ELynah Forum

Interesting article on USCHO about some of the changes which may be made this summer.

Some examples:
-half-shield face masks may be mandatory
-mandating 4x4 overtime
-"hybrid icing"
-eliminating ability of shorthanded teams to ice the puck
-elimination of the obtainable pass exemption for icing
-penalizing players for sending the puck over the glass (anyone at the Quinnipiac game?)
-keeping faceoff in attacking zone after the puck hits the crossbar and goes out of play

http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,18628/RuleBookHeadedforChangeButbyHowMuch.html

My reaction to most of these is:  why?

The game is fine the way it is.

Quote from: Josh '99My reaction to most of these is:  why?

The game is fine the way it is.

Hear, hear!

When you have a standing committee it has to do something to justify its existence.

I really can't think of anything I'd change about the game as currently played in the ECAC.  It's as close to perfect as sports gets.  Leave it alone.

I'd be for 4x4 OT.  I don't know why they'd bother eliminating the icing exemption when they never call it anyway.  Eliminating icing for a short-handed team is one of the worst ideas I've heard for any sport in a long, long time.  I suppose they're suggesting delay of game for sending the puck over the glass regardless of which zone the player is in which also seems pretty stupid.  Face-off in the offensive zone after a shot off the crossbar makes sense to me.

Quote from: semsoxI'd be for 4x4 OT.  I don't know why they'd bother eliminating the icing exemption when they never call it anyway.  Eliminating icing for a short-handed team is one of the worst ideas I've heard for any sport in a long, long time.  I suppose they're suggesting delay of game for sending the puck over the glass regardless of which zone the player is in which also seems pretty stupid.  Face-off in the offensive zone after a shot off the crossbar makes sense to me.

I think they do use this. It's a judgement call, but I've seen it.

Quote from: semsoxI suppose they're suggesting delay of game for sending the puck over the glass regardless of which zone the player is in which also seems pretty stupid.

I think they just mean in the defensive zone, like in the NHL.  At present, there is no automatic delay of game penalty for doing this in the NCAA.  (I think maybe NCAA referees have discretion to call delay of game if they judge this to be intentional, but I don't know that I've ever seen it called.)

Quote from: ebilmes-penalizing players for sending the puck over the glass (anyone at the Quinnipiac game?)

I don't think the players purposely sent those pucks into the stands during that game. Additionally, those Bobcats fans weren't paying attention to game so it's their fault for getting hit in the face.

This might be the most significant NCAA "rules" change:  Playing best of three first round series on the home ice of the top eight seeds in the tournament:  http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/05/06_commentary.php

Must not have liked seeing RIT on the ice at Ford Field.

Clearing the puck during a penalty should not be removed.  While no, it isn't always iced, but in many cases to get the puck out of the zone and get a quick line change it's hurled down to the other end.  Even the NHL doesn't go as far as stopping short handed teams from icing.

I'm most impressed with Adam's UPDATE, pointing out that while 2 out of 3 tournament games at the higher seed would amplify the advantage of the #1, and #2, seeds over their much lower seeded opponents, reducing upsets, it would also amplify the advantage of the #8 that was selected over #9 in a fundamentally flawed selection procedure.

Quote from: David HardingI'm most impressed with Adam's UPDATE, pointing out that while 2 out of 3 tournament games at the higher seed would amplify the advantage of the #1, and #2, seeds over their much lower seeded opponents, reducing upsets, it would also amplify the advantage of the #8 that was selected over #9 in a fundamentally flawed selection procedure.

While I agree that there is room for improvement in the hockey selection and seedings, you only need to look at the lacrosse selections to see what "fundamentally flawed" looks like.

I'm a couple years out of date with my NCAA rules, but from when I was in watching regularly, the one (and only) rule I'd have liked to see is that teams that ice can't change lines. I remember one Princeton game where they got the early lead and spent the rest of the game icing. Yuck.

Some of these rules are just crazy, btw.

Quote from: the crazy proposed ruleFurther punishing penalized teams by not allowing them to change players before the start of the penalty and to make them kill the entire length of minor and double-minor penalties. The latter proposal didn't have much support, Karr said.

Does this guy just not get around to watching much hockey?

Quote from: ftyuvI'm a couple years out of date with my NCAA rules, but from when I was in watching regularly, the one (and only) rule I'd have liked to see is that teams that ice can't change lines. I remember one Princeton game where they got the early lead and spent the rest of the game icing. Yuck.

They put that rule in either this past year or the year before, a few years after the NHL incorporated it, which was right after the lockout.  This is the only one of the post-lockout NHL rule changes that I actually liked.  Although I go back and forth on the two-line pass rule.  Allowing two-line passes certainly increases the pace of the game, but it undoubtedly has also significantly increased injuries.

The NHL fixed the not changing on icing rule nicely this season by not allowing TV timeouts after an icing.  That's not as much of an issue in college hockey obviously, but does anyone know if that is the NCAA rule for televised games too?

At least we don't have shootouts or the trapezoid.

Quote from: ftyuvSome of these rules are just crazy, btw.

Quote from: the crazy proposed ruleFurther punishing penalized teams by not allowing them to change players before the start of the penalty and to make them kill the entire length of minor and double-minor penalties. The latter proposal didn't have much support, Karr said.

Why not just award a penalty shot for every infraction. You'd score just about as often as you would with no changes and no icing during a short handed situation and it would be more exciting!

I shouldn't give these idiots ideas.

I don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

Quote from: Jim HylaI don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

Quote from: Ronald '09Although I go back and forth on the two-line pass rule.  Allowing two-line passes certainly increases the pace of the game, but it undoubtedly has also significantly increased injuries.

How so?  I've never heard anyone say that before.

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Ronald '09Although I go back and forth on the two-line pass rule.  Allowing two-line passes certainly increases the pace of the game, but it undoubtedly has also significantly increased injuries.

How so?  I've never heard anyone say that before.

When a two line pass is made, defenders come from further away than shorter passes.  If that pass is along the boards, it increases collisions along the boards with players coming in from further distances.  It would be really difficult to quantify the effect, and hockey's a rough game, so I'm not saying that they should make two line passes illegal, but I do think there's probably more injuries when these passes are allowed.  It's really the same argument as the touch vs. no touch icing debate.

Quote from: Ronald '09

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Ronald '09Although I go back and forth on the two-line pass rule.  Allowing two-line passes certainly increases the pace of the game, but it undoubtedly has also significantly increased injuries.

How so?  I've never heard anyone say that before.

When a two line pass is made, defenders come from further away than shorter passes.  If that pass is along the boards, it increases collisions along the boards with players coming in from further distances.  It would be really difficult to quantify the effect, and hockey's a rough game, so I'm not saying that they should make two line passes illegal, but I do think there's probably more injuries when these passes are allowed.  It's really the same argument as the touch vs. no touch icing debate.

I guess that's possible, but to be honest this is the first I've heard of safety concerns being one of the reasons for the two-line pass rule (as opposed to no-touch icing where safety is clearly the motivator), rather than it just being a "don't be way ahead of the play" offsides-type rule.

Quote from: Ronald '09

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Ronald '09Although I go back and forth on the two-line pass rule.  Allowing two-line passes certainly increases the pace of the game, but it undoubtedly has also significantly increased injuries.

How so?  I've never heard anyone say that before.

When a two line pass is made, defenders come from further away than shorter passes.  If that pass is along the boards, it increases collisions along the boards with players coming in from further distances.  It would be really difficult to quantify the effect, and hockey's a rough game, so I'm not saying that they should make two line passes illegal, but I do think there's probably more injuries when these passes are allowed.  It's really the same argument as the touch vs. no touch icing debate.

I think the problem is trying to put together all these statements. Undoubtedly, really difficult, and probably are different statements. Your first statement was probably :-D too strong.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Jim HylaI don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

I think the first part of your statement is agreeing with me, correct? In regards to level playing field, then you should just throw the names in a hat and pull them out randomly. Any seeding you do eliminates a level playing field, the only question is how much, not if. I just happen to want it less level than you, to try and get the "best" teams there at the end. However the current seeding that you like is still not level.

I don't know how you can say "it's about money, pure and simple". We all agree that they do like money, but even North Dakota said they liked the idea of going somewhere where there would be a lot of enthusiasm. That's certainly not the regionals that I've been to.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Jim HylaI don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

I think the first part of your statement is agreeing with me, correct? In regards to level playing field, then you should just throw the names in a hat and pull them out randomly. Any seeding you do eliminates a level playing field, the only question is how much, not if. I just happen to want it less level than you, to try and get the "best" teams there at the end. However the current seeding that you like is still not level.

I don't know how you can say "it's about money, pure and simple". We all agree that they do like money, but even North Dakota said they liked the idea of going somewhere where there would be a lot of enthusiasm. That's certainly not the regionals that I've been to.

Here's a thought: why not just have the regionals at smaller venues? The big problem I've seen as far as atmosphere is that you're trying to fill an AHL stadium (at least) with four fanbases that on average pull in about 4,000 fans. Would it be feasible to host these games at a neutral college site? Sell tickets to only the game people care about? But then, we're talking about money lost in ticket sales again and it's not worth bringing up.

I just keep going back to a question of what needs fixing, for all of this. Single-elimination is how every NCAA sport works for championships, with the exceptions of baseball, softball, and D-1 football. The tournaments are exciting because you can have underdog teams come from nowhere to play for national titles. Why should hockey be an exception, painful as a first-round loss to a worse team on paper is?

And if they make icing illegal during penalty kills, I will break something.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Jim HylaI don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

I think the first part of your statement is agreeing with me, correct? In regards to level playing field, then you should just throw the names in a hat and pull them out randomly. Any seeding you do eliminates a level playing field, the only question is how much, not if. I just happen to want it less level than you, to try and get the "best" teams there at the end. However the current seeding that you like is still not level.

I don't know how you can say "it's about money, pure and simple". We all agree that they do like money, but even North Dakota said they liked the idea of going somewhere where there would be a lot of enthusiasm. That's certainly not the regionals that I've been to.

Yes, I was agreeing with you to some degree.  It happens from time to time :-).

The current seeding isn't a 100% level playing field but it's about as level as you can get because someone has to have last line change (barring rule changes for that) and someone has to play the weakest team in the field. So it doesn't bother me.

I still think the right way to ensure that the best teams make it to the later rounds of the tournament (if this is a priority) is to not let the less worthy teams in the tournament. Don't offer the teams that aren't good enough the chance to play for the national championship. But that gets back to certain other of my opinions that I've pontificated on here plenty of times :-).

I'm not saying that teams don't want to play in front of enthusiastic crowds. But in any decision process I am convinced that this would be very much secondary to the financial. If the important thing was having the arenas full of fans at the regionals then why not offer all students of the participating teams dirt cheap tickets (or free for that matter)? I guarantee that that would boost attendance in any case where the game is somewhat close to the schools in question. But thet'd never consider this for the same reason that the ECAC insists on charging students for playoff tickets in the QFs even at schools where there is free student admission, even knowing that this tends to depress crowd size.

Quote from: polarHere's a thought: why not just have the regionals at smaller venues? The big problem I've seen as far as atmosphere is that you're trying to fill an AHL stadium (at least) with four fanbases that on average pull in about 4,000 fans. Would it be feasible to host these games at a neutral college site? Sell tickets to only the game people care about? But then, we're talking about money lost in ticket sales again and it's not worth bringing up.

This sounds good in the abstract. But to pull it off you have to have a non-participating school step up and be willing to host a tournament event in which they're team is not participating. What incentive is there unless the NCAA gives them a big chunk of the gate? It also means the host school couldn't plan for this event in advance, since you couldn't choose sites until tournament selection. I suspect pulling off a regional on one or two week's notice would be extremely difficult.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Jim HylaI don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

I think the first part of your statement is agreeing with me, correct? In regards to level playing field, then you should just throw the names in a hat and pull them out randomly. Any seeding you do eliminates a level playing field, the only question is how much, not if. I just happen to want it less level than you, to try and get the "best" teams there at the end. However the current seeding that you like is still not level.

I don't know how you can say "it's about money, pure and simple". We all agree that they do like money, but even North Dakota said they liked the idea of going somewhere where there would be a lot of enthusiasm. That's certainly not the regionals that I've been to.

Yes, I was agreeing with you to some degree.  It happens from time to time :-).

The current seeding isn't a 100% level playing field but it's about as level as you can get because someone has to have last line change (barring rule changes for that) and someone has to play the weakest team in the field. So it doesn't bother me.

I still think the right way to ensure that the best teams make it to the later rounds of the tournament (if this is a priority) is to not let the less worthy teams in the tournament. Don't offer the teams that aren't good enough the chance to play for the national championship. But that gets back to certain other of my opinions that I've pontificated on here plenty of times :-).

I'm not saying that teams don't want to play in front of enthusiastic crowds. But in any decision process I am convinced that this would be very much secondary to the financial. If the important thing was having the arenas full of fans at the regionals then why not offer all students of the participating teams dirt cheap tickets (or free for that matter)? I guarantee that that would boost attendance in any case where the game is somewhat close to the schools in question. But thet'd never consider this for the same reason that the ECAC insists on charging students for playoff tickets in the QFs even at schools where there is free student admission, even knowing that this tends to depress crowd size.

So, you're saying that if the games were free and in Worcester, then Harvard fans would fill up the arena.::wow:::-D

Quote from: polarAnd if they make icing illegal during penalty kills, I will break something.

Actually, I always thought that no-icing PKs was a good idea. Why reward a team with the ability to play bad defense when on a PK?

I also think that a penalty shot should be followed up by a Power Play if the shooter does not score.

Does this make me a bad person?::innocent::

Quote from: Roy 82

Quote from: polarAnd if they make icing illegal during penalty kills, I will break something.

Actually, I always thought that no-icing PKs was a good idea. Why reward a team with the ability to play bad defense when on a PK?

I also think that a penalty shot should be followed up by a Power Play if the shooter does not score.

Does this make me a bad person?::innocent::

PPs already have, what, about 30% conversion rates? Is that not good enough? If you had no-icing PKs, along with the rule that if you ice you can't change out (which I think is a good rule), then it'd be extremely difficult for the defense to get a change, and PP goals would shoot through the roof. Some may think that makes for good hockey, but I don't.

I'm up in the air about a penalty shot being followed up by a PP... but if that's not enacted, I definitely think teams should get the choice to take a PP instead of the penalty shot.

As long as we're changing rules, I've always thought when a team scores on a delayed penalty while already up a man, the prior penalty should come off the board.

How about no icing only on majors?

Quote from: ftyuvPPs already have, what, about 30% conversion rates?

Most teams convert at the 17-20% range.

Quote from: Roy 82

Quote from: polarAnd if they make icing illegal during penalty kills, I will break something.

Actually, I always thought that no-icing PKs was a good idea. Why reward a team with the ability to play bad defense when on a PK?

I also think that a penalty shot should be followed up by a Power Play if the shooter does not score.

Does this make me a bad person?::innocent::

Yes!

Quote from: amerks127

Quote from: ftyuvPPs already have, what, about 30% conversion rates?

Most teams convert at the 17-20% range.

You and your facts. Well, my point still stands, even if its validity is reduced by 30%.

Quote from: ftyuv

Quote from: amerks127

Quote from: ftyuvPPs already have, what, about 30% conversion rates?

Most teams convert at the 17-20% range.

You and your facts. Well, my point still stands, even if its validity is reduced by 30%.

(30-18.5)/30 = 38%

Quote from: TrotskyAs long as we're changing rules, I've always thought when a team scores on a delayed penalty while already up a man, the prior penalty should come off the board.

How about no icing only on majors?

So 2 penalties, one chance to score?

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: TrotskyAs long as we're changing rules, I've always thought when a team scores on a delayed penalty while already up a man, the prior penalty should come off the board.

How about no icing only on majors?

So 2 penalties, one chance to score?

I'm assuming Greg means the prior penalty comes off and the new penalty begins, rather than the delayed penalty being negated and the prior penalty continuing to run.

Quote from: Josh '99I'm assuming Greg means the prior penalty comes off and the new penalty begins, rather than the delayed penalty being negated and the prior penalty continuing to run.

Right. This would be consistent with the return of the earlier penalized player after a 5x3 ppg.

BTW, I assume this is possible but has anyone ever seen it: a major penalty is called on delay.  A goal is scored.  Is the penalty negated?  Does a major stop play automatically?

Quote from: TrotskyBTW, I assume this is possible but has anyone ever seen it: a major penalty is called on delay.  A goal is scored.  Is the penalty negated?  Does a major stop play automatically?

My guess is that a major doesn't stop play de jure, but that in most cases the result of the penalty is a guy lying injured on the ice, which does stop the play de facto.

And you're right - it's a little harder to parse in the case of a minor-followed-by-minor, but with the major, it's pretty clear that the "fair" thing to do would be to count the goal, take the minor off the board, and set the 5:00 clock for the major.  But I'm not sure if that's the rule or not.

Arthur knows all of this by heart.  He probably knows all the changes against the rules since 1970, too.

QuoteIf the penalty or penalties to be imposed are minor penalties (while the teams are at equal strength) and a goal is scored on the play by the non- offending team, the first minor penalty shall not be imposed. However, all other infractions shall be imposed in the normal manner, regardless of whether a goal is scored. If any other penalties are committed on the same play or after the appropriate on-ice official has stopped play, the offending players shall be penalized (see 4-2-d).

So, yes, the major penalty would start after the goal was scored.

Quote from: TrotskyAs long as we're changing rules, I've always thought when a team scores on a delayed penalty while already up a man, the prior penalty should come off the board.

How about no icing only on majors?

How does that differ from the current rule?

Quote from: NCAA Rules 2008-20104-2-d. If the referee signals an additional minor penalty(s) against a team that already is short-handed because of one or more minor or bench minor penalties, and a goal is scored by the non-offending team before the whistle is blown, the goal shall be allowed, the delayed penalty(s) shall be assessed, and the minor penalty already being served that caused the team to be short-handed shall terminate automatically (see 4-2-c and 4-9-b).

Quote from: David HardingHow does that differ from the current rule?

Quote from: NCAA Rules 2008-20104-2-d. If the referee signals an additional minor penalty(s) against a team that already is short-handed because of one or more minor or bench minor penalties, and a goal is scored by the non-offending team before the whistle is blown, the goal shall be allowed, the delayed penalty(s) shall be assessed, and the minor penalty already being served that caused the team to be short-handed shall terminate automatically (see 4-2-c and 4-9-b).

I've read that over three times and you are right, it does appear to be the current rule.  I would swear I have seen it called incorrectly, in that case, with the second penalty being nullified. ::screwy::

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: David HardingHow does that differ from the current rule?

Quote from: NCAA Rules 2008-20104-2-d. If the referee signals an additional minor penalty(s) against a team that already is short-handed because of one or more minor or bench minor penalties, and a goal is scored by the non-offending team before the whistle is blown, the goal shall be allowed, the delayed penalty(s) shall be assessed, and the minor penalty already being served that caused the team to be short-handed shall terminate automatically (see 4-2-c and 4-9-b).

I've read that over three times and you are right, it does appear to be the current rule.  I would swear I have seen it called incorrectly, in that case, with the second penalty being nullified. ::screwy::

Ok here's a rule I've never understood and I don't think is consistently applied across hockey...the case of which penalty comes off in a 4x3 situation.  I swear college hockey applies it differently from the pros.

Let's say Cornell goes a man down, then Harvard takes a penalty.  We skate 4x4.  Then Harvard (or Cornell) takes another penalty and it's 4x3.  Then whichever team scores on the ensuing pp.  I've seen it at Lynah where the second penalty came off, whereas I saw an AHL game where the first penalty would come off.  Can anyone enlighten?

Quote from: amerks127

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: David HardingHow does that differ from the current rule?

Quote from: NCAA Rules 2008-20104-2-d. If the referee signals an additional minor penalty(s) against a team that already is short-handed because of one or more minor or bench minor penalties, and a goal is scored by the non-offending team before the whistle is blown, the goal shall be allowed, the delayed penalty(s) shall be assessed, and the minor penalty already being served that caused the team to be short-handed shall terminate automatically (see 4-2-c and 4-9-b).

I've read that over three times and you are right, it does appear to be the current rule.  I would swear I have seen it called incorrectly, in that case, with the second penalty being nullified. ::screwy::

Ok here's a rule I've never understood and I don't think is consistently applied across hockey...the case of which penalty comes off in a 4x3 situation.  I swear college hockey applies it differently from the pros.

Let's say Cornell goes a man down, then Harvard takes a penalty.  We skate 4x4.  Then Harvard (or Cornell) takes another penalty and it's 4x3.  Then whichever team scores on the ensuing pp.  I've seen it at Lynah where the second penalty came off, whereas I saw an AHL game where the first penalty would come off.  Can anyone enlighten?

Not sure what the rule(s) is but there could be two schools of thought. One is to always take the first penalty off the board. The second would be to remove the penalty that caused the powerplay that resulted in the goal (the second penalty in your example).

Quote from: KeithKNot sure what the rule(s) is but there could be two schools of thought. One is to always take the first penalty off the board. The second would be to remove the penalty that caused the powerplay that resulted in the goal (the second penalty in your example).

There could be, but AFAIK it is universal that the penalty that created the power-play (the final one) is the one that is wiped.

Something I've wondered about: when two penalties are assessed at the same time, is their order formally determined?  Trivial situation: skating 5x5 Clarkson gets a holding penalty, during the delayed penalty they also take a tripping penalty.  Cornell scores on the ensuing 5x3 -- presumably the guy with the holding penalty comes out first?  Complicated situation: skating 4x4 Clarkson gets a holding penalty, during the delayed penalty the also take a five minute major.  Cornell now skates 4x3 with the holding penalty ticking down and the major penalty pending -- if Cornell scores, the minor is wiped and Cornell continues 4x3 with the major now in effect.  However, what if the order was flipped: the major was delayed and the minor taken on the delay.  In that case, when Cornell scores on the 4x3 the major should not expire and they should continue on the 4x3 with the minor still pending -- a net gain of pp time based on order.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KeithKNot sure what the rule(s) is but there could be two schools of thought. One is to always take the first penalty off the board. The second would be to remove the penalty that caused the powerplay that resulted in the goal (the second penalty in your example).

There could be, but AFAIK it is universal that the penalty that created the power-play (the final one) is the one that is wiped.

Something I've wondered about: when two penalties are assessed at the same time, is their order formally determined?  Trivial situation: skating 5x5 Clarkson gets a holding penalty, during the delayed penalty they also take a tripping penalty.  Cornell scores on the ensuing 5x3 -- presumably the guy with the holding penalty comes out first?  

You left out the part where Willie Mitchell shoots the puck into Cornell's bench after touching up on the delayed penalty and almost kills Schafer.

Quote from: TrotskyThere could be, but AFAIK it is universal that the penalty that created the power-play (the final one) is the one that is wiped.

Something I've wondered about: when two penalties are assessed at the same time, is their order formally determined?  Trivial situation: skating 5x5 Clarkson gets a holding penalty, during the delayed penalty they also take a tripping penalty.  Cornell scores on the ensuing 5x3 -- presumably the guy with the holding penalty comes out first?  Complicated situation: skating 4x4 Clarkson gets a holding penalty, during the delayed penalty the also take a five minute major.  Cornell now skates 4x3 with the holding penalty ticking down and the major penalty pending -- if Cornell scores, the minor is wiped and Cornell continues 4x3 with the major now in effect.  However, what if the order was flipped: the major was delayed and the minor taken on the delay.  In that case, when Cornell scores on the 4x3 the major should not expire and they should continue on the 4x3 with the minor still pending -- a net gain of pp time based on order.

This is off the top of my head from what I've read in the rule book, but I believe in the first case, it's the team's discretion as to who comes out of the box (Captain must specify, possibly when the penalties are called). For the second, I don't believe the order they happened on the ice matters. In the case where a minor and major are called at the same stoppage, the minor is always served first.

Quote from: CowbellGuy

Quote from: TrotskyThere could be, but AFAIK it is universal that the penalty that created the power-play (the final one) is the one that is wiped.

Something I've wondered about: when two penalties are assessed at the same time, is their order formally determined?  Trivial situation: skating 5x5 Clarkson gets a holding penalty, during the delayed penalty they also take a tripping penalty.  Cornell scores on the ensuing 5x3 -- presumably the guy with the holding penalty comes out first?  Complicated situation: skating 4x4 Clarkson gets a holding penalty, during the delayed penalty the also take a five minute major.  Cornell now skates 4x3 with the holding penalty ticking down and the major penalty pending -- if Cornell scores, the minor is wiped and Cornell continues 4x3 with the major now in effect.  However, what if the order was flipped: the major was delayed and the minor taken on the delay.  In that case, when Cornell scores on the 4x3 the major should not expire and they should continue on the 4x3 with the minor still pending -- a net gain of pp time based on order.

This is off the top of my head from what I've read in the rule book, but I believe in the first case, it's the team's discretion as to who comes out of the box (Captain must specify, possibly when the penalties are called). For the second, I don't believe the order they happened on the ice matters. In the case where a minor and major are called at the same stoppage, the minor is always served first.

Ah.  Thank you.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KeithKNot sure what the rule(s) is but there could be two schools of thought. One is to always take the first penalty off the board. The second would be to remove the penalty that caused the powerplay that resulted in the goal (the second penalty in your example).

There could be, but AFAIK it is universal that the penalty that created the power-play (the final one) is the one that is wiped.

Something I've wondered about: when two penalties are assessed at the same time, is their order formally determined?  Trivial situation: skating 5x5 Clarkson gets a holding penalty, during the delayed penalty they also take a tripping penalty.  Cornell scores on the ensuing 5x3 -- presumably the guy with the holding penalty comes out first?  Complicated situation: skating 4x4 Clarkson gets a holding penalty, during the delayed penalty the also take a five minute major.  Cornell now skates 4x3 with the holding penalty ticking down and the major penalty pending -- if Cornell scores, the minor is wiped and Cornell continues 4x3 with the major now in effect.  However, what if the order was flipped: the major was delayed and the minor taken on the delay.  In that case, when Cornell scores on the 4x3 the major should not expire and they should continue on the 4x3 with the minor still pending -- a net gain of pp time based on order.

First of all: the text of the NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Rule Book (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH10.pdf) is available at the NCAA web site, so your opinion of what the rules might/should be isn't helpful. The rules are what they are.

Second: the text of Rule 4, Section 2c is "If the opposing team scores a goal while a team is short-handed by one or more minor penalties, the short-handed team shall be permitted to replace immediately on the ice the player whose minor or bench minor penalty caused the team to be short-handed, except when a goal is scored on a penalty shot. Note: Short-handed means that the team must be below the numerical strength of its opponent on the ice at the time the goal is scored. The minor penalty that terminates automatically is the one that causes the team scored against to be short-handed. A minor penalty shall not terminate as a result of a penalty-shot goal. If a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major and a non-coincidental minor penalty (two different players), the minor penalty shall terminate." Not the simplest language to try to digest in the half-dozen seconds between when a goal is scored and when the teams try to resume play.

Third: the third paragraph of Rule 4, Section 2d states that "When the minor penalties of two players of the same team terminate at the same time, the captain of that team shall designate to the referee which of the players shall return to the ice first and the referee shall instruct the penalty timekeeper accordingly." So, first of all, when penalties are called is irrelevant, the important thing is when they end. The officials are supposed to find out from the captain of the penalized team which player will return to the ice first, but they don't always do that, and even if they do, they don't always communicate the information to the penalty timekeeper, and even if they do, the penalty timekeeper doesn't always record the information properly on the scoreboard, and if he doesn't, it's not the easiest thing to change when/if the discrepancy is made known.

It's amazing to me that there is no discussion of making the playing surface a standard size. ::screwy::  There are at least 9 different rink sizes in college, including the unique 204x87 Bright Hockey Center at sucks.

It's odd, especially considering the standard rink size is official rule 1 in the NHL.

Quote from: JDeafvIt's amazing to me that there is no discussion of making the playing surface a standard size. ::screwy::  There are at least 9 different rink sizes in college, including the unique 204x87 Bright Hockey Center at sucks.

It's odd, especially considering the standard rink size is official rule 1 in the NHL.

These folk are not totally insensitive to the financial impact of their decisions.  I can't imagine trying change existing rink sizes.

I don't think there's any question existing rinks would have to be grandfathered in, but to still only have NHL size for new rinks recommended, not required, in the rulebook does seem silly.

Quote from: CowbellGuyI don't think there's any question existing rinks would have to be grandfathered in, but to still only have NHL size for new rinks recommended, not required, in the rulebook does seem silly.

I think even so you'd get some objections, starting with the group of schools that have 200x100 ice and want to keep it that way.

Update from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

On the contrary. I think this is a good opportunity for the coaching staff to change up our strategies. I like to see our team work on scoring more next season rather than focusing more on defense. Don't get me wrong, we have one of the best defensive teams in the country but if we are just a bit more aggressive and capitalize on the leeway that a good defense provides, we could probably make it further on the NCAA tourney.

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

On the contrary. I think this is a good opportunity for the coaching staff to change up our strategies. I like to see our team work on scoring more next season rather than focusing more on defense. Don't get me wrong, we have one of the best defensive teams in the country but if we are just a bit more aggressive and capitalize on the leeway that a good defense provides, we could probably make it further on the NCAA tourney.

That's a perfectly valid opinion, but it seems completely unrelated to the rule change we're talking about here.

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

On the contrary. I think this is a good opportunity for the coaching staff to change up our strategies. I like to see our team work on scoring more next season rather than focusing more on defense. Don't get me wrong, we have one of the best defensive teams in the country but if we are just a bit more aggressive and capitalize on the leeway that a good defense provides, we could probably make it further on the NCAA tourney.

That's a perfectly valid opinion, but it seems completely unrelated to the rule change we're talking about here.

How so? Maybe my opinion on how it would benefit our tourney chances is a bit derived but my comment about changing our offensive strategy in response to this rule change is competently relevant.

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

On the contrary. I think this is a good opportunity for the coaching staff to change up our strategies. I like to see our team work on scoring more next season rather than focusing more on defense. Don't get me wrong, we have one of the best defensive teams in the country but if we are just a bit more aggressive and capitalize on the leeway that a good defense provides, we could probably make it further on the NCAA tourney.

That's a perfectly valid opinion, but it seems completely unrelated to the rule change we're talking about here.

How so? Maybe my opinion on how it would benefit our tourney chances is a bit derived but my comment about changing our offensive strategy in response to this rule change is competently relevant.

Why would we change our offensive strategy in response to what we're no longer allowed to do on the PK?

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

On the contrary. I think this is a good opportunity for the coaching staff to change up our strategies. I like to see our team work on scoring more next season rather than focusing more on defense. Don't get me wrong, we have one of the best defensive teams in the country but if we are just a bit more aggressive and capitalize on the leeway that a good defense provides, we could probably make it further on the NCAA tourney.

That's a perfectly valid opinion, but it seems completely unrelated to the rule change we're talking about here.

How so? Maybe my opinion on how it would benefit our tourney chances is a bit derived but my comment about changing our offensive strategy in response to this rule change is competently relevant.

Why would we change our offensive strategy in response to what we're no longer allowed to do on the PK?

If you read the article, it said that this series of changes was target to "to encourage speed, skill and scoring chances in the game". To me, that means shifting from defense heavy to offense heavy. So if they make it a penalty to kill, it means our 4-man has to be able to take the puck to the other end instead of just clearing and changing.

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

On the contrary. I think this is a good opportunity for the coaching staff to change up our strategies. I like to see our team work on scoring more next season rather than focusing more on defense. Don't get me wrong, we have one of the best defensive teams in the country but if we are just a bit more aggressive and capitalize on the leeway that a good defense provides, we could probably make it further on the NCAA tourney.

That's a perfectly valid opinion, but it seems completely unrelated to the rule change we're talking about here.

How so? Maybe my opinion on how it would benefit our tourney chances is a bit derived but my comment about changing our offensive strategy in response to this rule change is competently relevant.

Why would we change our offensive strategy in response to what we're no longer allowed to do on the PK?

If you read the article, it said that this series of changes was target to "to encourage speed, skill and scoring chances in the game". To me, that means shifting from defense heavy to offense heavy. So if they make it a penalty to kill, it means our 4-man has to be able to take the puck to the other end instead of just clearing and changing.

When I read the rule change, I was thinking the reverse. We might be better just because of how good we are defensively, including on the PK. Teams that don't emphasize the PK are going to have to do that now.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

On the contrary. I think this is a good opportunity for the coaching staff to change up our strategies. I like to see our team work on scoring more next season rather than focusing more on defense. Don't get me wrong, we have one of the best defensive teams in the country but if we are just a bit more aggressive and capitalize on the leeway that a good defense provides, we could probably make it further on the NCAA tourney.

That's a perfectly valid opinion, but it seems completely unrelated to the rule change we're talking about here.

How so? Maybe my opinion on how it would benefit our tourney chances is a bit derived but my comment about changing our offensive strategy in response to this rule change is competently relevant.

Why would we change our offensive strategy in response to what we're no longer allowed to do on the PK?

If you read the article, it said that this series of changes was target to "to encourage speed, skill and scoring chances in the game". To me, that means shifting from defense heavy to offense heavy. So if they make it a penalty to kill, it means our 4-man has to be able to take the puck to the other end instead of just clearing and changing.

When I read the rule change, I was thinking the reverse. We might be better just because of how good we are defensively, including on the PK. Teams that don't emphasize the PK are going to have to do that now.

I could see your point. If this new penalty forces our players to carry the puck to the other side instead of just dumping it in, then I'm all for it.

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

On the contrary. I think this is a good opportunity for the coaching staff to change up our strategies. I like to see our team work on scoring more next season rather than focusing more on defense. Don't get me wrong, we have one of the best defensive teams in the country but if we are just a bit more aggressive and capitalize on the leeway that a good defense provides, we could probably make it further on the NCAA tourney.

That's a perfectly valid opinion, but it seems completely unrelated to the rule change we're talking about here.

How so? Maybe my opinion on how it would benefit our tourney chances is a bit derived but my comment about changing our offensive strategy in response to this rule change is competently relevant.

Why would we change our offensive strategy in response to what we're no longer allowed to do on the PK?

If you read the article, it said that this series of changes was target to "to encourage speed, skill and scoring chances in the game". To me, that means shifting from defense heavy to offense heavy. So if they make it a penalty to kill, it means our 4-man has to be able to take the puck to the other end instead of just clearing and changing.

OK, but Cornell's PK isn't going to try to rush the puck up the ice because of this rule change and neither is anyone else, they're just going to try to make a clear that won't reach the far goal line or carry the puck to the red line and dump it like teams do at even strength when they need a change.

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

This rule change is just fucking stupid.

And what about this:

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaUpdate from the ECAC website. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2009-10/news/20101106_NCAARulesCommitteeRecap) Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

QuoteIn addition, the committee approved a rule to enforce icing throughout the game. Previously, shorthanded teams were allowed to ice the puck. This new rule has been used in USA Hockey Player Development Camps.

HATE.

This rule change is just fucking stupid.

And what about this:

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because they weren't a man down. This happens so infrequently that it's a non-entity, but I like it.

Quote from: KeithK

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

I am guessing that it's the scenario we talked about before (delayed penalty on a power play wipes the partial and starts a new one), but badly worded.  Otherwise it does not make sense.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KeithK

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

I am guessing that it's the scenario we talked about before (delayed penalty on a power play wipes the partial and starts a new one), but badly worded.  Otherwise it does not make sense.

I don't think so, I think it's what it says. If there's a penalty called you have to serve it, and as I said I like it.

Quote from: KeithKAnd what about this:

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: KeithKAnd what about this:

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

While these rule changes tend to favor more offensive teams, what the NCAA (any may other professional leagues) want is for the average fan to be more excited about the games. If this means they want to see more goals and rule changes could accommodate that, then so be it.

As I said in the past, I favor this move and hope the coaching staff will adopt to these changes instead of focusing more on defense. While it's important to have good PKs and blueliners, we cannot rely on our current system to make a national impact. Many of the faithful might be disgruntled about these realities, but the sports industry is ultimately dependent on attracting the masses, not just the fanatics. I take it that most of us here are not really enthusiastic about the changes because it doesn't favor our style of play. However, we have plenty of time to adapt and should be OK for the next season with some sophomores (returning as juniors) that have great offensive potential.

Quote from: ajh258As I said in the past, I favor this move and hope the coaching staff will adopt to these changes instead of focusing more on defense. While it's important to have good PKs and blueliners, we cannot rely on our current system to make a national impact. Many of the faithful might be disgruntled about these realities, but the sports industry is ultimately dependent on attracting the masses, not just the fanatics. I take it that most of us here are not really enthusiastic about the changes because it doesn't favor our style of play. However, we have plenty of time to adapt and should be OK for the next season with some sophomores (returning as juniors) that have great offensive potential.

My opinion on these rule changes has nothing to do with how they will affect Cornell's chances in the future.  Even if I knew for sure that they would help Cornell be successful on the national scene I'd hate 'em.  As a hockey fan I think they are ill conceived. Bad.

I don't see that scoring is so low in college hockey that we need to make artificial changes in order to increase scoring.  I particularly dislike changes that are linked to penalties because they make the outcome more dependent on the referees. Enforcing the rules more closely is one thing but we don't need rules designed to increase power play percentage significantly.

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: KeithKAnd what about this:

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

I get it. The rules committee is seeing all of these perfect games all of a sudden and decided that they desperately needed to do something to help the offenses.

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: KeithKAnd what about this:

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

While these rule changes tend to favor more offensive teams, what the NCAA (any may other professional leagues) want is for the average fan to be more excited about the games. If this means they want to see more goals and rule changes could accommodate that, then so be it.

As I said in the past, I favor this move and hope the coaching staff will adopt to these changes instead of focusing more on defense. While it's important to have good PKs and blueliners, we cannot rely on our current system to make a national impact. Many of the faithful might be disgruntled about these realities, but the sports industry is ultimately dependent on attracting the masses, not just the fanatics. I take it that most of us here are not really enthusiastic about the changes because it doesn't favor our style of play. However, we have plenty of time to adapt and should be OK for the next season with some sophomores (returning as juniors) that have great offensive potential.

I don't see how eliminating icing on the PK favors offensively minded teams or encourages offensive skills in any way. It actually favors defensively minded teams, since getting the puck out on the PK will require you to play more effectively in the defensive zone. If I'm Cornell, or anybody else, I spend more time on PK practice at the expense of other skills, and I might work on adding an extra PK unit since the rule change effectively increases PK time. It's not like you can run a standard breakout 4x5, so this won't help there, and it doesn't improve the skills on the power play so much as it reduces options for the defense.

It's a stupid rule change, and clearly nobody in the committee thought about it beyond the GOALS GOALS GOALS argument. All it's going to do is slow the game down tremendously with incessant stoppages for icing on the PK while marginally increasing goal scoring. I'm pretty sure college and USA Hockey rules still allow line changes after an icing, so it's not like you have tired skaters out there. Even if they do eliminate the defensive change after an icing, it doesn't add to the speed or skill of the game. All it does is make the officials more important. Yeah, that's what we want - ECAC officials having *more* control over the outcome of the games.

This still has to be approved by the playing rules oversight panel. Hopefully they realize it's quite possibly the dumbest rule change ever proposed. At best it accomplishes nothing apart from getting some teams to roll an extra PK unit and increasing the number of icing calls. At worst it turns power plays into a farce, and raises the very real spectre of an increasingly tired defense winging the puck down the ice every 4 seconds for yet another stoppage. Now *that's* exciting. Oh yeah.

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: KeithKAnd what about this:

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

Yep.  The problem is that I want to see *good* goals.  If you, say, doubled the size of the net, then any pigeon-toed, wobbly-ankled tripod could score goals as he trips over the blue line coming into the zone.  Talk about boring hockey.

That said, I generally find 6x5 and 5x4 goals to be less exciting than 5x5.  Sure, a nice tic-tac-toe powerplay goal is pretty - but that's different from exciting.  It takes a whole lot more work and skill to earn a 5x5 goal.  In my mind, any changes designed to boost scoring simply by adding additional PPGs really isn't going to make the game all that much more exciting to me.  In fact, it might make it worse if teams become more dependent on their powerplay units to generate their scoring - they could become less likely to take risks to generate chances 5x5 if they think they're likely to get a couple PPGs later.

Quote from: KeithKI don't see that scoring is so low in college hockey that we need to make artificial changes in order to increase scoring.

For instance, this year's Frozen Four.  Lots of goals does not necessarily equal good hockey.

Quote from: KeithKI get it. The rules committee is seeing all of these perfect games all of a sudden and decided that they desperately needed to do something to help the offenses.

The should lower the goal crease.

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: KeithKAnd what about this:

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

While these rule changes tend to favor more offensive teams, what the NCAA (any may other professional leagues) want is for the average fan to be more excited about the games. If this means they want to see more goals and rule changes could accommodate that, then so be it.

As I said in the past, I favor this move and hope the coaching staff will adopt to these changes instead of focusing more on defense. While it's important to have good PKs and blueliners, we cannot rely on our current system to make a national impact. Many of the faithful might be disgruntled about these realities, but the sports industry is ultimately dependent on attracting the masses, not just the fanatics. I take it that most of us here are not really enthusiastic about the changes because it doesn't favor our style of play. However, we have plenty of time to adapt and should be OK for the next season with some sophomores (returning as juniors) that have great offensive potential.

I don't see how eliminating icing on the PK favors offensively minded teams or encourages offensive skills in any way. It actually favors defensively minded teams, since getting the puck out on the PK will require you to play more effectively in the defensive zone. If I'm Cornell, or anybody else, I spend more time on PK practice at the expense of other skills, and I might work on adding an extra PK unit since the rule change effectively increases PK time. It's not like you can run a standard breakout 4x5, so this won't help there, and it doesn't improve the skills on the power play so much as it reduces options for the defense.

It's a stupid rule change, and clearly nobody in the committee thought about it beyond the GOALS GOALS GOALS argument. All it's going to do is slow the game down tremendously with incessant stoppages for icing on the PK while marginally increasing goal scoring. I'm pretty sure college and USA Hockey rules still allow line changes after an icing, so it's not like you have tired skaters out there. Even if they do eliminate the defensive change after an icing, it doesn't add to the speed or skill of the game. All it does is make the officials more important. Yeah, that's what we want - ECAC officials having *more* control over the outcome of the games.

This still has to be approved by the playing rules oversight panel. Hopefully they realize it's quite possibly the dumbest rule change ever proposed. At best it accomplishes nothing apart from getting some teams to roll an extra PK unit and increasing the number of icing calls. At worst it turns power plays into a farce, and raises the very real spectre of an increasingly tired defense winging the puck down the ice every 4 seconds for yet another stoppage. Now *that's* exciting. Oh yeah.

Not since 2008, so I think your whole point is moot.

Here's Adam's column  (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/06/12_questioning.php)on it, finally!:-}

Does anyone know if teams on the PK would be able to line change if they iced the puck?  I honestly think that would have the most impact.

Quote from: amerks127Does anyone know if teams on the PK would be able to line change if they iced the puck?  I honestly think that would have the most impact.

I don't think you can.

Quote from: 2008-10 RulesHR-74 RULE 6 / PLAYING RULES
A team that is in violation of this rule shall not be permitted to make any
player substitutions before the next faceoff. This includes stoppages for
team or commercial timeouts. However, a team shall be permitted to make
a player substitution to replace a goalkeeper who had been substituted for
an extra attacker, to replace an injured player, or when a penalty is assessed
that affects the on-ice strength of either team. The determination of players
on the ice will be made when the puck leaves the offending player's stick.

Quote from: Jim HylaHere's Adam's column  (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/06/12_questioning.php)on it, finally!:-}

As Adam suggests, if power play percentages soar as a result of this change it's likely that referees will be more hesitant to call infractions particularly late in games. So you might end up with a lot more chippiness and obstruction, exactly the opposite of what the intent is.

Who the hell is on this committee if the vast majority of coaches are against the changes, as the  article says?

If their intent is to increase scoring, wouldn't a simple change that doesn't really screw anything up be to be more strict about goalies freezing the puck when there's no players on the other team around.  Either giving them a delay of game penalty for doing so, or better yet just not blowing the whistle and telling the goalie to put it back in play would significantly decrease the amount of stoppages and probably increase scoring.  This seems to make much more sense than all these radical changes that are going to work to ruin the game.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Jim HylaHere's Adam's column  (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/06/12_questioning.php)on it, finally!:-}

As Adam suggests, if power play percentages soar as a result of this change it's likely that referees will be more hesitant to call infractions particularly late in games. So you might end up with a lot more chippiness and obstruction, exactly the opposite of what the intent is.

Who the hell is on this committee if the vast majority of coaches are against the changes, as the  article says?


Assistant Ice Hockey Coach  John Hill
  University of Minnesota,
Asst. AD -- Compliance/Acad. Enrichment  Sarah Fraser
  Brown University  
Head Men's Ice Hockey Coach  Derek Schooley
  Robert Morris University  
AD, Director of Athletics  Ed McLaughlin
  Niagara University
AD, Director of Athletics  Forrest Karr
  University of Alaska Fairbanks
AD, Director of Athletics/Head Coach  Chris Salani
  Finlandia University
AD  Frank Millerick
  Becker College
Associate Director of Athletics  William Gorman
  Wentworth Institute of Technology
Head Ice Hockey Coach  Michael J. Carroll
  Gustavus Adolphus College
Head Women's Ice Hockey Coach  Robert Christopher Wells
  St. Lawrence University
Head Women's Ice Hockey Coach  William E. Mandigo
  Middlebury College  
Head Women's Ice hockey coach  Claudia Asano
  Union College (New York)  


Craptastic icing rule.

What's to stop a team from icing as normal? I assume the puck would come back for a faceoff as normal, but would there be an additional penalty of some kind? Maybe after 4 illegal clears the goalie has to switch his glove to the other hand? Maybe the team who's a man up gets one shot from the red line? Or their coach gets to shoot from behind his team's goal line for the chance to win a free Saab?

Or some equally arbitrary rule imagined by someone who has never seen hockey, improvised under the ludicrous assumption that if something needs fixing anything needs fixing.

It seems to me like this icing rule would make the games very, very slow, especially in defense-minded leagues like the ECAC.

In all fairness, I'm trying to imagine what positive effect it might have. Here's my best stab at it so far:

It might be exciting to watch teams reset for each puck-drop. Hear me out, Hippie! If the 4-man PK can stop the clock with every play, it will turn the PK into what I imagine will look something like a 2-minute drill in the final moments of a football game:

Puck-drop -> Frantic scramble to ice it -> Tense Pause/Deep Breath -> Reset (x2 minutes)

While the added tension might be exciting at the end of the game, I think people above are correct to note that refs will be less likely to call penalties in the 3rd. But, again, I love the PK as it is. Remember how exciting it is to watch your team kill off a 5-minute major, clearing from their heels? I'd miss that.

Quote from: LaJollaRedCraptastic icing rule.

What's to stop a team from icing as normal? I assume the puck would come back for a faceoff as normal, but would there be an additional penalty of some kind? Maybe after 4 illegal clears the goalie has to switch his glove to the other hand? Maybe the team who's a man up gets one shot from the red line? Or their coach gets to shoot from behind his team's goal line for the chance to win a free Saab?

Or some equally arbitrary rule imagined by someone who has never seen hockey, improvised under the ludicrous assumption that if something needs fixing anything needs fixing.

It seems to me like this icing rule would make the games very, very slow, especially in defense-minded leagues like the ECAC.

In all fairness, I'm trying to imagine what positive effect it might have. Here's my best stab at it so far:

It might be exciting to watch teams reset for each puck-drop. Hear me out, Hippie! If the 4-man PK can stop the clock with every play, it will turn the PK into what I imagine will look something like a 2-minute drill in the final moments of a football game:

Puck-drop -> Frantic scramble to ice it -> Tense Pause/Deep Breath -> Reset (x2 minutes)

While the added tension might be exciting at the end of the game, I think people above are correct to note that refs will be less likely to call penalties in the 3rd. But, again, I love the PK as it is. Remember how exciting it is to watch your team kill off a 5-minute major, clearing from their heels? I'd miss that.

Except that it looks like the comm. members all know hockey, some are even coaches. That's not to say I like the rule, but let's get the facts straight.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: KeithKAnd what about this:

QuoteAltered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

While these rule changes tend to favor more offensive teams, what the NCAA (any may other professional leagues) want is for the average fan to be more excited about the games. If this means they want to see more goals and rule changes could accommodate that, then so be it.

As I said in the past, I favor this move and hope the coaching staff will adopt to these changes instead of focusing more on defense. While it's important to have good PKs and blueliners, we cannot rely on our current system to make a national impact. Many of the faithful might be disgruntled about these realities, but the sports industry is ultimately dependent on attracting the masses, not just the fanatics. I take it that most of us here are not really enthusiastic about the changes because it doesn't favor our style of play. However, we have plenty of time to adapt and should be OK for the next season with some sophomores (returning as juniors) that have great offensive potential.

I don't see how eliminating icing on the PK favors offensively minded teams or encourages offensive skills in any way. It actually favors defensively minded teams, since getting the puck out on the PK will require you to play more effectively in the defensive zone. If I'm Cornell, or anybody else, I spend more time on PK practice at the expense of other skills, and I might work on adding an extra PK unit since the rule change effectively increases PK time. It's not like you can run a standard breakout 4x5, so this won't help there, and it doesn't improve the skills on the power play so much as it reduces options for the defense.

It's a stupid rule change, and clearly nobody in the committee thought about it beyond the GOALS GOALS GOALS argument. All it's going to do is slow the game down tremendously with incessant stoppages for icing on the PK while marginally increasing goal scoring. I'm pretty sure college and USA Hockey rules still allow line changes after an icing, so it's not like you have tired skaters out there. Even if they do eliminate the defensive change after an icing, it doesn't add to the speed or skill of the game. All it does is make the officials more important. Yeah, that's what we want - ECAC officials having *more* control over the outcome of the games.

This still has to be approved by the playing rules oversight panel. Hopefully they realize it's quite possibly the dumbest rule change ever proposed. At best it accomplishes nothing apart from getting some teams to roll an extra PK unit and increasing the number of icing calls. At worst it turns power plays into a farce, and raises the very real spectre of an increasingly tired defense winging the puck down the ice every 4 seconds for yet another stoppage. Now *that's* exciting. Oh yeah.

Not since 2008, so I think your whole point is moot.

Please read the whole post. My point is slightly different, but it's not moot at all. This rule change does nothing to increase the speed or skill of the game, and with the change rule in effect it makes officiating more important.

I guess that's one way to increase the variance in your game outcomes, but I don't feel like hockey in general and college hockey in particular had a problem in that area.

If I'm Cornell, I spend more time working special teams in general and the PK in particular, not less. This won't help Cornell's offensive output except in so far as it gives a bigger advantage to teams on the PP. I guess on the whole this is good for Cornell - a positionally excellent defensive/PK team that relies on PP scoring to carry the offense gets a much bigger benefit from this change than a high-flying speed-based offensive team with questionable defending and plenty of even-strength firepower.

You know what, I've changed my mind. This rule change is *awesome*.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: LaJollaRedCraptastic icing rule.

What's to stop a team from icing as normal? I assume the puck would come back for a faceoff as normal, but would there be an additional penalty of some kind? Maybe after 4 illegal clears the goalie has to switch his glove to the other hand? Maybe the team who's a man up gets one shot from the red line? Or their coach gets to shoot from behind his team's goal line for the chance to win a free Saab?

Or some equally arbitrary rule imagined by someone who has never seen hockey, improvised under the ludicrous assumption that if something needs fixing anything needs fixing.

It seems to me like this icing rule would make the games very, very slow, especially in defense-minded leagues like the ECAC.

In all fairness, I'm trying to imagine what positive effect it might have. Here's my best stab at it so far:

It might be exciting to watch teams reset for each puck-drop. Hear me out, Hippie! If the 4-man PK can stop the clock with every play, it will turn the PK into what I imagine will look something like a 2-minute drill in the final moments of a football game:

Puck-drop -> Frantic scramble to ice it -> Tense Pause/Deep Breath -> Reset (x2 minutes)

While the added tension might be exciting at the end of the game, I think people above are correct to note that refs will be less likely to call penalties in the 3rd. But, again, I love the PK as it is. Remember how exciting it is to watch your team kill off a 5-minute major, clearing from their heels? I'd miss that.

Except that it looks like the comm. members all know hockey, some are even coaches. That's not to say I like the rule, but let's get the facts straight.

But only one DI men's head coach on the committee, so it still isn't inconsistent with the comments from Hakstol about how strongly the coaches were against it.

Interesting comments about the Icing rule change and how it came about in Adam's most recent column. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/06/14_newicing.php) Also the USCHO column, (http://www.uscho.com/blogs/from_the_press_box/toddmilewski/20100611/icing-rule-change-gets-early-heat.html) although the only thing it adds is a comment by USA Hockey, where they have used the rule.

It looks like they really did work through the process, doing a survey beforehand and presentations during the discussion. It would be interesting to see the survey results from before the meeting.

Brian wrote two posts about the rule changes yesterday and today.  The first one is about the icing and has some good interviews with people directly involved and the other examines all the rules up for consideration and the idea behind the rule and what will be affected.  I particularly liked the Might We Propose one since it hits all the rule changes not just the ones that are currently getting lots of attention.

Icing Rule Gets Icy Reception (http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,18665/IcingRuleGetsIcyReception.html)
Might We Propose: Potential Rule Changes (http://www.uscho.com/blogs/the-breakaway/bsullivan82/20100617/might-we-propose-potential-rules-to-be.html)

Quote from: Roy 82

Quote from: polarAnd if they make icing illegal during penalty kills, I will break something.

Actually, I always thought that no-icing PKs was a good idea. Why reward a team with the ability to play bad defense when on a PK?

I also think that a penalty shot should be followed up by a Power Play if the shooter does not score.

Does this make me a bad person?::innocent::

Am I the only person on this planet that likes this new rule change? I like this rule change not out of a desire to see more scoring, but out of a sense of purity and respect for the game. Chucking the puck from one end to the other is not good hockey and should not be rewarded.

Except they're still going to do it. Only now, there will be a stoppage and the defending team gets a longer rest. Plus it will lengthen the game time considerably, going directly against their efforts to speed it up (which weren't entirely necessary in the first place) from a few years back.

Quote from: CowbellGuyExcept they're still going to do it. Only now, there will be a stoppage and the defending team gets a longer rest. Plus it will lengthen the game time considerably, going directly against their efforts to speed it up (which weren't entirely necessary in the first place) from a few years back.

I am sure there will be more icing initially, but as teams adapt I am not sure that the benefit of a few seconds of time burnt by icing outweighs giving the offensive team a chance to set up in the zone.

Quote from: Roy 82Am I the only person on this planet that likes this new rule change? I like this rule change not out of a desire to see more scoring, but out of a sense of purity and respect for the game. Chucking the puck from one end to the other is not good hockey and should not be rewarded.

Whether or not icing the puck is "good hockey" is a subjective question.  I think icing the puck when you're down a man is very much good hockey. Even more so when it's a 5 on 3 situation.

Keep in mind that the PK can still send the puck over the glass and then change.

Quote from: ebilmesKeep in mind that the PK can still send the puck over the glass and then change.

Can you really intentionally shoot the puck over the glass without a Delay of Game penalty? I know that it is not an automatic call like in the NHL but I would say that obviously shooting the puck over the glass should be a DOG.

This RPI guy writes a good blog Without a Peer (http://www.withoutapeer.com/) with a great take on the rules proposals in his June 25 entry.  Unfortunately he's an incredible asshole when posting on USCHO.

Quote from: Roy 82I am sure there will be more icing initially, but as teams adapt I am not sure that the benefit of a few seconds of time burnt by icing outweighs giving the offensive team a chance to set up in the zone.

Teams will probably still ice when they have been pinned back in the zone for a long time and undergone a number of good chances.  Icing off a defensive zone faceoff will no longer be smart.

What was the intent?  To increase the impact of the penalty?  Have the guy serve the full two minutes but return a man to the ice after the goal.

Edit: after reading the Sullivan article, the intent is simply to "improve level of defensive play."

I don't think anybody mentioned the change in the hand pass rule.  I hate it.  It takes what was previously a question of fact: did the hand pass occur, and changes it to a question of intent: was the hand pass intentional.  The reason given for doing so, "too many false hand passes are being called," seems weak when compared to introducing another element of referee discretion to fight about.

Quote from: TrotskyI don't think anybody mentioned the change in the hand pass rule.  I hate it.  It takes what was previously a question of fact: did the hand pass occur, and changes it to a question of intent: was the hand pass intentional.  The reason given for doing so, "too many false hand passes are being called," seems weak when compared to introducing another element of referee discretion to fight about.

Well, according to Sepp Blatter, it's best when fans have more things to "discuss" after the game.

Quote from: Scersk '97Well, according to Sepp Blatter, it's best when fans have more things to "discuss" after the game.

Yep, that was a quote for the ages. :-P

Waved off (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/07/08_rulescommittee.php).

good (though not surprising)... do we know which idiot proposed this to begin with?

Quote from: Cactus12good (though not surprising)... do we know which idiot proposed this to begin with?

I think it was Roy '82. :-P

another potential ncaa change (this one applying to all sports, not just hockey): banning early scholarship offers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5372984

while obviously not impacting the ivy league directly, it seems like this would tilt the ice in favor of major junior hockey.

Quote from: pfibigeranother potential ncaa change (this one applying to all sports, not just hockey): banning early scholarship offers....while obviously not impacting the ivy league directly, it seems like this would tilt the ice in favor of major junior hockey.

This strikes me as a good change. It's pretty ridiculous to offer a kid a scholarship who hasn't even finished tenth grade. Kind of makes a mockery of the idea of "student-athletes" (or at least adds to the mockery that the rest of big time college athletics is).

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Cactus12good (though not surprising)... do we know which idiot proposed this to begin with?

I think it was Roy '82. :-P

At least they will experiment with it during exhibition games so that they will get to know just how brilliant I am.

As a reminder to anyone going to the exhibition games this weekend, the power play icing rule is in effect. That, and apparently a goal scored on a delayed penalty does not negate the penalty. Forgot that one was approved...

Quote from: polarAs a reminder to anyone going to the exhibition games this weekend, the power play icing rule is in effect. That, and apparently a goal scored on a delayed penalty does not negate the penalty. Forgot that one was approved...

If I'm not wrong, the obtainable pass rule is also gone; now receiving players have to touch the puck.