Potential NCAA Rule Changes

[ebilmes]

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

[Josh '99]

My reaction to most of these is:  why?

The game is fine the way it is.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

My reaction to most of these is:  why?

The game is fine the way it is.

Hear, hear!

[Trotsky]

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.

[semsox]

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.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

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

[Josh '99]

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.

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.)

[ajh258]

-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.

[Al DeFlorio]

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.

[munchkin]

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.

[David Harding]

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.

[jtwcornell91]

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.

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.

[ftyuv]

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.

[ftyuv]

Some of these rules are just crazy, btw.

Further 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?

[Ronald '09]

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.

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.