New NCAA rules

[nr53]

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2008/06/06_rulescommittee.php

Short version:
2 refs, option to go to shootout to eliminate ties, no change icing.

More to come according to the article.

[KeithK]

Seems to me that these changes are simply for the sake of making changes and won't make the game any better.  There's a strong element of keeping up with the pros, which I guess is understandable though misguided.

- Two refs: College hockey has had a two ref system before.  The refs rarely could agree on how to call the game, so whether or not an infraction was called depended on which ref happened to be closer.  Maybe the extra linesman makes a difference (the 90's 2 ref college systemm had only one).  But good luck finding another two dozen quality referees.

- Goals by kicking: From the description it doesn't sound like the rule is actually changing.  Maybe they're just going to clarify the statement in the book.  Can't really argue with this.

- Shootouts: I will never understand why everyone thinks ties are so horrible.  If the teams finishs the time allotted and have scored the same number of goals then it's a tie.  Big deal.  Lengthen OT back to 10 minutes if you want.  But shootouts aren't hockey.  I hate the idea of deciding a game this way.

- Icing: I don't see why this is necessary. Icing is a defensive tactic.  Nothing wrong with it.

- Faceoff location: I can't get worked up about this.  But I don't see why it's bad to have a faceoff at the spot of the event (hand pass, puck deflected out, whatever) when it happens in the neutral zeon or high up in the offensive zone.  Seems like an unnecessary change.

[Trotsky]

Has anybody explained why the NCAA is "moving in the direction of eliminating ties from hockey"?

[Jim Hyla]

Well, overall I like this. I think 2 refs will allow the game to open up by watching for more obstructions, hooking, etc.. The prior 2 refs 1 linesman was faulty because 1 ref always had to worry about lines for offsides, icing, etc.. Trying to do 2 things at the same time didn't work. It works well in the NHL. They partially started with this last year, and had already started to get more refs.

I love the icing rule change. Trying to skate it out after a long forecheck will provide us with more ops. Yes our defense will suffer, and we might not have gotten those mid 90's championships, but we can adjust our defense. I've got confidence in Coach Schafer.

The kicking rule just emphasizes the obvious, that if it hits your skate while you're coming at the goal and trying to stop, then it's not intentional and should count. The ND goal would probably have counted.

I hate shootouts, especially with our short season compared to the pros. The only saving grace is I expect the ECAC will not adopt it, and it doesn't sound like they will count past your league standings.

I don't know about the faceoffs. I'd assume a faceoff just inside the blue line will go down to the faceoff circle, giving the offense a boost. I doubt they'd penalize the offense and move it out of the zone.

[ftyuv]

I've been waiting for the icing rule for a while.  That was my favorite of the new NHL rules, and I think it makes for purer hockey.  You gotta work for those line changes!

[polar]

There were plenty of times this season that I was frustrated by a referee missing a call, either because he didn't see it or didn't think it was correct. I personally think teh four-ref system is the way to go, and I'm glad the change is being made.

And as for the shootout, it's only been made an option. Especially considering college hockey (or at the very least the ECAC) does not award a point for an overtime loss, I feel like a shootout would be a mistake. College hockey certainly does not have the attendance problems the pros do, so why mess with the formula?

[Give My Regards]

[quote Trotsky]Has anybody explained why the NCAA is "moving in the direction of eliminating ties from hockey"?[/quote]

They're not actually moving in that direction; they only said they were.  :-D

The shootout "option" isn't really anything new.  Back in the mid '90s, Hockey East had a shootout (following the normal 5-minute overtime) for a couple seasons, and they even had their own convoluted point structure for league standings -- 5 points for a win, 0 for a loss, and in the case of a tie, each team got 2 points and the shootout winner got an additional point.  The whole mess meant nothing to the NCAA, which ignored shootout results and used the standard W-L-T record for rankings and tourey selection purposes.  According to the article, they'd do the same thing now.

[KeithK]

The old Hockey East shootout points system was vastly superior to the NHL's silliness.  A game should be worth a fixed number of points for crying out loud.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote KeithK]The old Hockey East shootout points system was vastly superior to the NHL's silliness.  A game should be worth a fixed number of points for crying out loud.[/quote]

The International/European shootout rules are zero-sum.  Unfortunately they consider a result in overtime to be equivalent to a result in a shootout: a 2-1 division of points.  (I guess with the HE 5-point thing you could split them 4-1 if someone wins in OT and 3-2 if there's a shootout, but to me the game is the game.)

[KeithK]

[quote jtwcornell91][quote KeithK]The old Hockey East shootout points system was vastly superior to the NHL's silliness.  A game should be worth a fixed number of points for crying out loud.[/quote]

The International/European shootout rules are zero-sum.  Unfortunately they consider a result in overtime to be equivalent to a result in a shootout: a 2-1 division of points.  (I guess with the HE 5-point thing you could split them 4-1 if someone wins in OT and 3-2 if there's a shootout, but to me the game is the game.)[/quote]
How about calling a win in overtime what it is - a win?  I think it's silly to give consolation points for making it to overtime.  I realize the NHL wanted to encourage teams to try harder to win in OT (less downside, since you already have a point) but it just transfers the disincentive to the end of the third.

[mnagowski]

A high school coach of mine used to say, "I tie is like kissing your sister."

I think every overtime should be sudden death until a goal.

[KeithK]

[quote mnagowski]A high school coach of mine used to say, "I tie is like kissing your sister."[/quote]
I assume the coach wasn't also an English teacher...
[quote mnagowski]I think every overtime should be sudden death until a goal.[/quote]
That would be fun.  I'd go with that long before I'd go with a shootout.

[Josh '99]

[quote mnagowski]I think every overtime should be sudden death until a goal.[/quote]I agree.  Infinite 20-minute OTs in the regular season.  One point for a win, zero points for a loss.

Actually, at that point you wouldn't need points, would you?

[mnagowski]

I assume the coach wasn't also an English teacher...

Nope. He was a physical education teacher. And my typing teacher obviously wasn't the cream of the crop either. Nor is this guy.

Actually, at that point you wouldn't need points, would you?

Nope. That's the beauty of it. I wonder what percentage of playoff overtimes end within 10 minutes? 15 minutes? A period?

I think the major problem would be the endurance of college athletes. A double overtime game in the playoffs is one thing. Every other week is another.

[Jacob '06]

[quote mnagowski]

I think the major problem would be the endurance of college athletes. A double overtime game in the playoffs is one thing. Every other week is another.[/quote]

Theres also the fact that other conferences play on weeknights and have class the next morning, and 50% of the time for a weekend game they have another game the next night.