NCAA changes icing rule

[PCM]

There's an article on USCHO about decisions made by the NCAA Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules Committee during its June annual meeting.

The only major change the committee made to its rules dealt with icing. Starting this season, when the attacking team attempts a pass that is deemed receivable by the official, icing will be nullified. This change, which was used successfully in the National Hockey League this season, will allow play to continue and encourage additional offensive opportunities.

I think this is a good rule change. I noticed while watching the Stanley Cup playoffs that there were many fewer icing calls than there are in college. I'd also like to see the NCAA adopt the NHL rule of not allowing a line change after icing the puck. That rule, as well as not allowing a short-handed team to ice the puck, are being considered as experimental rules.

I applaud the committee for this decision:

Hitting from behind

[PCM]

Here's additional news from the NCAA regarding other decisions made by its ice hockey rules committee.

The Division I Men

[dagies]

This is a good clarification by the committee:

Had this interpretation been in effect on Dec. 9 last season, Minnesota's second goal against UND wouldn't have counted.

I never thought that goal should have counted anyway. I don't have the wording of the rule from last year, but I thought it was clear that a player could be incidentally in the crease when a goal was scored, i.e. a skate or something, as long as they weren't interfering with the goalies ability to play his position. Standing in the crease and blocking the goalies vision or ability to move, or even being so close as to make this a judgement call, IMO, was never the intent. At least they clarified it going forward.

Hand passes. The committee is asking for feedback to either eliminate hand passes all together or allow them in all areas of the ice to establish consistency.

Personally, I hope they do away with this rule altogether. I don't see hand passes as being part of hockey, in any zone.

[redwing77]

Embellishment is a rule I'm going to love, but this could go one of two ways: We could get more of the "even them up" rules (Oh, he was tripped and the fact that he was pushed down and sent sprawling across the ice means he embellished so both players go to the box) or they can do it right (the Robbie Earls of the WCHA will lead the league in embellishment calls).

Once again, we're leaving a lot to the discretion of the incompeta.. I mean "quality" officials in the WCHA... if McLeod and Sheptard even enforce them in the first place. We're still waiting for the obstruction enforcement.

I love the icing changes and even one of the two expiremental icing rules.

As I understand it, these are the two expiremental rules regarding icing (paraphrased):

1. The Shorthanded team is now able to be called for icing the puck.

2. The team that ices the puck cannot change lines.

I like #2. It was done in the NHL last season and it really does work.

I don't like #1 because that's just plain ridiculous.

As for the goaltender ruling, I'd love it if they started calling more goaltender interference penalties... but maybe it won't be necessary as JPar isn't at UND anymore so he can't lead the WCHA in the category of "Goaltender most "run" in a season"

[PCM]

I never thought that goal should have counted anyway.

And Greg Shepherd agreed. Unfortunately, it was Derek, not Greg who was on the ice at the time. If you used an extremely literal interpretation of the rule (which apparently Derek did), technically the goal could be allowed.

However, as Greg explained to us in the press box the next night, the rule was never intended to give players on the attacking team carte blanche to stand in the crease. If that had been the intent, the crease would have been completely eliminated, and it wasn't.

At least they clarified it going forward.

It needed to be clarified for the Derek Shepherds of the world.

[CoteauRinkRat]

Not allowing a short-handed team to ice the puck? Seriously? That would be a disgrace to the game. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that.

I agree with you.

[choyt3]

Not allowing a short-handed team to ice the puck? Seriously? That would be a disgrace to the game. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that.

If this were to trickle down to youth teams, what in the world would the hockey moms yell?

[PCM]

What if, as a result of the rule against icing the puck on the power play, teams began scoring with the man advantage 5-10 percent more than they do now? Would it make taking penalties so costly that coaches would place greater emphasis on avoiding them?

If there were fewer penalties called because fewer penalties were being committed, teams would spend more time skating 5-on-5. Would it be better for college hockey if fewer games were decided by the referees and special teams?

I wonder if this isn't the rule committee's main objective.

[Eskimos]

I don't understand it as that. I understand the rule change as somebody shoots it down the ice and the defence takes their sweet ass time getting down to the end, which causes the icing.

Shorthanded team can still ice it

Huh?

[The Sicatoka]

Believing firmly in the law, the Law of Unintended Consequences that is, I see this notion of benefitting the "good PP teams" backfiring:

I see the WCHA's "situational officials" seeing teams getting slammed with giving up 30+% goals in PK situations. I see those same officials not wanting to give the team with the 30+% powerplay more opportunities. I see those officials (led by Bruce "league parity is good" McLeod) letting weaker teams get away with even more (rather than putting them down a man) because of this "no icing on PK" notion.

However, let it be said, under a "no icing on PK" system, I believe you'll see teams putting in taller glasss so it's easier to go "high off the glass" out to center and yet not ice the puck.

[siouxnami]

The new wording notes that attacking players who are in the goal crease and impeding the goalkeeper from playing the position (visually, physically or otherwise).

Otherwise? What else is there?

Emotionally?

[PCM]

Believing firmly in the law, the Law of Unintended Consequences that is, I see this notion of benefitting the "good PP teams" backfiring:

For all practical purposes, you could be right. However, I suspect that the NCAA committee approaches rulemaking not from the perspective of how a particular rule change will be implemented by the WCHA, but by what it hopes to accomplish for the good of the game when a change is made.

I was theorizing on the rule committee's possible rationale for making the change. Whether Bruce, Greg and company decide that the WCHA will apply the rule differently is another matter entirely.

[iceberg]

Huh?

DaveK is interpreting the rule above as both sides can ice it. How can a team short handed ice the puck??

[sprig]

Whether Bruce, Greg and company decide that the WCHA will apply the rule differently is another matter entirely.

Whatever they decide, you can bet on it being applied inconsistently

[PCM]

DaveK is interpreting the rule above as both sides can ice it. How can a team short handed ice the puck??

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

[iceberg]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I misread it....

[Wreckincrew]

Otherwise? What else is there?

Emotionally?

Spiritually?

[Diggler]

Metaphsyically?

[Sioux-cia]

Mentally.

[Wreckincrew]

Mentally Psychologically.

[termie]

What if, as a result of the rule against icing the puck on the power play, teams began scoring with the man advantage 5-10 percent more than they do now? Would it make taking penalties so costly that coaches would place greater emphasis on avoiding them?

If there were fewer penalties called because fewer penalties were being committed, teams would spend more time skating 5-on-5. Would it be better for college hockey if fewer games were decided by the referees and special teams?

I wonder if this isn't the rule committee's main objective.

Considering the consistently poor offiiciating I think that we shouldn't give the power play teams any more advantages.

If all the penalty calls were legitimate that'd be one thing. But in the WCHA you get too many phantom calls.

[PCM]

Considering the consistently poor offiiciating I think that we shouldn't give the power play teams any more advantages.

If all the penalty calls were legitimate that'd be one thing. But in the WCHA you get too many phantom calls.

That still misses the point, which I addressed in this post earlier in the thred.

Rather than thinking about why the rule change wouldn't work because of how games are called now, why not consider how the game might improve as a result of the rule change? That's what I'm getting at.