Some proposed rule changes in college hockey

[CenterIce 83]

USCHO.com

Here are a few:

Instead of no-touch icing, where play is stopped as soon as the puck crosses the goal line, a hybrid system will be used where officials determine whether icing should be waved off based on which player would reach the puck first, using the faceoff dots as a reference point.

Also, icing will be called even when a team is shorthanded, a rule change that has been used in USA Hockey Development Camps.

Teams will get a power play even if they score during a delayed penalty.

[/Quote]

Edited June 14, 2010 by CenterIce

[Echolalia 2,961]

No thanks to those. The faceoff dot icing rule is just really awkward. Icing in itself is already confusing to non-experienced fans. As for icing on PK, that would create a lot of stoppages in play and I don't think the fans would really want to dull down something as potentially exciting as a powerplay by throwing three or four icings into a two minute period. I don't know if I agree with the powerplay even if you score with the extra attacker rule either.

What bothers me is that besides for the icing rule (which some may or may not claim needs to be change), none of these rules that are being tweaked seem like they even have issues that require tweaking. Why not keep the game the way it is?

Edited June 14, 2010 by Echolalia

[stevkrause 1,247]

No thanks to those. The faceoff dot icing rule is just really awkward. Icing in itself is already confusing to non-experienced fans. As for icing on PK, that would create a lot of stoppages in play and I don't think the fans would really want to dull down something as potentially exciting as a powerplay by throwing three or four icings into a two minute period. I don't know if I agree with the powerplay even if you score with the extra attacker rule either.

What bothers me is that besides for the icing rule (which some may or may not claim needs to be change), none of these rules that are being tweaked seem like they even have issues that require tweaking. Why not keep the game the way it is?

Agreed on the first two, but you overlooked the 3rd one -

Teams will get a power play even if they score during a delayed penalty.

I like this one, it basically extends the PP and gives you more exciting hockey and makes penalties more dangerous...

[Echolalia 2,961]

Agreed on the first two, but you overlooked the 3rd one -

I like this one, it basically extends the PP and gives you more exciting hockey and makes penalties more dangerous...

I didn't overlook it, although we have differing opinions on it. I feel like a delayed penalty is essentially a powerplay in that its the only time you can safely pull your goalie, thus you have a legitimate man advantage. If you score on that play, it is a result of having the extra attacker (unless they score just as or just after the penalty is observed). If they were to continue onto the actual powerplay after scoring, I feel like the crimes in many cases wouldn't justify the punishment. We're now looking at the possibility of scoring two goals on a single hooking or tripping call. This system also punishes those teams who receive powerplays without the opportunity of a delayed penalty chance (the other team has possession when the play is called, there is a scrum along the boards where everyone is batting at the puck, etc). I also don't like the idea of selective opportunities to score two goals instead of one based on whether you had the puck at the moment the penalty was observed.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Echolalia

[stevkrause 1,247]

I didn't overlook it, although we have differing opinions on it. I feel like a delayed penalty is essentially a powerplay in that its the only time you can safely pull your goalie, thus you have a legitimate man advantage. If you score on that play, it is a result of having the extra attacker (unless they score just as or just after the penalty is observed). If they were to continue onto the actual powerplay after scoring, I feel like the crimes in many cases wouldn't justify the punishment. We're now looking at the possibility of scoring two goals on a single hooking or tripping call. This system also punishes those teams who receive powerplays without the opportunity of a delayed penalty chance (the other team has possession when the play is called, there is a scrum along the boards where everyone is batting at the puck, etc). I also don't like the idea of selective opportunities to score two goals instead of one based on whether you had the puck at the moment the penalty was observed.

Fair enough, I can definitely see your point and agree with it... I'm just saying it's an interesting proposal for that exact reason, the chance for 2 goals on essentially one PP... not really for or against it, as I haven't seen it in practice and it's hard to imagine how many additional goals would be created because of it in reality... but it is interesting to think about

[Seraph 240]

I agree, those are pretty terrible changes. Especially having icing on the PK. What the heck is that?? The whole spirit of the PK is to stand your ground, gain possession, and throw it down the ice and then put yourself into gear for the next attack. This would totally throw off that rhythm, which is actually pretty exciting to watch when the attacking team puts on good pressure.

All this rule would do is force the defending team to skate the puck further down and dump it or just take repeated icings.

[stevkrause 1,247]

I agree, those are pretty terrible changes. Especially having icing on the PK. What the heck is that?? The whole spirit of the PK is to stand your ground, gain possession, and throw it down the ice and then put yourself into gear for the next attack. This would totally throw off that rhythm, which is actually pretty exciting to watch when the attacking team puts on good pressure.

All this rule would do is force the defending team to skate the puck further down and dump it or just take repeated icings.

exactly - the icings on the PK is a HORRIBLE idea...

[wings1110 184]

they are also contemplating the use of half shields for ALL players, they feel you have more respect for yout oppenent. I think its a good idea

[eva unit zero 271]

exactly - the icings on the PK is a HORRIBLE idea...

I have always personally thought that the center line should be removed entirely and that icing should be called based on the blue line. This would make dumping the puck down the ice on the PK less likely to be an icing even if it were still called.

[stevkrause 1,247]

I have always personally thought that the center line should be removed entirely and that icing should be called based on the blue line. This would make dumping the puck down the ice on the PK less likely to be an icing even if it were still called.

removing the center ice line would make dump and chase plays DRAMATICALLY more dangerous for defensemen...

[Frozen-Man 144]

Fair enough, I can definitely see your point and agree with it... I'm just saying it's an interesting proposal for that exact reason, the chance for 2 goals on essentially one PP... not really for or against it, as I haven't seen it in practice and it's hard to imagine how many additional goals would be created because of it in reality... but it is interesting to think about

I don't know if I like the idea of a power play even if there is a goal on the delayed penalty but two tangential things I think they should consider is that there is a power play if a penalty shot is called and the player doesn't score, and that you can't end a game when a team that is losing is on the power play. On the second one, I hate when a team is down, has pulled their goalie, is scrambling to get the goal, has a really good opportunity to score, there is 20 seconds left in the game and the team that is winning takes a penalty to stop the score. In that situation it seems like the team that draws the penalty is the one that receives the detriment of the penalty. The play is stopped, there is a face off, they have to reestablish control (if they can) and have very little time to do so. If the team that was ahead had to worry that that they would have to kill off a 2 minute penalty rather than a 20 second one they might be more leery to take the penalty and if they are not then at least the team that draws the penalty would get the benefit of the full penalty to try and even the game.

[stevkrause 1,247]

I don't know if I like the idea of a power play even if there is a goal on the delayed penalty but two tangential things I think they should consider is that there is a power play if a penalty shot is called and the player doesn't score, and that you can't end a game when a team that is losing is on the power play. On the second one, I hate when a team is down, has pulled their goalie, is scrambling to get the goal, has a really good opportunity to score, there is 20 seconds left in the game and the team that is winning takes a penalty to stop the score. In that situation it seems like the team that draws the penalty is the one that receives the detriment of the penalty. The play is stopped, there is a face off, they have to reestablish control (if they can) and have very little time to do so. If the team that was ahead had to worry that that they would have to kill off a 2 minute penalty rather than a 20 second one they might be more leery to take the penalty and if they are not then at least the team that draws the penalty would get the benefit of the full penalty to try and even the game.

All good points - I really like the PP after a penalty shot if missed idea...

[Rivalred 630]

USCHO.com

Here are a few:

Nope...

They have enough trouble determining a goal, offside, and a penalty.

I can see this leading to even more severe injuries as players may not hesitate or not trying to guess or think what the linesman/red is thinking.

Too dangerous.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Rivalred

[Konnan511 1,736]

I like the last two, not so much the hybrid icing.

[jollymania 162]

why don't they work on fixing the no visors, no fighting, and no beer at games rules first.

they are also contemplating the use of half shields for ALL players, they feel you have more respect for yout oppenent. I think its a good idea

that is the only rule change here I approve of

[stevkrause 1,247]

why don't they work on fixing the no visors, no fighting, and no beer at games rules first.

I got very split emotions when I suggested the NHL work very closely with a company like Bauer or someone to create snap in visors, which can be shed by the pushing of two buttons and then have the league mandate visors and tighter chin straps, requiring players to shed the visor in the event of a fight, giving them an automatic 4 minute double minor for unsportsmanlike conduct if they don't shed the visor and still fight... it would make the game safer more respectful as well...

[jollymania 162]

I got very split emotions when I suggested the NHL work very closely with a company like Bauer or someone to create snap in visors, which can be shed by the pushing of two buttons and then have the league mandate visors and tighter chin straps, requiring players to shed the visor in the event of a fight, giving them an automatic 4 minute double minor for unsportsmanlike conduct if they don't shed the visor and still fight... it would make the game safer more respectful as well...

THey would also have to say if you helmet gets punched off the fight continues. I think there should be an extra penalty when guys tackle the other guy down, that is when most of the head hitting the ice injuries occur.

[stevkrause 1,247]

THey would also have to say if you helmet gets punched off the fight continues. I think there should be an extra penalty when guys tackle the other guy down, that is when most of the head hitting the ice injuries occur.

I agree with that, but chances are that if the chin straps are mandated to be tighter, the helmet wouldn't come off very often

also, you are dead on, blatant takedowns need to be removed as well, ESPECIALLY of the grab-the-legs-and-bodyslam nature, but they also need to break them up sooner when guys get tied up and start to jostle... this is where the injuries really occur (not just head injuries, but knee, shoulder, etc...)

[CenterIce 83]

Here are some more of the rules in the article that I didn't highlight in the first post

Contact to the head will result in a major penalty and either a game misconduct or game disqualification under proposals by the NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee unveiled Friday.

Goaltenders will change ends between the third period and overtime.

The obtainable pass rule was removed.

[/Quote]

[jollymania 162]

Here are some more of the rules in the article that I didn't highlight in the first post

the headshot rule would be absolute garbage, they were calling head hits in the NAtional Championship game that weren't even close, it is seriously one of the most inane rules in hockey if they put it in. If you want to get rid of blatant "headshots", get rid of cheapshots, because if your elbows are down, your feet are planted and you follow through with shoulder, there is no way you can punish that hit because it is 100% clean. And what happens to the tall players?

Edited June 14, 2010 by jollymania

[Guest mjtm77]

this would wreck hockey. No thanks