Potential NCAA Rule Changes

[amerks127]

PPs already have, what, about 30% conversion rates?

Most teams convert at the 17-20% range.

[KeithK]

And 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!

[ftyuv]

PPs 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%.

[Trotsky]

PPs 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%

[Jim Hyla]

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?

So 2 penalties, one chance to score?

[Josh '99]

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?

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.

[Trotsky]

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.

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

[Trotsky]

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?

[Robb]

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?

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.

[Trotsky]

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

[CowbellGuy]

If 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.

[David Harding]

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?

How does that differ from the current rule?

4-2-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).

[Trotsky]

How does that differ from the current rule?

4-2-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::

[amerks127]

How does that differ from the current rule?

4-2-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?

[KeithK]

How does that differ from the current rule?

4-2-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).