Potential NCAA Rule Changes

[Trotsky]

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.

The should lower the goal crease.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

Not since 2008, so I think your whole point is moot.

[Jim Hyla]

Here's Adam's column on it, finally!:-}

[amerks127]

Does anyone know if teams on the PK would be able to line change if they iced the puck?  I honestly think that would have the most impact.

[Jim Hyla]

Does anyone know if teams on the PK would be able to line change if they iced the puck?  I honestly think that would have the most impact.

I don't think you can.

HR-74 RULE 6 / PLAYING RULES
A team that is in violation of this rule shall not be permitted to make any
player substitutions before the next faceoff. This includes stoppages for
team or commercial timeouts. However, a team shall be permitted to make
a player substitution to replace a goalkeeper who had been substituted for
an extra attacker, to replace an injured player, or when a penalty is assessed
that affects the on-ice strength of either team. The determination of players
on the ice will be made when the puck leaves the offending player's stick.

[KeithK]

Here's Adam's column on it, finally!:-}

As Adam suggests, if power play percentages soar as a result of this change it's likely that referees will be more hesitant to call infractions particularly late in games. So you might end up with a lot more chippiness and obstruction, exactly the opposite of what the intent is.

Who the hell is on this committee if the vast majority of coaches are against the changes, as the  article says?

[Ronald '09]

If their intent is to increase scoring, wouldn't a simple change that doesn't really screw anything up be to be more strict about goalies freezing the puck when there's no players on the other team around.  Either giving them a delay of game penalty for doing so, or better yet just not blowing the whistle and telling the goalie to put it back in play would significantly decrease the amount of stoppages and probably increase scoring.  This seems to make much more sense than all these radical changes that are going to work to ruin the game.

[Jim Hyla]

Here's Adam's column on it, finally!:-}

As Adam suggests, if power play percentages soar as a result of this change it's likely that referees will be more hesitant to call infractions particularly late in games. So you might end up with a lot more chippiness and obstruction, exactly the opposite of what the intent is.

Who the hell is on this committee if the vast majority of coaches are against the changes, as the  article says?

Code Select Expand


Assistant Ice Hockey Coach  John Hill
  University of Minnesota,
Asst. AD -- Compliance/Acad. Enrichment  Sarah Fraser
  Brown University  
Head Men's Ice Hockey Coach  Derek Schooley
  Robert Morris University  
AD, Director of Athletics  Ed McLaughlin
  Niagara University
AD, Director of Athletics  Forrest Karr
  University of Alaska Fairbanks
AD, Director of Athletics/Head Coach  Chris Salani
  Finlandia University
AD  Frank Millerick
  Becker College
Associate Director of Athletics  William Gorman
  Wentworth Institute of Technology
Head Ice Hockey Coach  Michael J. Carroll
  Gustavus Adolphus College
Head Women's Ice Hockey Coach  Robert Christopher Wells
  St. Lawrence University
Head Women's Ice Hockey Coach  William E. Mandigo
  Middlebury College  
Head Women's Ice hockey coach  Claudia Asano
  Union College (New York)  


[LaJollaRed]

Craptastic icing rule.

What's to stop a team from icing as normal? I assume the puck would come back for a faceoff as normal, but would there be an additional penalty of some kind? Maybe after 4 illegal clears the goalie has to switch his glove to the other hand? Maybe the team who's a man up gets one shot from the red line? Or their coach gets to shoot from behind his team's goal line for the chance to win a free Saab?

Or some equally arbitrary rule imagined by someone who has never seen hockey, improvised under the ludicrous assumption that if something needs fixing anything needs fixing.

It seems to me like this icing rule would make the games very, very slow, especially in defense-minded leagues like the ECAC.

In all fairness, I'm trying to imagine what positive effect it might have. Here's my best stab at it so far:

It might be exciting to watch teams reset for each puck-drop. Hear me out, Hippie! If the 4-man PK can stop the clock with every play, it will turn the PK into what I imagine will look something like a 2-minute drill in the final moments of a football game:

Puck-drop -> Frantic scramble to ice it -> Tense Pause/Deep Breath -> Reset (x2 minutes)

While the added tension might be exciting at the end of the game, I think people above are correct to note that refs will be less likely to call penalties in the 3rd. But, again, I love the PK as it is. Remember how exciting it is to watch your team kill off a 5-minute major, clearing from their heels? I'd miss that.

[Jim Hyla]

Craptastic icing rule.

What's to stop a team from icing as normal? I assume the puck would come back for a faceoff as normal, but would there be an additional penalty of some kind? Maybe after 4 illegal clears the goalie has to switch his glove to the other hand? Maybe the team who's a man up gets one shot from the red line? Or their coach gets to shoot from behind his team's goal line for the chance to win a free Saab?

Or some equally arbitrary rule imagined by someone who has never seen hockey, improvised under the ludicrous assumption that if something needs fixing anything needs fixing.

It seems to me like this icing rule would make the games very, very slow, especially in defense-minded leagues like the ECAC.

In all fairness, I'm trying to imagine what positive effect it might have. Here's my best stab at it so far:

It might be exciting to watch teams reset for each puck-drop. Hear me out, Hippie! If the 4-man PK can stop the clock with every play, it will turn the PK into what I imagine will look something like a 2-minute drill in the final moments of a football game:

Puck-drop -> Frantic scramble to ice it -> Tense Pause/Deep Breath -> Reset (x2 minutes)

While the added tension might be exciting at the end of the game, I think people above are correct to note that refs will be less likely to call penalties in the 3rd. But, again, I love the PK as it is. Remember how exciting it is to watch your team kill off a 5-minute major, clearing from their heels? I'd miss that.

Except that it looks like the comm. members all know hockey, some are even coaches. That's not to say I like the rule, but let's get the facts straight.

[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.

Not since 2008, so I think your whole point is moot.

Please read the whole post. My point is slightly different, but it's not moot at all. This rule change does nothing to increase the speed or skill of the game, and with the change rule in effect it makes officiating more important.

I guess that's one way to increase the variance in your game outcomes, but I don't feel like hockey in general and college hockey in particular had a problem in that area.

If I'm Cornell, I spend more time working special teams in general and the PK in particular, not less. This won't help Cornell's offensive output except in so far as it gives a bigger advantage to teams on the PP. I guess on the whole this is good for Cornell - a positionally excellent defensive/PK team that relies on PP scoring to carry the offense gets a much bigger benefit from this change than a high-flying speed-based offensive team with questionable defending and plenty of even-strength firepower.

You know what, I've changed my mind. This rule change is *awesome*.

[Josh '99]

Craptastic icing rule.

What's to stop a team from icing as normal? I assume the puck would come back for a faceoff as normal, but would there be an additional penalty of some kind? Maybe after 4 illegal clears the goalie has to switch his glove to the other hand? Maybe the team who's a man up gets one shot from the red line? Or their coach gets to shoot from behind his team's goal line for the chance to win a free Saab?

Or some equally arbitrary rule imagined by someone who has never seen hockey, improvised under the ludicrous assumption that if something needs fixing anything needs fixing.

It seems to me like this icing rule would make the games very, very slow, especially in defense-minded leagues like the ECAC.

In all fairness, I'm trying to imagine what positive effect it might have. Here's my best stab at it so far:

It might be exciting to watch teams reset for each puck-drop. Hear me out, Hippie! If the 4-man PK can stop the clock with every play, it will turn the PK into what I imagine will look something like a 2-minute drill in the final moments of a football game:

Puck-drop -> Frantic scramble to ice it -> Tense Pause/Deep Breath -> Reset (x2 minutes)

While the added tension might be exciting at the end of the game, I think people above are correct to note that refs will be less likely to call penalties in the 3rd. But, again, I love the PK as it is. Remember how exciting it is to watch your team kill off a 5-minute major, clearing from their heels? I'd miss that.

Except that it looks like the comm. members all know hockey, some are even coaches. That's not to say I like the rule, but let's get the facts straight.

But only one DI men's head coach on the committee, so it still isn't inconsistent with the comments from Hakstol about how strongly the coaches were against it.

[Jim Hyla]

Interesting comments about the Icing rule change and how it came about in Adam's most recent column. Also the USCHO column, although the only thing it adds is a comment by USA Hockey, where they have used the rule.

It looks like they really did work through the process, doing a survey beforehand and presentations during the discussion. It would be interesting to see the survey results from before the meeting.

[munchkin]

Brian wrote two posts about the rule changes yesterday and today.  The first one is about the icing and has some good interviews with people directly involved and the other examines all the rules up for consideration and the idea behind the rule and what will be affected.  I particularly liked the Might We Propose one since it hits all the rule changes not just the ones that are currently getting lots of attention.

Icing Rule Gets Icy Reception
Might We Propose: Potential Rule Changes

[Roy 82]

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::

Am I the only person on this planet that likes this new rule change? I like this rule change not out of a desire to see more scoring, but out of a sense of purity and respect for the game. Chucking the puck from one end to the other is not good hockey and should not be rewarded.