AZSIOUX Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 http://www.uscho.com/news/id,14292/RulesCo...mFor200809.html 2 refs instead of 1 and a way to eliminate ties are a couple big issues i dont mind the 2 refs and i love the idea of no ties. it sucks ass leaving a game after a short 5 minute ot. maybe a shootout whcih i guess will be discussed heavily. i know old schoolers dont like shootout factoring into a all important wcha point and so forth so i get that for sure. my take - maybe do a 5 on 5 or 4 on 4 for 10 minutes, if a team doesnt score then a shootout, or for those who are not in favor for shootouts then lets just play until someone scores, hell thats the real way to settle the no tie issue. but give both teams a point for getting to OT then grant the winner the extra point to reward both teams for a good 3 periods and then the winner overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I don't understand why ties are so evil. If ties are stupid, shootouts are 10x as stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted July 2, 2007 Author Share Posted July 2, 2007 I don't understand why ties are so evil. If ties are stupid, shootouts are 10x as stupid. ties suck, just do........shootouts are not the answer, the NHL needed to do it for the fans sake to generate fans and so forth, college does not need to at all. lets just play til someone scores.......thats hockey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I liked it when they had a full 20 Minute sudden death period. I'm thinking that would be hard to reinstitute due to TV. If you still had a tie, you deserved it. If it goes to a shootout then in my opinion they should give partial credit for losses in OT like the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'm not in favor of shootouts in college, there just aren't enough regular season games to place that much importance on a shootout. The Sioux typically play 8 non-conference games each year and based on the pairwise system these 8 games can already carry more significance than conference games as far as the NCAA tourney seedings go. Do we really want to see shootouts decide these games ? Either leave them tied or play till you get a winner, no shootout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted July 2, 2007 Author Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'm not in favor of shootouts in college, there just aren't enough regular season games to place that much importance on a shootout. The Sioux typically play 8 non-conference games each year and based on the pairwise system these 8 games can already carry more significance than conference games as far as the NCAA tourney seedings go. Do we really want to see shootouts decide these games ? Either leave them tied or play till you get a winner, no shootout. i agree on the importance to the pairwise, lets play hockey til a team scores and award a point each on getting to OT and the team that wins get 2 points! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 i agree on the importance to the pairwise, lets play hockey til a team scores and award a point each on getting to OT and the team that wins get 2 points! That is the way to do it. Also Fans in the NHL love to shoot out, I think it would be a cool way to end a game at the REA as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 1) Standard of Enforcement. The committee is generally pleased with the overall standard of enforcement, which is intended to allow for the speed and skill of the game to be rewarded. However, the group also believes embellishment is becoming a tactic used to take advantage of stricter enforcement and urges coaches and conferences to address this issue if possible. Additionally, the NCAA standard of enforcement will continue to focus on simplifying the understanding of the standard and encourage a consistent, strict level of enforcement relating to impeding and obstruction fouls that take away a gained advantage. I would love to see the WCHA enforce this one. There are also a lot of players that would be in trouble as well... What we really like about our game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I liked the old two referee system more better. At the time they said that we'd get consistency with the one referee. It didn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxnami Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Rule 73c) A shot by Ryan Duncan shall not be ruled a goal unless it hits both a crossbar and a post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The "Bina Rule" No shots from behind the far goal line will count in games against big ten schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Shoot-out: When no one can win the first game you play a new game, with all new rules, and the winner wins both that new game and the original game. Let's go to 3 balls for a walk and 2 strikes for a strikeout in the tenth and beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I liked the old two referee system more better. At the time they said that we'd get consistency with the one referee. It didn't happen. Personally I don't like this idea. If there really was a problem with one ref imagine two of these buffoons on the ice trying to call a game. I can just see it, we end up getting Champion and Sheppard in the same weekend we would really be screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Personally I don't like this idea. If there really was a problem with one ref imagine two of these buffoons on the ice trying to call a game. I can just see it, we end up getting Champion and Sheppard in the same weekend we would really be screwed. 1 bad ref or 2, I don't see much of a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 1 bad ref or 2, I don't see much of a difference. I don't either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Personally I don't like this idea. If there really was a problem with one ref imagine two of these buffoons on the ice trying to call a game. I can just see it, we end up getting Champion and Sheppard in the same weekend we would really be screwed. Two negatives make a positivie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Two negatives make a positivie. Unless your talking about reffing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 i agree on the importance to the pairwise, lets play hockey til a team scores and award a point each on getting to OT and the team that wins get 2 points! I have never agreed on this premise of giving a point to a team that loses. It goes against everything in sports. If you lose, you lose. Not only that, I think the NHL has a problem of teams playing to get to overtime to get that one point, which kind of defeats the purpose. Just my two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I liked the old two referee system more better. At the time they said that we'd get consistency with the one referee. It didn't happen. What makes you think 2 will be any better? Could you imagine Freeman as the AR with Adam and Anderson as the two refs? How's that better? Sorry, I think the Sioux need to take full practices rotating 4 PK lines. I think ALL WCHA teams need to do that. We will have many 30+ penalty games (counting both teams in the contest). 2 ref systems work on paper. Like the one ref system, two ref systems require compentant officiating and competant leadership to work. The WCHA has neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforeverbaby Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 What makes you think 2 will be any better? Could you imagine Freeman as the AR with Adam and Anderson as the two refs? How's that better? Sorry, I think the Sioux need to take full practices rotating 4 PK lines. I think ALL WCHA teams need to do that. We will have many 30+ penalty games (counting both teams in the contest). 2 ref systems work on paper. Like the one ref system, two ref systems require compentant officiating and competant leadership to work. The WCHA has neither. wouldn't there still be two ARs? So what about Sheperd and Freeman as ARs and Adam and Sheperd as the two refs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 1 bad ref or 2, I don't see much of a difference. I see a lot of bogus 5 on 3s, 4 on 3s, and perhaps even 3 on 3s (if that's not legal, don't put it past the WCHA to make it happen). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.