Potential NCAA Rule Changes

[CowbellGuy]

Except they're still going to do it. Only now, there will be a stoppage and the defending team gets a longer rest. Plus it will lengthen the game time considerably, going directly against their efforts to speed it up (which weren't entirely necessary in the first place) from a few years back.

[Roy 82]

Except they're still going to do it. Only now, there will be a stoppage and the defending team gets a longer rest. Plus it will lengthen the game time considerably, going directly against their efforts to speed it up (which weren't entirely necessary in the first place) from a few years back.

I am sure there will be more icing initially, but as teams adapt I am not sure that the benefit of a few seconds of time burnt by icing outweighs giving the offensive team a chance to set up in the zone.

[KeithK]

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.

Whether or not icing the puck is "good hockey" is a subjective question.  I think icing the puck when you're down a man is very much good hockey. Even more so when it's a 5 on 3 situation.

[ebilmes]

Keep in mind that the PK can still send the puck over the glass and then change.

[Roy 82]

Keep in mind that the PK can still send the puck over the glass and then change.

Can you really intentionally shoot the puck over the glass without a Delay of Game penalty? I know that it is not an automatic call like in the NHL but I would say that obviously shooting the puck over the glass should be a DOG.

[TimV]

This RPI guy writes a good blog Without a Peer with a great take on the rules proposals in his June 25 entry.  Unfortunately he's an incredible asshole when posting on USCHO.

[Trotsky]

I am sure there will be more icing initially, but as teams adapt I am not sure that the benefit of a few seconds of time burnt by icing outweighs giving the offensive team a chance to set up in the zone.

Teams will probably still ice when they have been pinned back in the zone for a long time and undergone a number of good chances.  Icing off a defensive zone faceoff will no longer be smart.

What was the intent?  To increase the impact of the penalty?  Have the guy serve the full two minutes but return a man to the ice after the goal.

Edit: after reading the Sullivan article, the intent is simply to "improve level of defensive play."

[Trotsky]

I don't think anybody mentioned the change in the hand pass rule.  I hate it.  It takes what was previously a question of fact: did the hand pass occur, and changes it to a question of intent: was the hand pass intentional.  The reason given for doing so, "too many false hand passes are being called," seems weak when compared to introducing another element of referee discretion to fight about.

[Scersk '97]

I don't think anybody mentioned the change in the hand pass rule.  I hate it.  It takes what was previously a question of fact: did the hand pass occur, and changes it to a question of intent: was the hand pass intentional.  The reason given for doing so, "too many false hand passes are being called," seems weak when compared to introducing another element of referee discretion to fight about.

Well, according to Sepp Blatter, it's best when fans have more things to "discuss" after the game.

[Trotsky]

Well, according to Sepp Blatter, it's best when fans have more things to "discuss" after the game.

Yep, that was a quote for the ages. :-P

[jtwcornell91]

Waved off.

[Cactus12]

good (though not surprising)... do we know which idiot proposed this to begin with?

[KeithK]

good (though not surprising)... do we know which idiot proposed this to begin with?

I think it was Roy '82. :-P

[pfibiger]

another potential ncaa change (this one applying to all sports, not just hockey): banning early scholarship offers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5372984

while obviously not impacting the ivy league directly, it seems like this would tilt the ice in favor of major junior hockey.

[KeithK]

another potential ncaa change (this one applying to all sports, not just hockey): banning early scholarship offers....while obviously not impacting the ivy league directly, it seems like this would tilt the ice in favor of major junior hockey.

This strikes me as a good change. It's pretty ridiculous to offer a kid a scholarship who hasn't even finished tenth grade. Kind of makes a mockery of the idea of "student-athletes" (or at least adds to the mockery that the rest of big time college athletics is).