreed.

I'm not trying to turn this into a visor or no visor thread. But your argument for no touch icing, at least the only on that holds any water, is that injuries are not worth the few negated calls. Yet, you don't want to institute visors. This makes no sense whatsoever. If a reduction in needless injuries are what you are after, then how could you be against mandating visors? As I've pointed out, many more injuries happen as a result of players not having facial protection. Just ask Stevie what a puck to the eye feels like. If Draper was wearing a cage, he doesn't have a rebuilt face. But it's risks the players take.

My point isn't visors or not. My point is that you can't use injuries as an argument to change the icing rule when you seemingly throw that out the window when it comes to visors.

And I'll talk about whatever it is I wish to talk about, especially when other people bring it up first.. Who made you the thread police anyhow? Grow up Sparky, there is no need to use vulgarities just because you've got nothing better to say.

[eva unit zero 271]

Actually, if we are going to get anal about it its really about

touch vs no touch vs hybrid vs the officials actually calling the play by the rulebook.

I vote for the last one...

[vangvace 12]

I'm not trying to turn this into a visor or no visor thread. But your argument for no touch icing, at least the only on that holds any water, is that injuries are not worth the few negated calls. Yet, you don't want to institute visors. This makes no sense whatsoever. If a reduction in needless injuries are what you are after, then how could you be against mandating visors? As I've pointed out, many more injuries happen as a result of players not having facial protection. Just ask Stevie what a puck to the eye feels like. If Draper was wearing a cage, he doesn't have a rebuilt face. But it's risks the players take.

My point isn't visors or not. My point is that you can't use injuries as an argument to change the icing rule when you seemingly throw that out the window when it comes to visors.

Actually, if Draper was wearing a cage a neck injury would have been highly likely.

Visors are becoming a defacto rule. Over half the players in the league currently wear one and the number is rising each year.

[eva unit zero 271]

Actually, if Draper was wearing a cage a neck injury would have been highly likely.

A neck injury would have been no more likely than without the cage.

As someone who plays with a cage, I can vouch for many times when it has been necessary for me as far as facial protection. I've even had to replace it because of a dent from a redirected slap shot. You know...the usual.

And the point has already been made that players entering the NHL have, for the majority, been playing with a visor or cage all their life...so it's not like it's a new thing.

[toby91_ca 620]

I don't remember who brought it up, but Toby said something to the effect that mandating visors would drastically change the game

That's news to me. Either my communication skills are lacking, or your reading skills are poor.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

That's news to me. Either my communication skills are lacking, or your reading skills are poor.

I'm going with his reading skills are poor. Hence the emphatic nature of my response to him. Of course as always, yelling at a something as dense as a brick wall doesn't have much effect, vulgarities or not.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I'm not the one who brought it up. I'm just merely pointing out the faults in your logic.

I don't remember who brought it up, but Toby said something to the effect that mandating visors would drastically change the game, and you agreed.

I'm not trying to turn this into a visor or no visor thread. But your argument for no touch icing, at least the only on that holds any water, is that injuries are not worth the few negated calls. Yet, you don't want to institute visors. This makes no sense whatsoever. If a reduction in needless injuries are what you are after, then how could you be against mandating visors? As I've pointed out, many more injuries happen as a result of players not having facial protection. Just ask Stevie what a puck to the eye feels like. If Draper was wearing a cage, he doesn't have a rebuilt face. But it's risks the players take.

My point isn't visors or not. My point is that you can't use injuries as an argument to change the icing rule when you seemingly throw that out the window when it comes to visors.

And I'll talk about whatever it is I wish to talk about, especially when other people bring it up first.. Who made you the thread police anyhow? Grow up Sparky, there is no need to use vulgarities just because you've got nothing better to say.

For the record, I don't know where I ever said I am totally against instituting mandatory visors. Saying I think it would be a drastic change to the game is not the same as saying i'm against it. If indeed I said those words "I am against mandatory visors" please show me. It's quite possible I said that but I don't recall saying it. Regardless, either way it doesn't matter because you are still basing your entire act on the notion that if I want no touch icing I must have to want anything else that would prevent injuries. So why not bring up mandatory neck guards? Why not bring up the stick issue? Why not bring up any of the myriad other issues?

You ask the question if i'm for no touch how can I not be for mandatory visors. Those are mutually exclusive. I don't have to be for everything that could prevent injuries. And not being for everything doesn't make me wrong nor does it make me contradictory.

But whether i'm for or against mandatory visors is still not the debate. Your inability to address the issue and stay on the issue of icing in particular and not in comparison to other things is what really should be up for debate. Maybe i'll start a poll asking people what they think is wrong with you as to why you can't stay on topic.

PS for what its worth "sparky", the players have voted on no touch icing and mandatory visors. They want no touch and they don't want mandatory visors. I'm just pointing that out to you.

Edited March 28, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted