Potential NCAA Rule Changes

[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.

Why would we change our offensive strategy in response to what we're no longer allowed to do on the PK?

If you read the article, it said that this series of changes was target to "to encourage speed, skill and scoring chances in the game". To me, that means shifting from defense heavy to offense heavy. So if they make it a penalty to kill, it means our 4-man has to be able to take the puck to the other end instead of just clearing and changing.

[Jim Hyla]

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?

If you read the article, it said that this series of changes was target to "to encourage speed, skill and scoring chances in the game". To me, that means shifting from defense heavy to offense heavy. So if they make it a penalty to kill, it means our 4-man has to be able to take the puck to the other end instead of just clearing and changing.

When I read the rule change, I was thinking the reverse. We might be better just because of how good we are defensively, including on the PK. Teams that don't emphasize the PK are going to have to do that now.

[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.

Why would we change our offensive strategy in response to what we're no longer allowed to do on the PK?

If you read the article, it said that this series of changes was target to "to encourage speed, skill and scoring chances in the game". To me, that means shifting from defense heavy to offense heavy. So if they make it a penalty to kill, it means our 4-man has to be able to take the puck to the other end instead of just clearing and changing.

When I read the rule change, I was thinking the reverse. We might be better just because of how good we are defensively, including on the PK. Teams that don't emphasize the PK are going to have to do that now.

I could see your point. If this new penalty forces our players to carry the puck to the other side instead of just dumping it in, then I'm all for it.

[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?

If you read the article, it said that this series of changes was target to "to encourage speed, skill and scoring chances in the game". To me, that means shifting from defense heavy to offense heavy. So if they make it a penalty to kill, it means our 4-man has to be able to take the puck to the other end instead of just clearing and changing.

OK, but Cornell's PK isn't going to try to rush the puck up the ice because of this rule change and neither is anyone else, they're just going to try to make a clear that won't reach the far goal line or carry the puck to the red line and dump it like teams do at even strength when they need a change.

[KeithK]

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.

This rule change is just fucking stupid.

And what about this:

Altered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

[Jim Hyla]

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.

This rule change is just fucking stupid.

And what about this:

Altered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because they weren't a man down. This happens so infrequently that it's a non-entity, but I like it.

[Trotsky]

Altered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

I am guessing that it's the scenario we talked about before (delayed penalty on a power play wipes the partial and starts a new one), but badly worded.  Otherwise it does not make sense.

[Jim Hyla]

Altered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

I am guessing that it's the scenario we talked about before (delayed penalty on a power play wipes the partial and starts a new one), but badly worded.  Otherwise it does not make sense.

I don't think so, I think it's what it says. If there's a penalty called you have to serve it, and as I said I like it.

[Josh '99]

And what about this:

Altered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

[ajh258]

And what about this:

Altered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

While these rule changes tend to favor more offensive teams, what the NCAA (any may other professional leagues) want is for the average fan to be more excited about the games. If this means they want to see more goals and rule changes could accommodate that, then so be it.

As I said in the past, I favor this move and hope the coaching staff will adopt to these changes instead of focusing more on defense. While it's important to have good PKs and blueliners, we cannot rely on our current system to make a national impact. Many of the faithful might be disgruntled about these realities, but the sports industry is ultimately dependent on attracting the masses, not just the fanatics. I take it that most of us here are not really enthusiastic about the changes because it doesn't favor our style of play. However, we have plenty of time to adapt and should be OK for the next season with some sophomores (returning as juniors) that have great offensive potential.

[KeithK]

As I said in the past, I favor this move and hope the coaching staff will adopt to these changes instead of focusing more on defense. While it's important to have good PKs and blueliners, we cannot rely on our current system to make a national impact. Many of the faithful might be disgruntled about these realities, but the sports industry is ultimately dependent on attracting the masses, not just the fanatics. I take it that most of us here are not really enthusiastic about the changes because it doesn't favor our style of play. However, we have plenty of time to adapt and should be OK for the next season with some sophomores (returning as juniors) that have great offensive potential.

My opinion on these rule changes has nothing to do with how they will affect Cornell's chances in the future.  Even if I knew for sure that they would help Cornell be successful on the national scene I'd hate 'em.  As a hockey fan I think they are ill conceived. Bad.

I don't see that scoring is so low in college hockey that we need to make artificial changes in order to increase scoring.  I particularly dislike changes that are linked to penalties because they make the outcome more dependent on the referees. Enforcing the rules more closely is one thing but we don't need rules designed to increase power play percentage significantly.

[KeithK]

And what about this:

Altered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

I get it. The rules committee is seeing all of these perfect games all of a sudden and decided that they desperately needed to do something to help the offenses.

[Tom Lento]

And what about this:

Altered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

While these rule changes tend to favor more offensive teams, what the NCAA (any may other professional leagues) want is for the average fan to be more excited about the games. If this means they want to see more goals and rule changes could accommodate that, then so be it.

As I said in the past, I favor this move and hope the coaching staff will adopt to these changes instead of focusing more on defense. While it's important to have good PKs and blueliners, we cannot rely on our current system to make a national impact. Many of the faithful might be disgruntled about these realities, but the sports industry is ultimately dependent on attracting the masses, not just the fanatics. I take it that most of us here are not really enthusiastic about the changes because it doesn't favor our style of play. However, we have plenty of time to adapt and should be OK for the next season with some sophomores (returning as juniors) that have great offensive potential.

I don't see how eliminating icing on the PK favors offensively minded teams or encourages offensive skills in any way. It actually favors defensively minded teams, since getting the puck out on the PK will require you to play more effectively in the defensive zone. If I'm Cornell, or anybody else, I spend more time on PK practice at the expense of other skills, and I might work on adding an extra PK unit since the rule change effectively increases PK time. It's not like you can run a standard breakout 4x5, so this won't help there, and it doesn't improve the skills on the power play so much as it reduces options for the defense.

It's a stupid rule change, and clearly nobody in the committee thought about it beyond the GOALS GOALS GOALS argument. All it's going to do is slow the game down tremendously with incessant stoppages for icing on the PK while marginally increasing goal scoring. I'm pretty sure college and USA Hockey rules still allow line changes after an icing, so it's not like you have tired skaters out there. Even if they do eliminate the defensive change after an icing, it doesn't add to the speed or skill of the game. All it does is make the officials more important. Yeah, that's what we want - ECAC officials having *more* control over the outcome of the games.

This still has to be approved by the playing rules oversight panel. Hopefully they realize it's quite possibly the dumbest rule change ever proposed. At best it accomplishes nothing apart from getting some teams to roll an extra PK unit and increasing the number of icing calls. At worst it turns power plays into a farce, and raises the very real spectre of an increasingly tired defense winging the puck down the ice every 4 seconds for yet another stoppage. Now *that's* exciting. Oh yeah.

[Robb]

And what about this:

Altered the delayed-penalty rule to provide the non-offending team a power play, even if a goal is scored during the delay.

So you can score a six on five goal on a delayed penalty and then still get a penalty. Why?

Because GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS GOALS!!!!!!

Yep.  The problem is that I want to see *good* goals.  If you, say, doubled the size of the net, then any pigeon-toed, wobbly-ankled tripod could score goals as he trips over the blue line coming into the zone.  Talk about boring hockey.

That said, I generally find 6x5 and 5x4 goals to be less exciting than 5x5.  Sure, a nice tic-tac-toe powerplay goal is pretty - but that's different from exciting.  It takes a whole lot more work and skill to earn a 5x5 goal.  In my mind, any changes designed to boost scoring simply by adding additional PPGs really isn't going to make the game all that much more exciting to me.  In fact, it might make it worse if teams become more dependent on their powerplay units to generate their scoring - they could become less likely to take risks to generate chances 5x5 if they think they're likely to get a couple PPGs later.

[Josh '99]

I don't see that scoring is so low in college hockey that we need to make artificial changes in order to increase scoring.

For instance, this year's Frozen Four.  Lots of goals does not necessarily equal good hockey.