New Rules?

[Jim Hyla]

Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

[David Harding]

Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

Reading the end-of-period reminder, and checking the rule book for any additional material, I am struck that the rule does not distinguish between the end of the last period (regular or overtime) that marks the end of the game and the ends of the other periods.  While the rule makes sense for the earlier periods, I don't think the intention would have been to have it apply to the last period.  As written, however the rule would preclude the traditional handshakes, not to mention the Cornell stick tapping and so forth.  Of course a delay of game penalty is meaningless after the game is over, but the sloppy writing bothers me.

[andyw2100]

Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

Reading the end-of-period reminder, and checking the rule book for any additional material, I am struck that the rule does not distinguish between the end of the last period (regular or overtime) that marks the end of the game and the ends of the other periods.  While the rule makes sense for the earlier periods, I don't think the intention would have been to have it apply to the last period.  As written, however the rule would preclude the traditional handshakes, not to mention the Cornell stick tapping and so forth.  Of course a delay of game penalty is meaningless after the game is over, but the sloppy writing bothers me.

I can understand why that bothers you. I take things quite literally too. I agree that could have been written in a way that would leave no room for ambiguity.

That being said, I'm willing to give the authors of the memo the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the difference between "end of the period" and "end of the game" is implied, and that it is understood that the section in question does not to apply if it is the "end of the game."

[David Harding]

Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

Reading the end-of-period reminder, and checking the rule book for any additional material, I am struck that the rule does not distinguish between the end of the last period (regular or overtime) that marks the end of the game and the ends of the other periods.  While the rule makes sense for the earlier periods, I don't think the intention would have been to have it apply to the last period.  As written, however the rule would preclude the traditional handshakes, not to mention the Cornell stick tapping and so forth.  Of course a delay of game penalty is meaningless after the game is over, but the sloppy writing bothers me.

I can understand why that bothers you. I take things quite literally too. I agree that could have been written in a way that would leave no room for ambiguity.

That being said, I'm willing to give the authors of the memo the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the difference between "end of the period" and "end of the game" is implied, and that it is understood that the section in question does not to apply if it is the "end of the game."

I certainly don't blame the authors of the memo.  The language is straight out of the rule book, whose authors I do blame.  I give sports writers slack (up to a point).  I don't give rule book writers slack.  If you can't take the language a rule book literally, why bother with a rule book.

[andyw2100]

I don't give rule book writers slack.  If you can't take the language a rule book literally, why bother with a rule book.

That's a fair point. Agreed!

[ugarte]

Not new rules, but clarification. USCHO article and the NCAA memo. I like the dump in clarification.

Reading the end-of-period reminder, and checking the rule book for any additional material, I am struck that the rule does not distinguish between the end of the last period (regular or overtime) that marks the end of the game and the ends of the other periods.  While the rule makes sense for the earlier periods, I don't think the intention would have been to have it apply to the last period.  As written, however the rule would preclude the traditional handshakes, not to mention the Cornell stick tapping and so forth.  Of course a delay of game penalty is meaningless after the game is over, but the sloppy writing bothers me.

I can understand why that bothers you. I take things quite literally too. I agree that could have been written in a way that would leave no room for ambiguity.

That being said, I'm willing to give the authors of the memo the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the difference between "end of the period" and "end of the game" is implied, and that it is understood that the section in question does not to apply if it is the "end of the game."

I certainly don't blame the authors of the memo.  The language is straight out of the rule book, whose authors I do blame.  I give sports writers slack (up to a point).  I don't give rule book writers slack.  If you can't take the language a rule book literally, why bother with a rule book.

The penalty for the infraction is a "delay of game" bench minor. If the game is over, I think the home team can salute the fans and take the penalty.

[Jim Hyla]

4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

• The committee proposed moving the hash marks on the faceoff circles in the offensive and defensive zones from the current 4 feet to 5 feet, 7 inches, so there is more separation between players. This new width will be a preferred distance, which allows flexibility in compliance. However, in NCAA championship competition, the wider hash marks will be used.

Which I like.

[jtwcornell91]

4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

::yark::

[ithacat]

Love the rule. Hurts Cornell, but love it as a fan of speed and skill.

[redice]

4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

• The committee proposed moving the hash marks on the faceoff circles in the offensive and defensive zones from the current 4 feet to 5 feet, 7 inches, so there is more separation between players. This new width will be a preferred distance, which allows flexibility in compliance. However, in NCAA championship competition, the wider hash marks will be used.

Which I like.

:-)

[jtwcornell91]

4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

::yark::

Tabled for a year.  Whew.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2016-07-20/ncaa-mens-and-womens-ice-hockey-overtime-proposal-tabled

[css228]

4 on 4 OT starting to get approved.

Ken Schott also reports:

::yark::

Tabled for a year.  Whew.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2016-07-20/ncaa-mens-and-womens-ice-hockey-overtime-proposal-tabled

BOOOOOOOOOOOO