Potential NCAA Rule Changes

[Trotsky]

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).

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.

[Josh '99]

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).

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.

[CowbellGuy]

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.

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.

[Trotsky]

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.

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.

[ACM]

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).

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 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.

[JDeafv]

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.

[David Harding]

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.

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

[CowbellGuy]

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.

[Josh '99]

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.

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.

[Jim Hyla]

Update from the ECAC website. Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

[Josh '99]

Update from the ECAC website. Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

In 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.

[ajh258]

Update from the ECAC website. Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

In 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.

[Josh '99]

Update from the ECAC website. Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

In 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.

[ajh258]

Update from the ECAC website. Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

In 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.

[Josh '99]

Update from the ECAC website. Sorry I don't have time to discuss the potential changes.

In 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?